Thanks for your input on this FTPServerTools, and it's good to see you again old friend..! I like what you had to say about caching and the idea of writing a hidden file in the directory which would store the sizes of files & child directories to help speed up checking for available disk quota when users go to upload. I think this approach is more directory-centric; instead of attaching disk quotas to users it attaches them to dirs, am I right? If so, I think this would work equally as well as attaching disk quota to users/groups, possibly even better so, because it would allow more flexibility (user would have a disk quota under his group dir but not necessarily when uploading into section dirs).
An idea for settings could be:
#write which dirs diskquota should apply to
diskquota_dirs: /DIR1 /DIR2...etc.
The site commands would look something like:
site diskquota /DIR1 200g
site diskquota /DIR1/group1 20g
site diskquota /DIR1/group2 50g
So, let's say you have this directory structure-
/DIR1
/DIR1/group1/
/DIR1/group2/
/DIR1/group3/
/DIR1/group4/
/DIR1/group5/
/DIR1/group6/
/DIR1/group7/
...you have some nice flexibility here because you've specified that your main groups section dir will have a limit imposed of 200g (GB). The Group1 dir has been alotted 20GB, the Group2 dir has been alotted 50GB. Group3 through Group7 will share the remainder of the 130GB of diskquota space that's still available underneath /DIR1.
Also, if the site commands I mentioned above wouldn't work for some reason (maybe the script doesn't like slashes
), then it could be written in a configuration file:
#write your diskquota alottments here
diskquota_dir_size /DIR1 200g
diskquota_dir_size /DIR1/group1 20g
diskquota_dir_size /DIR1/group2 50g
etc...
My thought on Microsoft Indexing Service is that I wonder if it will pose file locking problems. For instance, Google Desktop and MS Indexing Service both used to get in the way when I used to be moving files around in Windows Explorer. I don't know if they've improved to not do that anymore, I stopped using them because it was too annoying..
As for ext2/3, reiserfs, etc., I think we can safely eliminate those from the equation since Windows doesn't read them..that I'm aware of anyways. And I think we can safely assume that anyone wanting these functions will need to be using local disks and that they'll need to accept the network drives limitation. Personally I'm perfectly fine with that.
You guys both know more about the nuts-and-bolts end of it- what's needed from the core ftpd in order to support this?
Anyone else have any thoughts?
Someone may want to split off these 4 posts or so into a new topic for this
Thanks.
Edit: I count 8 posts including this one that could be moved to their own new topic, starting with my post of 02-11-2008, 09:52 AM if anyone is up for it