Re: Quota: another DAV:quota-assigned-bytes question

I agree with Julian on this.  All we want to standardize is the answer to
the question:
if I store some data at the filesystem indicated by this particular URL, how
much data
can I store before getting some kind of out of space error?

--Eric

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
To: "Jim Luther" <luther.j@apple.com>
Cc: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Quota: another DAV:quota-assigned-bytes question


>
> Jim Luther wrote:
>
> > After reading all of these arguments, my input is "It's too bad the
> > term "quota" was chosen in the first place."
> >
> > The Mac OS X WebDAV file system does not support Unix-like file system
> > quotas.
> >
> > The Mac OS X WebDAV file system uses the old quota properties* to fill
> > in the f_blocks (total data blocks in filesystem) and f_bfree (free
> > blocks in filesystem) fields returned by statfs(2).  In the Mac OS X
> > user interface, those fields become the Capacity, Available, and Used
> > numbers displayed in volume information dialogs (as in "Capacity:
> > 100MB" "Available: 49.2 MB" "Used: 50.8 MB on disk").
> >
> > On Apple's .Mac iDisk WebDAV server, if a client PUT request would
> > cause a user's purchased space to be exceeded, the server returns 507
> > Insufficient Storage and the WebDAV file system translates that to
> > ENOSPC "No space left on device" (not to EDQUOT "Disc quota exceeded").
> >
> > For our purposes, the quota properties are considered live properties
> > which cannot be changed by the file system client.
> >
> > So, we're using the old quota properties in a way that compatible with
> > a common industry model... it just isn't the model many on this list
> > are associating with the term "quota".
> >
> > - Jim
>
> Jim,
>
> thanks for the information.
>
> I think the best (if not only way) to make progress is to focus what
> parts actually *need* to be standardized.
>
> As far as I can tell, people want their clients to display a
> available/free/used-by-this item indicator in their client. They may or
> may not care whether this is due to disk limits or quota. They also
> expect usable error messages.
>
> I do *not* see anybody asking for
>
> - authorable quota settings (there's only one server implementing that
> right now) and
> - there is certainly no demand whatsoever to restrict this to one
> specific system of computing quota.
>
> So let's please focus on what aspects need to be standardized for
> interoperability, and which don't. Remove those that don't, and I'm sure
> we can make quick progress.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>
>
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2004 15:02:22 UTC