Do you run Unix without disk quotas?

[Greg Pavlov]

In article <1991Feb15.120048.6591 at csv.viccol.edu.au>, timcc at csv.viccol.edu.au writes:
> We are currently evaluating a tender that includes Unix systems with and
> without disk quotas.  I am interested in answers to the following
> questions:
> 
>    1.	Have you implemented any other method of controlling disk usage?
> 	If so, what does it entail?
> 
>    1a. How difficult was the implentation of this alternative?
> 
>    1b. Is it effective?  Is it better or worse for the administrator
>        and for the user?
> 
>    2. If you have not implemented an alternative, how much more disk
> 	space do you think you use (if any)?
> 
   We have a reasonably "large" number of users (350-400 at present), many
   of them occasional, but no students.

   Our "philosophy" re disk usage is that, in general, people will waste space
   if allowed unrestricted use but at the same time, using a computer is suffi-
   ciently traumatic for many that another source of hassles ("disk quota
   exceeded....") should be avoided if possible.

   SO: our "alternative" is as follows:

    1. use third-party disks (HP in our case):  purchase cost apx. $3.20/MB .
       These come with 5-year warranties,  so our "maintenance cost" is a
       spare disk to throw into the fray if an on-line unit fails;

    2. use high-volume backup systems.  In our case, Exabyte 2.2 GB per $5.50
       SONY cartridge;

    3. run a program occasionally to check for gross misusage, run another to
       delete certain classes of transient files (logs, "core"s, for instance).

  If things got bad enough we might consider public flagellation (e.g., "the 
  following individuals are anti-social and...").  But this hasn't been nec-
  essary and besides, I've noticed that this sometimes backfires: some people
  see this as a badge of honor....


  pavlov at stewart.fstrf.org