Disk Quota Not Reporting Actual Size

[Mictain]

Hi All,

I've been transferring some user areas from other servers onto a W2k box with the intention of limiting the folder size for each person to 250Mb. Fairly straightforward in theory!

But, when I set the quota details for a user and look at the entries, I see that the Amount Used size does not tally with the folder itself. For example, one persons folder is 184Mb yet it is being reported as 3.19Mb. All the copied folders show the same kind of discrepancy.

Is this because it only records the amount of data added since the folders were moved and shows that instead of the proper total? Or could this be something to do with the Security ID side of Win 2k, from which the volume usage is apparently calculated instead of from the user name? In which case, would I have to add the accounts from scratch instead of copying them across? And if so, would I be able to copy the original folder information over again into the brand new folder and get the desired quota readings?

Any ideas, please? All help gratefully received!

Many thanks,

Neil.

 

[Anglathan]

Are you using data compression? If so, disk quota does not use the compressed size of a file, it uses the uncompressed size. Moving folders will not help in this case--the disk space counts against the file owner's quota, regardless of the location.

As far as I know, the only way to get around the problem would be to change file ownership or increase the user's quota.

Hope this helps!

 

[Bobot]

I recall something about Quota management having to be enabled on the folder before you start copying the data into that folder so it will reflect the proper size. I'm not sure on this, but maybe it will lead you in the right direction for troubleshooting.

Also, if disk compression is enabled, the size of the user's disk space reflected to the quota management system is the UNCOMPRESSED size of all respective files, because the files have to be uncompressed on access.

Hope this helps.

- Bob

 

[Mictain]

Many thanks for your help, peeps. It looks like it's an ownership issue, which in turn looks like it's going to be a pain in the backside!

According to the blurb, on a W2k server; "Although an administrator can take ownership, the administrator cannot transfer ownership to others." Wonderful. Brilliant. Genius. So now I either have to try and take ownership by interrupting the user and trying to do this via their login, or I'll have to reset all their passwords and go in as them to change such a simple thing! Aaaarrrggghhhhh!!!

Is there any other way to get around this bug masquerading as a security feature other than the above? I cannot believe such a straightforward administrative task can be made so difficult by something so stupid. Not a good start to a Monday morning! Bah!

Any other ideas or assistance will be most welcome

Many thanks,

An incredulous Neil.