2010/9/28 Rumko <[email protected]>: > Stathis Kamperis wrote: > >> 2010/9/28 Sdävtaker <[email protected]>: >>> What i tried to sai about history was that user usage should be >>> measured in a different bag than the history that the user usage >>> generated. >>> Sorry if it was not clear, english is not my main language and i use >>> to fail time to time. :-/ >>> Damian >>> >> >> I kind of agree. >> >> Why "punish" user for something that s/he is not able to control >> directly ? Even more, the user may not be aware of the underlying >> filesystem's technicalities (how it retains history and so on). >> >> Better come up with something else. >> >> Best regards, >> Stathis > > Not punishing that user means punishing the whole system and everything > depending on that system. And as I said before, it's user's data, so who > should be punished if not the user? The user can always tell the admin that he > does not any history at all or how much history he needs, so it's purely that > user's responsibility ... his data, his rules, his reponsibility. > [...]
Ok, fine. I'm not strongly opinionated on this. I'm just thinking from the Josephine perspective, who may not (or even want to) know how her file-system operates. But if we go this route, then we should also provide history retention statistics to user-land utilities, such as df(1). Imagine the confusion of a user that types 'df', sees that the quota threshold hasn't been reached, yet she is denied further disk storage allocation. Best regards, Stathis
