I believe this is the appropriated approach of dealing with the size limiting issue, place your data dir into a separated mount/disk/partition.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Benjamin Jansen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 2, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Luke Scharf wrote: > > > Andrej Falout wrote: > >> Thanks Brian, > >> > >> We could also bring sizelimit= back as is, with a warning that it > >> may take a > >> > >>> long time to reatart the node when there are a lot of shares. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Yes please, as without it the volunteers grid will not be an option > >> for a > >> number of people, including me. > >> > >> I am assuming it should be easy to bypass space checks completely, > >> when the > >> variable sizelimit= is not set, so it should not have negative > >> impact on > >> anyone not specifying a value there. > >> > > > > I know that this may not apply to your situation, but it seems like > > running the Tahoe node in a VM of some sort is a good idea. That > > would > > put the Tahoe server into it's own security-container -- so, in the > > unlikely event that some catastrophic security bug were found in the > > node-daemon, the rest of your stuff would be protected. > > For this use case (worried about storage size more than security > flaws), you could put the node's storage dir on its own partition. > Storage is limited to whatever amount you wish, and any bug in tahoe's > storage limiting code cannot override that limit. > > - Ben > > _______________________________________________ > tahoe-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://allmydata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev > Cheers, -- Rogério Schneider MSN: [email protected] GTalk: [email protected] TerraVoip: stockrt Skype: stockrt
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://allmydata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
