On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 03:26:43PM -0500, Nick Holland wrote: > Probably thinking of this thread: > http://marc.info/?t=117689108200011&r=1&w=2 > and my two contributions to it. A number of other people provided some > good (and some bad) comments, too...read through 'em all. You get to > decide which are useful and which are not, and what is right and what is > wrong. > > Keep in mind that thread is almost six years old...500GB was a big disk > back then. However, I'm still quite proud of that system. > (and in case you were wondering, my employment ended with that employer > about four months later. That also makes a great story, but quite > off-topic. They did replace my system with a proprietary system that > cost many times as much).
Only setup I can imagine which cannot fit into this setup of small partitions combined with filesystem structure and symlinks is this one 'unrestricted space offered directly to a user via ftp/sftp/ssh' As we cannot predict how fast and when he/she would fit the storage, moving later user's whole data to bigger one is slow and still not a solution. It seems to me that giving a user direct access to his data root dir while telling him about no space restriction is not possible. On the other hand, if the user would not require one big directory for his data, then filesystem layout could be hidden to the user and mentioned setup would fit - although instead of direct ftp/sftp the user would use some specialized client to get his files, the setup would use some UUID and keep track of UUID and his owner (or something similar). Any comments? Do exists some "proxies" which would mirror files immediately when a user is uploading them via some common protocol? And when the user deletes some of his files the "proxy" would delete the copy? (rsyncing later regularly could be quite problematic if you would have many users uploading for example a couple of GB files...). jirib
