Cameron, could you please file an LU ticket for that so it isn't lost. Thanks.
Cheers, Andreas
> On May 9, 2019, at 08:55, Harr, Cameron wrote:
>
> Thanks Andreas. This is somewhat interesting in that I don't have such a
> man page on the systems and 'man lfs' doesn't have such a statement.
Thanks Andreas. This is somewhat interesting in that I don't have such a
man page on the systems and 'man lfs' doesn't have such a statement.
But, certainly, 2^48 sec. would be sufficient! Our workaround was just
to use a -t XXXw to specify a large number of weeks (largest granularity
I could
I do see in the lfs setquota usage message and lfs-setquota.1 man page:
"The maximum quota grace time is 2^48 - 1 seconds."
That's about 9M years, so it should probably be long enough? It might
make sense to map "-1" internally to "(1 << 48) - 1" to make this easier.
On May 8, 2019, at
I had tested first and couldn't find a way to do so, so I was curious if
there was some undocumented way. I'm proceeding with, "No, there's not a
way."
On 5/6/19 12:52 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2019, at 11:02, Harr, Cameron wrote:
>> We're exploring an idea where we keep soft
On Apr 11, 2019, at 11:02, Harr, Cameron wrote:
>
> We're exploring an idea where we keep soft quotas enabled so that users
> will be notified they're nearing their hard quotas (via in-house
> scripts), but users don't like that the soft quota becomes a hard block
> after the grace period. I
We're exploring an idea where we keep soft quotas enabled so that users
will be notified they're nearing their hard quotas (via in-house
scripts), but users don't like that the soft quota becomes a hard block
after the grace period. I can understand their rationale as well that
they should be
