[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: default quota limits in linux (via quotactl())
- To: Jan Hudec <bulb@ucw.cz>, "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" <metze@metzemix.de>, "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>, viro@math.psu.edu, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@zip.com.au, Andreas Dilger <adilger@clusterfs.com>, ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, jfs-discussion@www-124.southbury.usf.ibm.com, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, Alexander Bokovoy <a.bokovoy@sam-solutions.net>
- Subject: Re: default quota limits in linux (via quotactl())
- From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 01:40:14 -0800
- In-reply-to: <20030128093250.GM28513@vagabond>
- References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030127150905.0217e170@post.strato.de> <5.2.0.9.2.20030127150905.0217e170@post.strato.de> <5.2.0.9.2.20030128074810.0218c4f8@post.webmailer.de> <20030128093250.GM28513@vagabond>
- Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com
- User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 10:32:50AM +0100, Jan Hudec wrote:
> It still isn't a kernel problem, but a user-space one. You need to
> get or write a PAM module, that will check wether quotas are set for
> user being authenticated and if not, set them. You could even store
> the qutoas in the LDAP (or some other) database and check them when
> a user logs in...
consider 1 million users where only a small percentage of them will
ever write to the fs ... why even store 1 million quota values
needlessly at all?
surely the argument for a default here isn't a terrible one?
--cw