You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-111      
 
Author Message
25 new of 111 responses total.
keesan
response 25 of 111: Mark Unseen   Oct 23 23:35 UTC 1998

If posting a book online would cause a lot of people to access it often, that
does not sound like a good idea, but this is a rather obscure book, about 500K
at the moment without HTML, all text, minimal number of spaces, and it is
related to a conference on fruit growing that I hope to start in January. 
It is not even my book, I am just the typist and would have an easier time
updating it in my own account than somewhere outside of grex.  The way the
author keeps adding more fruits, it might exceed 1M soon, if I can keep up.
valerie
response 26 of 111: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 03:05 UTC 1998

This response has been erased.

rcurl
response 27 of 111: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 06:45 UTC 1998

But why 1 MB? No argument has been offered that 1 MB is the "right"
allocation. Why not 0.5 MB? What test was used to pick the "right" value?
So, why not 2 MB? Wouldn't the "right" allocation change with time, as
needs and resources changed? So the number should be adjusted periodically.
I suggest a step up is desirable because of the dirt-cheaness of disk space,
compared to just a few years ago.
remmers
response 28 of 111: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 11:01 UTC 1998

I don't see anyone disagreeing with that.
davel
response 29 of 111: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 12:00 UTC 1998

I'll disagree, to a point.  *Any* limit is arbitrary, & would be open to the
same complaint.  The falling price of disk may be balanced by growth in the
rate at which new users are added, over the same period.

The way most users operate, 1 MB is really quite a lot of space.  Most people
who run afoul of this limit probably do so through not bothering to clean up.
In the days when mail was the default mailer, people commonly didn't realize
that mail they'd read (but not specifically deleted) went into mbox, where
it sat, growing, forever - just to name one example.  I see *no* virtue in
increasing the amount of just-haven't-thought-about-it clutter.  A policy of
being flexible, allowing those with reasons beyond laziness to ask for a
higher quota, seems reasonable.  If the number of such requests starts to
increase markedly, *that* is the time to discuss raising the general limit.

I'll add that I've been a fairly frequent hasn't-bothered-to-clean-up-lately
offender.  I see it's time I dealt with some old mail right now, in fact.
rcurl
response 30 of 111: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 15:43 UTC 1998

My biggest pile is saved mail. I don't use an IP/TCP mail client, and I
find it therefore most convenient to keep saved mail on the server where I
can review it or call up items to attach, or whatever. I admit that I
don't clean up as often as I could, but do so sporadically. Still, I keep
ca. 1.5 MB around as close to my base information backup. Hence, I get
reminders. May I have my allocation raised to 2 MB? If it is a disk space
problem, I would be glad to donate the cost of another 1 MB disk (said
partly tongue in cheek, since that would be ca. $ 0.075, as I previously
noted). Having more disk space would not increase the load on the ISDN
link, by the way, so would not affect the major capacity problem. 

dang
response 31 of 111: Mark Unseen   Oct 26 19:02 UTC 1998

Actually, having more a higher disk quota might very well put more stress on
the link.  I'd imagine there are people who want to bring over some software
package (eggdrop, for example) and don't because it's bigger than 1 MB. 
However, a lot of such packages are smaller than 2 MB, and so more people might
bring over such packages.  Admittidly, it's a bit thin, but it's an idea. 
Regardless, we do not have enough disk space to allow people more than 1 MB of
space.  We could add more disks. Disk is, as  you say, cheap.  However, there
are hidden costs.  The biggest is staff time.  Another is electricity.  I'm
sure more disk space is in the offing, but I probably wouldn't support a bigger
quota. If you have 1.5 MB of mail, how often do you read it all?  I have much
less than that, and I never refer back to 99% of it.
valerie
response 32 of 111: Mark Unseen   Oct 27 03:02 UTC 1998

This response has been erased.

steve
response 33 of 111: Mark Unseen   Oct 27 03:05 UTC 1998

   Dan is right -- one thing on Grex usually affects the other, and
disk space does impact link usage.  Disk we can grow, and is getting
cheaper every month.  Link bandwidth is expensive, has not gone down
is price that much, and is rather expensive to grow.

   One technical question is how big a SCSI disk we can put on Grex.
This version of SunOS can only handle 2G partitions, which isn't a
problem, but I have yet to get a definitive answer on Grex using
say a 4G disk and splitting it up into 2 2G partitions.  What I'd
really like is to get one of the slightly older 9G full-height
disks (I've seen them for about $450 lately) and have several 2G
spaces to play with.

   Yes, we need to get more disk.  Ans yes, we should probably
raise the limit, *AND* recognize that local users who use the
dialin lines present a significantly smaller load on Grex than
a user coming in the net link.
rcurl
response 34 of 111: Mark Unseen   Oct 27 07:56 UTC 1998

If I have ca. 1 M mail it is because I need to refer in a random access
manner to the material, not that I read it all again. Something comes in
that calls for one item from some time back, so I pull that out. It is
more like a library. You don't try to read everything they have whenever
you go there. 

