Home folder size information

[gerardsweeney]

Hello, all..

 

This is something which has always irked me slightly, and it's now becoming a bit tiresome with the HD calls.

 

All of our users get drive H: mapped to their home folder.

It's viewable in My Computer, as you'd expect.

The H: drives are quota controlled at 500Mb each user.

 

If you look at the properties of the H: drive in My Computer, it shows how much is available on the entire server, rather than the H: drive.

 

For example, mine says Free Space: 306Gb, Total Size 478Gb - which I'd love to be true, but isn't the case

 

Is there some way of tweaking Windows to report the correct size??? Either a patch or additional (free!) application?

 

Regards,

Gerard

[AIT]

Hello, all..

 

This is something which has always irked me slightly, and it's now becoming a bit tiresome with the HD calls.

 

All of our users get drive H: mapped to their home folder.

It's viewable in My Computer, as you'd expect.

The H: drives are quota controlled at 500Mb each user.

 

If you look at the properties of the H: drive in My Computer, it shows how much is available on the entire server, rather than the H: drive.

 

For example, mine says Free Space: 306Gb, Total Size 478Gb - which I'd love to be true, but isn't the case

 

Is there some way of tweaking Windows to report the correct size??? Either a patch or additional (free!) application?

 

Regards,

Gerard

 

What server edition are you using. or are you just using quotas. Windows Storage server does the job properly.

[gerardsweeney]

Hi, there..

 

I'm not 100% certain - I am but the lowly desktop admin who gets hit with the issues first.

 

I think it's just quotas running on a 2003 server.

 

I was kind of hoping there was a client plugin or similar, but the network guys don't think there is. GAH.

[cookie_monster]

I noticed this problem when moving to FSRM. The old Windows disk quota software would report to explorer how much space was available to the user but FSRM doesn't do this. It's a bit of a pain.

[gerardsweeney]

Ah... I think this is the source of the problem:

 

The Storage Team at Microsoft - File Cabinet Blog : Why disk space is incorrectly reported on folders where File Server Resource Manager quotas are enabled

and

WWoIT - Wayne's World of IT: FSRM and NTFS Quotas in 2003 R2

 

 

The user home folder structure on our servers is:

 

E:\Pupils\pupilusername1

E:\Pupils\pupilusername2

 

E:\Staff\staffusername1

E:\Staff\staffusername2

 

According to the Technet link above, our IT guys would need to change it to:

 

E:\pupilusername1

E:\pupilusername2

E:\staffusername1

E:\staffusername2

 

 

I somehow don't think that's going to happen anytime ever!!

 

Luckily, it's all fixed if the client is using Vista and the server is 2008. So that's alright then - I'll just let the users know we only need to wait another couple of years for us to move to Windows 7!!

[ckuntz01]

I have a VERY similar setup as the way that you have yours setup, and mine reports correctly Using windows 2003 server and Windows XP desktops. Maybe (although I don't know) the issue maybe are you enforcing the quotas? There is a select to not allow the users to exceed their limits. Maybe that has something to do with it.

[CyberNerd]

We used to have this problem and I recall it was a 'feature' of windows fileservers - when we moved the home directories on a linux Samba server with quota's the properties correctly display the size of the homearea in XP.

[gerardsweeney]

I have a VERY similar setup as the way that you have yours setup, and mine reports correctly Using windows 2003 server and Windows XP desktops. Maybe (although I don't know) the issue maybe are you enforcing the quotas? There is a select to not allow the users to exceed their limits. Maybe that has something to do with it.

 

I'm not familiar with the server setup, but is there any chance you could list your setup so I can forward it onto our IT guys - hopefully one of them will be willing to contrast and compare.

 

(3 more calls in since this morning - all saying "my home folder CAN'T be full - it says I've got 500Gb free" - ARRGH!)

 

Regards,

Gerard

[cookie_monster]

We used to have this problem and I recall it was a 'feature' of windows fileservers - when we moved the home directories on a linux Samba server with quota's the properties correctly display the size of the homearea in XP.

 

 

It's just the way that SMB is implemented in pre Vista/2008. The issue is resolved in SMB2 but they didn't backport the fix.

 

For Windows XP clients, the workaround is to have the quota on the root of the share (like in case 1). This has been fixed for SMB 2.0 and will not be a problem when clients running Windows Vista access servers running Windows Server "Longhorn."

 

http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/archive/2006/09/26/458221.aspx

[gerardsweeney]

they didn't backport the fix.

 

Cos - y'know - that'd be too much like being helpful for Microsoft's liking!!

 

Yes, we could fix it.. Uh-huh... Or... You could move your infrastructure to our entirely new server software. Free upgrade?? Are you having a laugh?!

 

 

Only in the IT world could this happen.

 

Imagine a car company.. Their VroomVroom2003 has a fault whereby the fuel gauge is faulty, and permanently says that the driver has plenty of petrol left.

 

They openly acknowledge the fault. When asked if they will fix the fault, or at least make a spare part available for customers to have fitted, they tell the customer that they need to buy their VroomVroom2008 model instead. At full cost.

 

Bet Toyota wish they could adopt the Microsoft approach!!

 

(Sorry - I'm having a bad week with software companies!!)

 

 

Thanks for all of the replies so far, folks.

[CyberNerd]

yeah - it's funny that unix/apple/linux all had it working before microsoft - and SMB/CIFS is traditionally MS's main file transfer system

[cookie_monster]

Cos - y'know - that'd be too much like being helpful for Microsoft's liking!!

 

Yes, we could fix it.. Uh-huh... Or... You could move your infrastructure to our entirely new server software. Free upgrade?? Are you having a laugh?!

 

 

Only in the IT world could this happen.

 

Imagine a car company.. Their VroomVroom2003 has a fault whereby the fuel gauge is faulty, and permanently says that the driver has plenty of petrol left.

