From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3; Linux)
Description of problem:
I'm implementating quotas for users in a Samba 2.2.7 PDC for Rwindows XP clients. When I run (for example) 'setquota -u 9911054 20000 20000 0 0 /home' the command don't return errors. But when I do a 'quota username' then return "Disk quotas for user #9911054 (uid 9911054): none".
My /home is mounted from /dev/md1 which is a raid0 device spanned into two discs and formatted with ext2 filesystem.
I think is problem the name of the user (a numeric code)??
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1.Create a numeric username for a new user
2.Set the quota for this user in volume /home (raid0)
3.Check the quota for this user
Actual Results: Quota is "none" when I check quota for user
Expected Results: Quota must to be the value I set to user
Problem occur when you try to setup disc quotas for users with a numeric
username (not specially on raid devices). You need alfa-numeric usernames to
quota works, otherwise it choose random users to set the quota.
Weellll - None of my usernames are entirely numeric
I'm using redhat 8 with quotas on a new 120G ext3 file system and as I "rsync
-a" files over I notice some usernames aren't showing up in repquota
Once I get a couple of thousand users transferred repquota starts segfaulting
[It's not really a backup, don't worry about the mountpoint name]
[root@backup users]# ls -l /backup/aquota.*
-rw------- 1 root root 8192 May 12 23:22 /backup/aquota.group
-rw------- 1 root root 149504 May 12 23:22 /backup/aquota.user
[root@backup users]# repquota /backup
*** Report for user quotas on device /dev/hdc1
Block grace time: 7days; Inode grace time: 7days
Block limits File limits
User used soft hard grace used soft hard grace
Is the the same fault? It gets worse as the number of users goes up
Actually the segfault stops when I used the -n flag to repquota
But still not all user-id's show up.
have you tried this with a later distribution (RHEL 3 or RHL 9)?
I've not, its not a box we can update easily.
We since had such bad problems of users reportedly using a large
quantity of disk space when a "find" for that user reports otherwise
that we had to rebuild quotas entirely.