On Wed, Nov 12, 1997 at 04:40:46PM -0600, sirbruce@ix.netcom.com had written:
On 11/12/97 16:13:05 you wrote:
I have answered this question many times, and I am sick of it.
Hey, you don't have to convince *me*. I didn't mean it as a personal attack. But I do know it has been a source of confusion. As you see yourself, different people here had different expectations. So perhaps it's not quite as obvious as it seems?
Sorry for jumping down your throat so quickly, that was wrong. My frustration with this is with Network Appliance, not with you.
But, it is obvious, if the engineering folx at NetApp actually decided to try it out.
Go onto your own SunOS or Solaris system and try it yourself, soft quotas have been around for a very long time and so far, I have not heard a single technical reason why it should not work.
My investigations into this tell me they work much like Guy Harris says. Do you agree with his assessment? If your version of soft quotas differs, in what way does it differ? Does your SunOS system report you as over soft quota over NFS as soon as it happens?
I do not agree with his assessment.
Yes, it does report it.
I'm only trying to facilitate the questions and answers here.
I understand.
Again, I am not alone. I don't know why the others on this list are being quiet about it, but alas they are. SPEAK UP LURKERS!
FreeBSD does it, shoddy Linux does it, hell, I can't name a unix system off the top of my head that doesn't.
Is it so much to ask?
What would a Netapp implementation do, other than report a "time left" or somesuch in the field reported via the quota command?
Nothing except return warning messages via the quota daemon or something.
Like I said, SunOS, Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, etc, all work fine.