 

They openly acknowledge the fault. When asked if they will fix the fault, or at least make a spare part available for customers to have fitted, they tell the customer that they need to buy their VroomVroom2008 model instead. At full cost.

 

Bet Toyota wish they could adopt the Microsoft approach!!

 

(Sorry - I'm having a bad week with software companies!!)

 

 

Thanks for all of the replies so far, folks.

 

 

 

Look at the issues with SMB2. SMB is nice and stable why spend all that effort backporting to fix an issue that really doesn't bother that many people, can be worked around and is fixed in the latest release. It doesn't make any financial sense to divert engineering resources to it.

[gerardsweeney]

can be worked around and is fixed in the latest release.

 

 

Sorry - sounding dense here... What do you mean the issue is fixed in the latest release?

 

Do you mean if the clients move to Vista/7?

[cookie_monster]

Sorry - sounding dense here... What do you mean the issue is fixed in the latest release?

 

Do you mean if the clients move to Vista/7?

 

 

Yes Vista/7 are the latest release of the Windows client. I was reasoning from an MS perspective.

[gerardsweeney]

Heh... You Devil's Advocate, you..

 

Unfortunately, the purchasing limits on our council mean it'll likely be at least 4 years before all of the PCs are Win7. By which point, approximately 10 billion folk will logged calls with us saying that their H: drives are empty.

I exaggerate - 9 billion.

 

Maybe M$ will fix it with XP SP4? (What? What's everyone looking at me like that for?!?!)

 

 

I'm firmly in "almost hometime" mode now

[CyberNerd]

Sorry - sounding dense here... What do you mean the issue is fixed in the latest release?

 

Do you mean if the clients move to Vista/7?

 

It's a server2003 problem, the clients are fine... I think he means fixed in the latest server release

[cookie_monster]

It's a server2003 problem, the clients are fine... I think he means fixed in the latest server release

 

 

According to the blog it's a protocol issue SMB, this is fixed in SMB2. So it's a client/server issue pre Vista/2008.

[gerardsweeney]

That's how I initially read it as well - it'll resolve itself when you move to Server 2008 AND Windows 7/Vista... So that's alright then - just 4 years for us to wait!

 

Server 2003 SP3, perhaps?

[CyberNerd]

According to the blog it's a protocol issue SMB, this is fixed in SMB2. So it's a client/server issue pre Vista/2008.

 

it works fine on xp if you use samba (*nix) or 2008 on the server - without updating the client

[powdarrmonkey]

The user home folder structure on our servers is:

 

E:\Pupils\pupilusername1

E:\Pupils\pupilusername2

 

E:\Staff\staffusername1

E:\Staff\staffusername2

 

According to the Technet link above, our IT guys would need to change it to:

 

E:\pupilusername1

E:\pupilusername2

E:\staffusername1

E:\staffusername2

 

 

No. It's caused by having one share to have all users data fetched from, not the actual layout inside said share. If you want accurate quotas, each user must have their own share, and their home drive mapped to \\server\usershare instead of \\server\allusershare\individual\users\directory.

[CyberNerd]

No. It's caused by having one share to have all users data fetched from, not the actual layout inside said share. If you want accurate quotas, each user must have their own share, and their home drive mapped to \\server\usershare instead of \\server\allusershare\individual\users\directory.

 

 

When we had usershares on win2k3 they were setup with their own share \\server\usershare - and it didn't display the quota, as soon as we moved to redhat it did.

[cookie_monster]

When we had usershares on win2k3 they were setup with their own share \\server\usershare - and it didn't display the quota, as soon as we moved to redhat it did.

 

 

 

Dunno like I say the info is in the link and it doesn't work with FSRM unless you setup a share for each user folder. On Red Hat you aren't using FSRM.

 

 

We did use windows NTFS disk quotas before FSRM and that always displayed the correct amount of available space to the user and we had the shares setup the same so it's something to do with FSRMand SMB (the MS implementation of it not the Samba version).

I think Windows disk quotas used an NTFS feature to pass the information but FSRM doesn't it uses SMB.

 

 

Case 1: (quota on the root of a share)

Volume D:\ with 20 GB free space

D:\foo is shared as \\server\foo

There is a 100 MB hard quota on D:\foo

On the client, \\server\foo maps to O:\. Then the free space reported on O:\ will be 100 MB

 

Case 2: (quota on subfolder in a share)

Volume D:\ with 20 GB free space

D:\foo is shared as \\server\foo

There is a 100 MB hard quota on D:\foo\bar

On the client, \\server\foo\bar maps to O:\. Then the free space reported on O:\ will be 20 GB because SMB directs all free space queries to \\server\foo

 

For Windows XP clients, the workaround is to have the quota on the root of the share (like in case 1). This has been fixed for SMB 2.0 and will not be a problem when clients running Windows Vista access servers running Windows Server "Longhorn."

Edited February 19, 2010 by cookie_monster

[powdarrmonkey]

When we had usershares on win2k3 they were setup with their own share \\server\usershare - and it didn't display the quota, as soon as we moved to redhat it did.

 

Hmm, dunno. It's worked for me everywhere I've done it.

[PiqueABoo]

it doesn't work with FSRM

 

Agreed. Ye olde volume quotas work fine, but I hit this issue with XP -> 2008 and *folder* quotas a year ago.

[ckuntz01]

I'm not familiar with the server setup, but is there any chance you could list your setup so I can forward it onto our IT guys - hopefully one of them will be willing to contrast and compare.

 

(3 more calls in since this morning - all saying "my home folder CAN'T be full - it says I've got 500Gb free" - ARRGH!)

 

Regards,

Gerard

 

Attached is a screenshot of the quotas as I have them setup. Nothing really special.....