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

I agree with Eric and Julian.

Cheers,
Geoff

Eric wrote on 09/08/2004 11:01:33 AM:

> 
> 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
> >
> >
> 
> 
>