Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking OS X IT

Throttle Shared Users With OS X — Is It Possible? 403

Posted by timothy
from the throttle-the-snot-instead dept.
whisper_jeff writes "I work in a design studio where the production director is also the owner's son (translation = he can do no wrong). He is fond of accessing a designer's computer via filesharing and working directly on files off of the designer's computers rather than transferring the files to his computer to work on them there. In so doing, he causes the designer's computer to grind to a near-halt as the harddrive is now tasked with his open/save requests along with whatever the designer is doing. Given that there is no way he's going to change his ways (since he doesn't see anything wrong with it...), I was wondering if there was a way to throttle a user's shared access to a computer (Mac OSX 10.5.8) so that his remote working would have minimal impact on our work. Google searches have revealed nothing helpful (maybe I should Bing it... :) so I was hoping someone with more technical expertise on Slashdot could offer a suggestion."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Throttle Shared Users With OS X — Is It Possible?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:13PM (#31362650)

    Disable file shares on workstations. Use a file server.

    • by 0racle (667029)

      Disable file shares on workstations. Use a file server.

      This is what I came to say. Backups become simpler as well.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by UID30 (176734)
        What is this "b-ack-ups" you speak of? and a "fi-le ser-ver"? isn't it easier for everybody to just keep the most recent copy of their own work? if you need a file, you just have to wait for everyone to reply to your email saying when was the last time they edited the file and then you can look on their computer, copy the file, make your changes, and drop it right on the production server... amIright?
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by satch89450 (186046)
          You've never worked in a company with nepotism disease. I can tell. The OP said that getting the kid to do it the right way isn't going to happen.
          • Some solutions (Score:5, Interesting)

            by goombah99 (560566) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @07:36PM (#31364754)

            If you have root access and the kid does not then there are some kludges you can do. For example, write a launchdaemon that runs
            renice -n 20 -u kidsudername
            every 5 minutes.

            that will squish the CPU activity more than the Disk activity, but it should improve things a lot.

            if you want to be a little passive aggressive you could move the login port to another port then put another process on that port that pipes to the real one but with a small delay. It will make the whole connection mysteriously intolerable. Again it's the launch agents that do this port mapping. so you move ssh from port 22 to port 5022. then have a job running that runs on port 22 and sends it to port 5022. if you don't want bother writing that socket process then you can fake it with
            nice -20 ssh -C -L 5022:localhost:22 localhost
            to connect the two ports on the local host. toss in some compression on the SSH connection to slow it down a little. and renice this ssh tunnel to 20 so it bogs if you are busy.

    • by TheKidWho (705796)

      I have to echo that statement, use a file server, problem solved.

      I assume the OP doesn't see anything wrong with having 20 slightly different versions of the same design?

      • I assume the OP doesn't see anything wrong with having 20 slightly different versions of the same design?

        That could very well be the point. Especially in advertising where you might want to have say, 4 different versions of a logo and let the client choose which one they want.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by TheKidWho (705796)

          Yes, but you keep it organized at a single location, not fractured over 10 different computers.

      • by TheKidWho (705796)

        I should add to my previous post, the other solution is to put an SSD on the designers computer.

    • by Captain Splendid (673276) <capsplendid@@@gmail...com> on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:19PM (#31362774) Homepage Journal
      Disable file shares on workstations. Use a file server.

      Well, that's the correct technical solution, but the real, supreme, correct decision is: Find a new job, and fast. Nothing good has ever come from challenging a coworker who enjoys immunity, especially when it's familial.
      • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:47PM (#31363282) Homepage

        Having been in similar situations, I more or less agree.

        There's no way around it: If the owner is really letting his son do whatever he wants, then any successful technical solution is likely to cause you real-world trouble. You may allow your designers to work better, but if the son goes complaining behind your back to the owner, you'll find yourself suffering more.

        The real questions for this situation are (a) Is there any chance the owner is intelligent and reasonable enough for you to discuss the situation? and (b) If not, is your job otherwise good enough to tolerate a boss who's unprofessional enough to allow this sort of thing?

      • by IronChef (164482) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @06:22PM (#31363716) Homepage

        I had a similar problem a long time ago. One of the 3 partners running the joint was always poking around with file sharing, slowing the single expensive desktop publishing workstation down to a crawl. The perpetrator was the company's Fragile Genius and the other partners told us tough, there was no way they would ask him to modify his behavior.

        Eventually, the Fragile Genius began locking himself in his office. There was one window that looked out into a common area, and he spray-painted it black. We believe it was about at this time he started smoking crack in his office.