I am not sure what it means for individuals to personally support a larger
quota or not support a larger quota. I am not dang and dang is not me. 
Dang says he has much less than I do, so we average out, right? :)  I
am not sure what the overall critera should be, but the changes in the
hardware have been contionual increases in RAM and speed - so, why not
disk too? 
steve
response 35 of 111: Mark Unseen   Oct 27 13:47 UTC 1998

   Well, if we could disassociate local users from Internet users in terms
of moving data back and forth, I'd agree pretty much.  It's the link that
is our real bottleneck that makes us throttle our disk back.
rcurl
response 36 of 111: Mark Unseen   Oct 27 17:08 UTC 1998

I realize that everything is a compromise, but could there be a different
compromise between sloshing data back and forth and using them here?
steve
response 37 of 111: Mark Unseen   Oct 28 21:08 UTC 1998

   I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

   If our remote users didn't shovel vast, endless piles of files into
and out of Grex, we'd have more bandwidth, and we'd be able to deal
with local users having huge amounts of disk, easily.
rcurl
response 38 of 111: Mark Unseen   Oct 29 02:42 UTC 1998

I am suggesting (actually, again) that perhaps some automated limits
on sloshing/shoveling could be emplaced. We have a MB limit on disk
space. How about a MB limit on file sizes to slosh - or MB per day -
or some such. 
steve
response 39 of 111: Mark Unseen   Oct 29 16:34 UTC 1998

   Thats difficult to do.  There is a concept in many version of UNIX
called quotas, which can limit the disk space that a user can have,
but the quota code on SunOS is not good, and worse yet even if it
worked perfectly it slows disk writes, as each write has to be checked
against the limit for that uid.

   Putting a limit on how much data you could move out of Grex is
almost impossible.  Every method of transporting data, (FTP, all
the x,y,z modem programs, cat, and anything else that could display
data) would have to be taught how to do this.  Sometimes, a seemingly
simple idea like placing limits is next to impossible.  Now, we could
do this, but only at the cost of dampening the freedoms that accounts
here have.  If we restricted things to a meny system, then we could
do this, but change what Grex is.
rcurl
response 40 of 111: Mark Unseen   Oct 30 04:44 UTC 1998

Accounts do not have disk space freedoms. I am speaking of balancing
freedoms, not diminishing the total. (I have to accept the stated
technical difficulties, but there is still room to discuss the principles,
I hope.)
valerie
response 41 of 111: Mark Unseen   Nov 2 15:57 UTC 1998

This response has been erased.

remmers
response 42 of 111: Mark Unseen   Nov 2 17:18 UTC 1998

Interesting. That would be a much lower-overhead approach, if it's
feasible, since you'd only be checking quotas once a day instead of
on every disk write.

I can see problems with doing this under SunOS. Unix bases both
file create and file delete on the 'w' permission bit. If you have
write permission in a directory, you can both create and delete
files in it. If you don't have write permission, you can't do
either.

But you might be able to set up something quite similar.  One
possible approach would be to run a program once a day that checks
users' disk usage and *changes their login shell* if they're
over. The replacement shell would only let them (1) list files,
(2) delete files, and (3) run a program that re-checks their usage
and gives them their old shell back if they're under the limit.

The above is off the top of my head. Feel free to shoot it down.
One problem is that it wouldn't prevent ftp uploads. But I can
think of a possible way to address that.
albaugh
response 43 of 111: Mark Unseen   Nov 2 18:53 UTC 1998

The delete-only option is harsh.  What if someone wanted to make a backup
copy of the file, transfer it, compress it?  It should at least be readable.
In that case, a user could, say, copy the file to /tmp, compress it, remove
the uncompressed version from his home directory, and then, if he had enough
space, he could transfer the compressed version back.  
mdw
response 44 of 111: Mark Unseen   Nov 2 19:56 UTC 1998

Thrashing through the disk measuring people's disk usage isn't "low
overhead".
remmers
response 45 of 111: Mark Unseen   Nov 3 01:57 UTC 1998

Not when you're doing it, I suppose. You'd want to not be doing it most
of the time.
rcurl
response 46 of 111: Mark Unseen   Nov 3 02:55 UTC 1998

Everyone seems to agree that disk is cheap, and yet the proposals keep
coming back to punishing the users of disk space, instead of addressing
the real problem, which is the limits on the ISDN link. The discussion
should be of measuring people's link usage or thrashing through the
link traffic. The discussion reminds me a bit of the story...

As was seen stumbling around a streetlight looking like he had lost
something. A kind pedestrian stopped and asked if he could help, and
the drunk told him he had lost his care key. The kind pedestrian 
looked around with the drunk for a while and then asked "where exactly
did you lose the key?". The drunk said, "over there, across the street".
The kind pedestrian of course asked, "then why are you looking for it
here"? The drunk answered - "because the light is better over here".
remmers
response 47 of 111: Mark Unseen   Nov 3 10:36 UTC 1998

Disk may be cheap, but talk is cheaper.
rcurl
response 48 of 111: Mark Unseen   Nov 3 17:07 UTC 1998

That's why we are all here.... 8^}
valerie
response 49 of 111: Mark Unseen   Nov 3 20:11 UTC 1998

This response has been erased.

 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-111      
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss