Re: [cobalt-users] RE: disk quota errors but not sure why

["Cobalt" <brain_damaged@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>
>    This is by design. This is NOT a problem,

Sure HELL is a problem cuz the person CAN'T upload his files. Sound like a
problem to me.
Maybe you don't mind phone calls saying he can't get the files up why not. I
don't.
Especially when I log in and see what I saw.

>excepting that the GUI is making
> you think something different is happening. One more time: THIS IS THE WAY
IT
> IS SUPPOSED TO WORK. The "problem" is that you don't understand what the
> quota is measuring, not that the measurement is wrong.


Probaby right I don't understand. In plain english a quota is a limit. I set
the friggen limit and the friggen box is not following it.
No were did I see in the friggen manual were it says that if the site is set
to x and user to y the friggen underlying OS will do its own friggen thing.
If your manual is different please show me what page so I can friggen read
it.
>
>    A quota system is designed to limit the number of innodes or filesize
of a
> user on a per-filesystem basis. It is _not_ designed to limit the amount
of
> files in a specific directory, but on the _entire_ filesystem.

I don't expect it to limit the number of files but  the total BYTES/MEGS/GB
in the directory tje quota is set for.
If I give you a quota of 500 dollars I don't care if its in quarters,nickles
or whatever. 500 bucks is 500 bucks.
Not well okay you can have 6 20's and 3 50's etc. That is HOW I understood a
quota to be.
Your quota is 100 widgets per month. Didn't realize that the geeks redid the
meaning for the OS.
Now I do.

>
>    If user1 had a quota of 10M on /home/user1 _only,_ he could start
storing
> files on /home/public, or /home/user2 (assuming user2 had public or group
> write permissions) to bypass the quota.

isn't one of unix's security measures the ability to limit were and what a
person can do ?
I read in the kb or on this list  that even with telnet access a user could
visit other directories but COULD NOT do anything cuz of the permissions
setup when he was added to the box.  Is that not true ?
If that is true then how is he going to get files else were ? well yes
cracking but then hes in bad bad trouble.

 So the system is designed that he has
> 10M of quota on the _entire_ filesystem (in this case /home) - and because
of
> that, it includes his mail (/home/spool/mail/user1) and _any_ files he
places
> anywhere else on the filesystem. That way, he can't get around the quotas
by
> stealing space from someone else.
>
I see. Makes sense.  Makes very good sense. However isn't one of unix's
major attributes its security in limiting this type of behaviour ?

>    The admin account for a website almost always posts the lion's share of
> the files in ~/web, and EVERY ONE OF THOSE FILES COUNTS AGAINST BOTH THE
SITE
> AND THE USER'S QUOTAS! (If you do a 'ls -lag' from a shell, you'll see the
> user/group who owns the files.) So the site admin should _always_ have his
> quota set identically to the site quota.

Again tho being that the RAQ was suppose to require no or very little OS
knowledge they should have put that in the manual for us (me)
newbie -dummies- idiots.  I do RTFM and don't recall every seeing that in
there.

 A non-admin user who doesn't post to
> tjhe "main" site may have a smaller quota, certainly, for private web
space;
> but anyone who's allowed to muck with the entire "main" site should have
his
> quota set identically to the site's quota. If you have two admins, they
> _both_ get the site quota.

okay starting to get it now. However kinda mucked up I think. SO what if two
users are site admins. ?
both need the 50 megs setup  thus allowing the site 100 megs ? when 50 is
all they should have gotten ?
Or one main site admin with 50 and then the secondary site admin will need
50 so again the site will either take up more or run out. ? I think. I have
a headache. were my shot of jack D and  12 pack of beer.

I use the box for hosting only. No mail. do that on a dedicated machine. And
only people that work on a customers site get access. Don't allow them to do
their little HI this is me pages or see my kitty cat fluffy.

So while I understand what you are saying and it does make sense it also
creates problems. I think.
Site admin 1 gets 50
site admin 2 gets  50
site admin 3 gets 50  so they all can upload, edit the site.

but the site is set for 50. Now what ? What happens ?

I have a site were they are several webkeepers for different areas of the
site .

yes one user/pass would work but what if they don't want that ?.

>
>    This is another example where the GUI is hiding too much of the unix
> administration, working under the false assumption that the box operator
> doesn't have to learn how to administer an Internet server. Whether you're
> running a Cobalt or a "real" linux box, the box administrator _needs_ to
> understand a little about how the underlying operating system works.

that is true. and I am learning. This cobalt !@#$^&*$%^$# box has driven me
nutso. And it being MIPS probably adds to its difficulty.
However, It should be assumed that the person on the other end is not a UNIX
person when advertised as
for complete idiots as myself.

 Assuming
> that because you have a RaQ or Cube that the machine will do everything
for
> you is dangerous, since it not only won't, it _can't._

I don't expect it todo everything. If it did i woudln't need a woman.
However I do expect  it to make sense or
If not to have it in the MANUAL that came with the friggen thing.

You have cleared up somethings tho.



>
>          Charlie
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cobalt-users mailing list
> cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To Subscribe or Unsubscribe, please go to:
> http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-users
>