Issue with Non-User Shared-Folders Having Unintended 500mb Limit

[Lonniebiz]

I created a general shared folder (with guest access) intended to host files produce by UPS Worldship 2013 (which uses shared folders so that multiple workstations can collaboratively using the UPS Worldship 2013 application).

During the installation, Worldship asks for the location (which I've provided via a mapped drive to the Zentyal share on the user's workstation).

After specifying the location, Worldship gives an error saying that the location provided has a 500mb capacity, and it is therefore not adequate for installing worldship.

I'm familiar that the users' h-drive folders are limited to 500mb (by default), but these shares are not user-specific, so I don't know why Zentyal would have told Worldship of such a limitation. Odds are, if Worldship would have proceeded in trying to install into the Zentyal Share it would have actually allowed more than 500mb; I say this because I know there are other shares that I've created in this same manor that have gigabytes of data in them.

So, what's going on here. Why is Worldship notified of a 500mb limit? And what can I do to resolve this unintended limit?

[astana]

Quotas are per user, across all drives, including their personal drive and their roaming profile if you use it.
Install your application on a user that has a larger quota and the problem should go away.

[Lonniebiz]

You're right.

Another user came to me today because he could not copy a file to one of the shares due to it telling him it had no disk space. This is the error he got:
http://neartalk.com/ss/2013-06-05_11:11:30.png

I increased his user account's quota, and then he was able to move his file to the share.

Interesting. You know, actually, how I'd like it to be is this: I want the quota to apply to their own personal folders, so that they don't put too many personal files on the server, but when it comes to these collaborative shares, I don't want their user-quota to apply.

To me, these collaborative shares (I call them collaborative because multiple people will be putting files into them) should have a non-user-related (independent) quota of their own. Basically, I don't want anyone's personal quota to effect their ability to write to a collaborative share.

A collaborative share's quota should be independent and unrelated to a user set quota. Have others voiced this same opinion, and are there any current developments in this direction?

[Lonniebiz]

For now, to make this problem go away, I've set all user's quotas zero (which means unlimited). I'd rather deal with a full hard drive later, than deal with users not being able to do their work right now.

No other arbitrary number makes sense given that I want users to have unlimited ability to add files to the collaborative shares.

I wish I could keep a quota on their user folder, but since such a quota also limits their ability to write to collaborative shares, I'm unable to impose such a quota.

These things shouldn't be so mutually exclusive. Perhaps, there is a linux command line method by which I can have quotas on home folders that do not apply to collaborative shares?

[astana]

Actually I think the current system is 'correct' from an admin point of view, in the sense that you can actually control the disk space of each user.
Otherwise what would stop a user from putting 50GB in their profile and nothing in their network drive?

This way you can put a hard limit on all the disk space a user takes.

From a user point of view I understand the difficulties, but server disk space isn't unlimited.

Maybe another option is to own the file by a separate user, as per the 1st example, that way their quota isn't affected and they should still be able to read/write the files correctly.

That way you can control the user quotas as well as the shared user quota.