On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 04:55:13AM +0000, Jim Breton wrote: > Hello, here is a message I sent to the linux-admin list. I am > re-sending here because I have another question following this one. > > ************ > Is this normal and just undocumented? Or is it documented somewhere... > or is it a bug? > > I was having some trouble getting quotas to work and after some fiddling > I discovered the following behavior. > > If I have the following line in my /etc/fstab everything is fine: > > /dev/hda2 / ext2 defaults,errors=remount-ro,usrquota 0 1 > > > But previously I had been using this: > > /dev/hda2 / ext2 defaults,usrquota,errors=remount-ro 0 1 > > > The lines are the same except for the order of the last two mount > options. > > Well, if I use the second method, instead of creating "/quota.user" and > storing quota information in that file, quotacheck writes the file into > "remount-ro" (a file with that name) into my current directory! bug #46610 its fixed in the current potato quota. (or so the BTS says) another solution is to set the error behaviour in the superblock and remove the mount option, i did this because for some reason the `errors=remount,ro' was showing up twice in mount, which i thought was ugly ;-) drop down to single user mode, umount all filesystems, remount / readonly, run: tune2fs -e remount-ro /dev/hda? <-- your root partition. your probably better off rebooting at this point. you can then remove the errors=remount-ro from your fstab file. > > OK it does seem that the quota utils are thinking the "=remount-ro" is > an argument, and they should not be doing this. It also does this on a > Red Hat 6.0 system I tried (as well as the Slack 7 as I've mentioned). > Should this be reported as a bug to the author/maintainer? already done, already fixed. quota 2.0 is alot better from what i have heard, but not done yet and as a result not in potato. > Also, I have been having a problem implementing quotas on my slink > machine. I am running a 2.2.14 kernel which I think may have something > to do with it. > > I have an account "jim" which "repquota" claimed has about 1500000 > blocks in use. While I was testing out the quotas, I set jim's soft and > hard limits to 2000000. So, he should have been fine -- but for some > reason repquota says he is over quota! not sure about this one... check the bugs on quota at: http://cgi.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?archive=no&pkg=quota there are a few that sound similer to your situation but not quite, see for yourself... -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgpQrogfVYAPu.pgp
Description: PGP signature