2012-04-01 06:01 PM
Not sure if this is the correct forum so apologies in advance.
I am wondering if there is anyway to create a quota data limit on a volume (qtree 0).
I have tried the following entry in the etc/quota file of the vfiler without success:
/vol/researchvol1/ tree 3150G - - - -
The reason I need to do this at the root of a volume and not a qtree within the volume is that a client has purchased 3TB of storage for research projects and accesses it via the CIFS share, "Research". They would then like any folders in the root of that share to have a quota. The only way I could see to do this was by sharing the root of the volume as "Research" and then creating a qtree for each folder in the root of the share.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
NetApp Release 188.8.131.52P3: Tue Apr 26 21:51:53 PDT 2011
Solved! SEE THE SOLUTION
2012-04-02 01:03 AM
You can limit the volume size to 3150G using "vol size researchvol1 3150G (also consider the snap reserve)
then set the appropriate quota for each qtree in "etc/quota" file.
2012-04-02 09:14 PM
Thanks heaps for your prompt reply. I had done a quota off, quota on after any of the changes I made. I actually have it all more or less working (it is live in production atm) but that is with quota's on the qtrees in the root, not a qtree on the actual root. The reason this is an issue is that when clients map a drive to the "research" share, the usage properties from within their windows environment show the deduped usage not the actual data usage. As our clients are charged by the amount of data they want to store and not by how much space it takes up, convincing them their space has run out is a little difficult when they can see the deduped amount.
I have found that once you put a quota data limit on a qtree, clients then only see data size, not deduped usage.
Thanks for your help
2012-04-02 09:21 PM
Thanks for your prompt reply. What you have suggested is actually what I am currently doing. This however is a bit of an issue for us (see my reply to Bernd.wolters).
Thanks heaps for your help and suggestions though.
2012-04-02 09:47 PM
Im not sure i understand your requirement correctly. specffially "quota's on the qtrees in the root, not a qtree on the actual root."
in order to provision 4 cifs share from a voume I usually create 4 qtree and share them through cifs.
and if all of them want to stich together under a folder called "research" we use windows DFS service.
(in case of unix/linux use ldap automount maps. ) So with out sharing the netapp volume, you can share only
the qtree and still put them together under "research" folder.
this way users wont have accrss to volume level (only qtree level) and the quota reporting will be according to their actual usage under each qtree.
hope this help,
2012-04-02 10:15 PM
I had tried what you have suggested but this is the result I got when I ran a quota report:
I was a bit worried that this is setting a quota of 3150 GB on all qtrees in that volume (like a default qtree quota size). A bit like when you set a user default home folder quota on a volume. The report is also showing 0 KB used when there is around 900 GB being used on the volume (auslink is not the only qtree on the volume). And finally, clients mapping drives to the "Research" share (the root of the volume) still see the deduped properties not the data size properties. It was all these things that led me to believe I had configured it wrong.
Thanks for your help, I am going to run with this and see how it goes, as I don't think I am going to be able to get around the deduped size being seen when a client maps to the root of a volume.
2012-04-02 10:54 PM
There are likely to be 50+ folders/qtrees on this volume which doesn't look great when all are shares, as they tend to crowd out the 2 or 3 that are regularly used by clients from this vfiler. We are trying to encourage users to access resources via dfs links but many are reluctant for whatever reasons and demand acces via traditional shares. Part of this reluctance is probably due to the relatively recent "Centralisation" of IT services from previous "Faculty" maintained (federated model) services. The "forcing" of clients to use DFS will probably happen around the end of this year.
Thanks for your help