On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:59:46 +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
>> Fileserver:~# repquota -va
>> *** Report for user quotas on device /dev/sdc5
>> Block grace time: 7days; Inode grace time: 7days
>> Block limits File limits
>> User used soft hard grace used soft hard grace
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> root -- 49496204 0 0 264643 0 0
>> dummy +- 51912012 0 3000000 16808 0 0
>> dummy -- 608 0 0 55 0 0
>> dummy -- 927868 0 3000000 1141 0 0
>> ...
>
>Ahah! - I see the problem [slaps hand to forehead].
>
>Firstly, I'll assume all these 'dummy' entries are users with
>"names changed to protect the innocent" - otherwise there's
>something very odd about your /etc/passwd. ;)
That's right, Sir. :-)
>The reason you're not getting any mail sent is that warnquota
>is _only_ looking at the soft limit field, and not at all at
>the hard limit - its trying to tell people that they will be
>punished soon, not that they are already being punished. If
>a user's soft limit is zero, it just ignores that entry.
That makes perfect sense!
>So, the right workaround for you would probably be to set the
>soft limit to something (less than or equal to the hard limit).
>After a period of time, the soft limit becomes enforced as the
>hard limit, so it's not all that "soft".
I understand. That should be easy to do.
> (I assume you got
>into this state by switching quota enforcement on at some point
>after people had used space). That shouldn't be very hard to
Again you're right.
>do if you're interested in doing that - warnquota.c is quite a
>simple program - start looking at the check_offence() routine,
>for example, and go from there (the mail body would need changes
>too as it makes references to soft limits becoming enforced as
>hard limits).
I don't think it's worth the trouble. We will use it "as is."
Thanks for pointing me at our "user error." :-)
Cheers,
Ralf
--
Sign the EU petition against SPAM: L I N U X .~.
http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/ The Choice /V\
of a GNU /( )\
Generation ^^-^^
|