Is it only me who is bothered by this:
Fri May 23 17:12:52 CEST [quota.softlimit.exceeded:notice]: Threshold exceeded for user 22638, tree 0 on volume v Fri May 23 17:18:12 CEST [GbE-II/e8:notice]: uid 22638: disk quota exceeded on volume v. Additional warnings will be suppressed for approximately 60 minutes or until either a 'quota resize' is performed.
While first message is quite right, the second one has "GbE-II/e8" instead of "quota.hardlimit.exceeded" or similar.
I've contacted NetApp about this and they just stated "nothing to worry about, it is normal".
p.
PS Instead of GbE-II/e8 can be any of your primary network interfaces name.
i confirm, its normal, this way you know throught wich interface someone go over its quota (if you care)
Piotr KUCHARSKI wrote:
Is it only me who is bothered by this:
Fri May 23 17:12:52 CEST [quota.softlimit.exceeded:notice]: Threshold exceeded for user 22638, tree 0 on volume v Fri May 23 17:18:12 CEST [GbE-II/e8:notice]: uid 22638: disk quota exceeded on volume v. Additional warnings will be suppressed for approximately 60 minutes or until either a 'quota resize' is performed.
While first message is quite right, the second one has "GbE-II/e8" instead of "quota.hardlimit.exceeded" or similar.
I've contacted NetApp about this and they just stated "nothing to worry about, it is normal".
p.
PS Instead of GbE-II/e8 can be any of your primary network interfaces name.
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 06:54:17PM +0200, Stephane Bentebba wrote:
i confirm, its normal, this way you know throught wich interface someone go over its quota (if you care)
Piotr KUCHARSKI wrote:
Is it only me who is bothered by this:
Fri May 23 17:12:52 CEST [quota.softlimit.exceeded:notice]: Threshold exceeded for user 22638, tree 0 on volume v Fri May 23 17:18:12 CEST [GbE-II/e8:notice]: uid 22638: disk quota exceeded on volume v. Additional warnings will be suppressed for approximately 60 minutes or until either a 'quota resize' is performed.
While first message is quite right, the second one has "GbE-II/e8" instead of "quota.hardlimit.exceeded" or similar.
I've contacted NetApp about this and they just stated "nothing to worry about, it is normal".
p.
PS Instead of GbE-II/e8 can be any of your primary network interfaces name.
Yeah... Sure, its annoying and "normal", but I've seen MUCH worse. ;-)
-- Dave Le Blanc Unix Systems Administrator Computer Science Department California Institute of Technology (626)395-2402
may i know what do you mean by much worse ?
David Le Blanc wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 06:54:17PM +0200, Stephane Bentebba wrote:
i confirm, its normal, this way you know throught wich interface someone go over its quota (if you care)
Piotr KUCHARSKI wrote:
Is it only me who is bothered by this:
Fri May 23 17:12:52 CEST [quota.softlimit.exceeded:notice]: Threshold exceeded for user 22638, tree 0 on volume v Fri May 23 17:18:12 CEST [GbE-II/e8:notice]: uid 22638: disk quota exceeded on volume v. Additional warnings will be suppressed for approximately 60 minutes or until either a 'quota resize' is performed.
While first message is quite right, the second one has "GbE-II/e8" instead of "quota.hardlimit.exceeded" or similar.
I've contacted NetApp about this and they just stated "nothing to worry about, it is normal".
p.
PS Instead of GbE-II/e8 can be any of your primary network interfaces name.
Yeah... Sure, its annoying and "normal", but I've seen MUCH worse. ;-)
-- Dave Le Blanc Unix Systems Administrator Computer Science Department California Institute of Technology (626)395-2402
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 06:24:20PM +0200, Stephane Bentebba wrote:
may i know what do you mean by much worse ?
In reference to log messages, I've seen my toaster spew:
Mon May 19 14:56:04 PDT [CIFSAuthen:info]: Error c00000df looking up domain groups
It seems no one really knows what the code "c00000df" really means... ...further, even though there is an "error" in the logs things seemingly remain working... In my opinion, this is MUCH worse than replacing the quota.<>.limit.notice entry with the network interface, but still containing the actual quota event...
...just my $0.02.
David Le Blanc wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 06:54:17PM +0200, Stephane Bentebba wrote:
i confirm, its normal, this way you know throught wich interface someone go over its quota (if you care) Piotr KUCHARSKI wrote:
Is it only me who is bothered by this: Fri May 23 17:12:52 CEST [quota.softlimit.exceeded:notice]: Threshold exceeded for user 22638, tree 0 on volume v Fri May 23 17:18:12 CEST [GbE-II/e8:notice]: uid 22638: disk quota exceeded on volume v. Additional warnings will be suppressed for approximately 60 minutes or until either a 'quota resize' is performed.
While first message is quite right, the second one has "GbE-II/e8" instead of "quota.hardlimit.exceeded" or similar.
I've contacted NetApp about this and they just stated "nothing to worry about, it is normal".
p.
PS Instead of GbE-II/e8 can be any of your primary network interfaces name.
Yeah... Sure, its annoying and "normal", but I've seen MUCH worse. ;-)
-- Dave Le Blanc Unix Systems Administrator Computer Science Department California Institute of Technology (626)395-2402
I think theses messages are related to cifs problem while trying to perform authentification with a crypted password or so in a workgroup
or maybe other strange windoz stuff
thank you for the reply anyway
David Le Blanc wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 06:24:20PM +0200, Stephane Bentebba wrote:
may i know what do you mean by much worse ?
In reference to log messages, I've seen my toaster spew:
Mon May 19 14:56:04 PDT [CIFSAuthen:info]: Error c00000df looking up domain groups
It seems no one really knows what the code "c00000df" really means... ...further, even though there is an "error" in the logs things seemingly remain working... In my opinion, this is MUCH worse than replacing the quota.<>.limit.notice entry with the network interface, but still containing the actual quota event...
...just my $0.02.
David Le Blanc wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 06:54:17PM +0200, Stephane Bentebba wrote:
i confirm, its normal, this way you know throught wich interface someone go over its quota (if you care) Piotr KUCHARSKI wrote:
Is it only me who is bothered by this: Fri May 23 17:12:52 CEST [quota.softlimit.exceeded:notice]: Threshold exceeded for user 22638, tree 0 on volume v Fri May 23 17:18:12 CEST [GbE-II/e8:notice]: uid 22638: disk quota exceeded on volume v. Additional warnings will be suppressed for approximately 60 minutes or until either a 'quota resize' is performed.
While first message is quite right, the second one has "GbE-II/e8" instead of "quota.hardlimit.exceeded" or similar.
I've contacted NetApp about this and they just stated "nothing to worry about, it is normal".
p.
PS Instead of GbE-II/e8 can be any of your primary network interfaces name.
Yeah... Sure, its annoying and "normal", but I've seen MUCH worse. ;-)
-- Dave Le Blanc Unix Systems Administrator Computer Science Department California Institute of Technology (626)395-2402
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 06:54:17PM +0200, Stephane Bentebba wrote:
this way you know throught wich interface someone go over its quota (if you care)
What do you mean with "which interface someone goes over his/her quota"?
Last time I checked quotas were per user, or per tree, or per volume, but not per interface.
p.
-
David Le Blanc -
Piotr KUCHARSKI -
Stephane Bentebba