On 09/29/10 03:47 PM, Rumko wrote:
Stathis Kamperis wrote:
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.
Then that user's home dir can be nohistory and there is no problem?
If she doesn't need multiple copies of her data, then I see no reason why to
keep that data. But if she wants n snapshots/backups then there should be a
limit on how much total space she can take. Otherwise we could just display
du -h of her home dir when she logs in and it would be about as useful at
limiting her disk usage, so there would be no point to a quota ;)
On purpose she could bring down the whole system at will even though she
was "limited", but unfortunately she could do it unknowingly as well
(downloading flash videos, powerpoint jokes, maybe a movie or two, etc. over
and over and rewriting the old files).
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.
Agreed, now we just need to find someone to do it :P
While you're at it, why don't make two kinds of snapshots.
1. A user initiated snapshot, usnap, that the user controls and counts
towards the quota limit.
2. System snapshots, ssnap, obviously managed by the system/admin (out
of control of the user) and therefore counts as system overhead.
