Re: Thoughts on Quotas

[Stathis Kamperis <ekamperi@xxxxxxxxx>]

2010/9/28 Rumko <rumcic@gmail.com>:
> Stathis Kamperis wrote:
>
>> 2010/9/28 Sdävtaker <sdavtaker@gmail.com>:
>>> 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