Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
No there is not. All new users receive the default user class with the default
quota which is set in gss.properties (quota property).
Original comment by chstath
on 20 Feb 2012 at 3:56
It doesn't seem to work that way. We tested on GSS version from 31.8.2011. and
although that property is set to 50GB it still gives new users a lowest quota
of 10GB which is not default.
The bug is on a 31.8. version of GSS on 64-bit CentOS 5. Don't know how it
behaves on the newest version.
Original comment by mislav.s...@gmail.com
on 21 Feb 2012 at 9:22
You are right. I didn't understand correctly. The property in gss.properties is
used only once when the default user class is created automatically. Changing
the property after the creation of the default class has no effect. If you
change the default class using the admin panel, all new users will have the
edited default class but old users will be affected as well. Changing the
default class ONLY for new users is not possible.
Original comment by chstath
on 22 Feb 2012 at 9:32
You could do it if you are willing to modify the DB directly:
1) create a new userclass for the old users via the admin UI
2) via SQL, set the userclass for all users to this new class
3) modify the default class accordingly via the admin UI
Original comment by f.stamat...@ebs.gr
on 22 Feb 2012 at 9:43
Thanks for the replies but that isn't what I was asking, it is my mistake, I
mixed a bug report with my intended question. Let me clarify. This is the
scenario:
1. first only the default class exists
2. create a new class A with a quota lower than the default class
3. connect with a new user and he will be given a class A instead of default
There seems to be a bug that when you create a new user class that has a lower
quota than the default class than that class is used instead of the default
class, i.e. it is automatically given to all new users. So, whichever class has
the lowest quota GSS uses it automatically for all new users, which I believe
shouldn't be the case.
Thanks in advance.
Original comment by mislav.s...@gmail.com
on 23 Feb 2012 at 2:45
Fixed in e1cc3c62e3c7
Original comment by chstath
on 23 Feb 2012 at 3:31
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
mislav.s...@gmail.com
on 15 Feb 2012 at 2:38