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

[Charlie Summers <charlie@xxxxxxxxxx>]

   Boy, I'm kinda glad I didn't get the chance to check my mail last night,
and instead read this when I was not tired and cranky...

At 4:47 PM -0500 1/18/02, Cobalt is rumored to have typed:

> >
> >    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.

   You caused the problem by misunderstanding. Up the quota and the problem
dissapears.

> 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.

   (*sigh*) Ok, youngster, stop taking your frustration out on me. I'm trying
to help by explaining to you something you don't understand. I didn't make
the rules, so try not to blame me for the way things are.

> 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.

   Wrong..the box is following it PERFECTLY. You set the limit wrong.

> 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.

   Please blame Cobalt for any problems with their manual, and stop griping
to me about it. I didn't write it, honest.

> 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.

   Read this part carefully: YOU DO NOT SET A USER QUOTA ON A DIRECTORY. YOU
SET A USER QUOTA ON THE USER WITHIN THE FILESYSTEM.

   Please read that again. Go ahead...I'll wait.

   You can moan about it, or complain that you think a quota _should_ be for
a directory, but that doesn't change how the quota on a unix system works.
I've explained how it does, and if you have any questions about it I'll be
happy to answer them, but quit wishing it were different, since it ain't.

> >    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 ?

   (*sigh*) If you can't grasp the concept of quotas, I'm not going to get
into permissions with you; please note I did qualify my comment referencing
them, but I am not going to start explaining the user, group, and world
privilages. (And lord only knows I don't want to talk about the sticky bit
with you until you've at least read a beginner's primer on unix.)

   The only thing I will say on teh subject is that if things worked teh way
you think they do, and quotas were set on directories instead of on users, it
would be impossible to have two admins for a website, since only one user
could own the ~/web/ directory where the site website exists. Because we set
quotas on users and groups, we can get around that problem and have as many
site admins as you want all with the permission to write to the ~/web
directory.

> 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.

   Cobalt/Sun lied. Get over it.

   You DO need to understand unix if you want to do much of anything on the
box. 99% of the postings on this list are from inexperienced people who
thought they could become web hosts by buying an appliance, sticking it in a
rack, and learning NOTHING about unix; then discovering that it wasn't
possible.

   It sucks, I know, but if you plan on being a _good_ systems administrator,
you need to learn this stuff. Again, if you don't _like_ that, raise hell
with Sun for lying to you. Don't blame me, since I'm trying to _help_ you
learn the stuff you need to know.

> 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 ?

   No, no, you're mixing quotas. If you set the site limit to 50 Megs, that's
all the site may contain. If you set both admins to 50 Megs, they may
cumulitively post up to the 50 Meg site limit. So one admin may post 50 Megs
if the other one posts nothing; if admin1 posts 20 Megs, admin2 may only post
30 Megs, even though he has a user quota of 50 Megs, because the entire
_site_ may only hold 50 Megs.

   (Should I get into user quotas vs. group quotas? Na...just trust me on
this, huh?)

> 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 ?

   They may all upload up to the site quota, no more. That's why I keep
saying that admins quota should be set to the site quota.

> that is true. and I am learning. This cobalt !@#$^&*$%^$# box has driven me
> nutso. And it being MIPS probably adds to its difficulty.

   Ah...dear. RaQ2, eh? I'm sorry to hear that.

> 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.

   (*sigh*) Take that up with Cobalt's sales force. _I_ certainly never said
that anyone with no unix experience could administer a RaQ. My opinion is,
they can't...at least not well.

   Look in the archives...you'll find HUNDREDS, maybe THOUSANDS of posts from
people complaining about this very thing (many of them from my saviour Thom,
in fact)...they have to learn some unix to operate the machine when Cobalt
said they didn't have to learn _anything._ You need to learn a programming
language or three to be a compuet programmer, too, and anyone who tells you
you can be one without it is just plain silly.

   BTW, the reverse is true, too. I have quite a bit of experience admining
unix boxes, but the first weekend I worked on a Cobalt I blew the mail system
all to blazes because I updated procmail without realizing that Cobalt/Sun
had made changes to the source for symlink resolution and then not supplied
it on the box (sorry, Sun, sticking it under a rock on an FTP site doesn't
count as providing it as required by the license, IMHO). If Thom wouldn't
have sent me a copy of the procmail binary that weekend, I probably _still_
wouldn't have mail. So unix admins have to learn the limitations and
requirements of the Cobalt GUI, too. (And particularly how to work _around_
the darned thing.)

> 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.

   If the manual was all you needed, this list wouldn't exist, now would it?

> You have cleared up somethings tho.

   I'm trying. I have a curmudgeonly cranky style I have carefully cultivated
over the years, but I really _do_ want to help no matter what certain other
people might think. Otherwise, I wouldn't have taken the time to post.

         Charlie