This object is in archive!
Add top level per directory usage to generated emails when a partition is over a threshold
Needs Review
When a system generated email for disk threshhold exceeded is sent, it would be useful to have included in that email the size of each top level directory for the partition in question.
This would make it easier to help identify what files could have caused the alert.
Output from the command below would be perfect.
- du -k --one-file-system -h --max-depth=1 /usr
Thanks
I like this idea 
cPanel, WebHost Manager and WHM are registered trademarks of cPanel, L.L.C. for providing its computer software that facilitates the management and configuration of Internet web servers.
I can see significant reason to argue against this. The potential performance hit to perform a "du" for even a single user's file consumption is significant enough for many system administrators (myself included) to not want to have part of any automation. Given this performance impact, it's unlikely that it will be further considered since such emails where this information is absent would still allow for manual audit at the server owner or end user's discretion when they understand the performance impact on their system.
Still, I would like to hear further feedback and discussion on whether server owners would find this information useful against its performance cost.
I can see significant reason to argue against this. The potential performance hit to perform a "du" for even a single user's file consumption is significant enough for many system administrators (myself included) to not want to have part of any automation. Given this performance impact, it's unlikely that it will be further considered since such emails where this information is absent would still allow for manual audit at the server owner or end user's discretion when they understand the performance impact on their system.
Still, I would like to hear further feedback and discussion on whether server owners would find this information useful against its performance cost.
I can see significant reason to argue against this. The potential performance hit to perform a "du" for even a single user's file consumption is significant enough for many system administrators (myself included) to not want to have part of any automation. Given this performance impact, it's unlikely that it will be further considered since such emails where this information is absent would still allow for manual audit at the server owner or end user's discretion when they understand the performance impact on their system.
Still, I would like to hear further feedback and discussion on whether server owners would find this information useful against its performance cost.
I can see significant reason to argue against this. The potential performance hit to perform a "du" for even a single user's file consumption is significant enough for many system administrators (myself included) to not want to have part of any automation. Given this performance impact, it's unlikely that it will be further considered since such emails where this information is absent would still allow for manual audit at the server owner or end user's discretion when they understand the performance impact on their system.
Still, I would like to hear further feedback and discussion on whether server owners would find this information useful against its performance cost.
Replies have been locked on this page!