        He also had a kitten, which he rescued from the streets and then began to poison by feeding it nothing but raw hot dogs.

        You think it's hard to stop the owner's son from doing anything wrong? Be glad it isn't the owner himself.

        But honestly it was not the crack smoking that got the other partners to straighten this guy out. It was his cat peeing on their chairs.

        Therefore, my advice is to give the boss's son a kitten and a pack of hot dogs, and maybe some black spray paint. If you know a crack dealer, an introduction may be fruitful.

      • by jimicus (737525) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @06:42PM (#31363972)

        Which is why you don't pitch a file-server as being "to prevent the bosses' son can quit screwing my computer up".

        You pitch it as "a more efficient way for us all to work, a lot easier to maintain in terms of backups..."

    • by lorenlal (164133)

      AC is dead on. You'll look good for making everything "easier to manage" and you'll get this tool off your back. Of course, if that's not an option (let's face it, if it's a small shop spending money isn't a high priority), then use toolbox's system as the central repository until you can get it justified.

      Based on your summary here - You're not terribly fond of the boss and the director either. Are you looking at moving elsewhere in or out of the company?

    • by LWATCDR (28044)

      Even better would be some kind of document management system.
      You create a folder for each job and everybody checks the file in and out to work on it. You can even keep older versions and revert if somebody blows it.
      You would also have a single machine to backup all your critical data.

      That would seem to be the ideal solution.

    • by Thyamine (531612) <thyamine@ofdrago ... minus herbivore> on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:37PM (#31363090) Homepage Journal
      This definitely would be a good solution.

      But I like the 'Windows' method of solving the problem: reboot. When the co-worker has this sudden slow down on his system, reboot to clear up the 'resource problem'. Certainly a more vindictive way to solve the issue, but effective.
      • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @06:30PM (#31363812) Journal
        Why inconvenience yourself? Just turn off file sharing for 30 seconds, then turn it back on. Same effect for him, no interruption for you. For extra fun, you can automate this in a couple of likes of AppleScript and run it in a cron job with osascript.
    • by WCMI92 (592436)

      Disable file shares on workstations. Use a file server.

      This. We use Windows servers, but for designers and other people who store important files on their local machine rather than the server, after several hard drive crashes that proved they were disobeying the directive to not do this, we now employ folder redirection. How this works is that in our domain policy, certain folders (such as My Documents) and files (Outlook PST's) are actually stored on the file server, even though it appears to be "local" to the user. We also use the offline files feature and

    • by SQLGuru (980662) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:41PM (#31363164) Journal

      Create a link from your machine to his. Save the file local to his machine instead of yours (via the link). Share out your link to him. He'll actually be taking the long way around back to his own box.

  • Put a 10 MBit switch between his computer and the network... that'll do it... 8-)

    • Re:A suggestion... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:17PM (#31362728) Journal

      Any throttling is going to be noticed by this idiot, and if his old man is shit stupid to let him do this kind of thing anyways, you can be sure you'll be getting an unfriendly knock on the door about the slow network.

      Disable file sharing on the workstations, go to a file server, tell the other guys to copy their own files over to do their work and let fuck brain fuck with the stuff on the file server. If you need a rationale, just say "We need to centralize our file store for better security and backups."

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by gnasher719 (869701)

        Any throttling is going to be noticed by this idiot, and if his old man is shit stupid to let him do this kind of thing anyways, you can be sure you'll be getting an unfriendly knock on the door about the slow network

        It sound like you have to wait until you meet him in a dark alley until you can start throttling him.

    • Or use a hub, even slower...
  • Two Options (Score:5, Informative)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@gmFREEBSDail.com minus bsd> on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:15PM (#31362676) Journal
    Well, I don't think you want to mess with how the operating system handles its network and file system so you have two options. You can either throttle at the router or throttle at the neck. The router option requires you have a capable enough network router connecting you two in order to be able to write a rule for his machine (by IP address or machine name usually) that limits the amount of information he can transfer (I believe this is possible in DD-WRT [dd-wrt.com] and is called throttling or traffic shaping). This will cause his experience to become slow and he will most likely complain and bitch to daddy if he knows you did something.

    The other option is throttling the neck of the user. This requires somewhat strong hands and forearms applying a pressure to the neck of the user until he stops moving or goes limp. It may result a decreased experience for the user, difficulty breathing, death and in some cases an erection. Use with caution and have an alibi.
    • Also, if you have a managed switch you may be able to throttle connections by port.
    • by SlamMan (221834)
      You're not going to be able to throttle at the router in an environment like this. For an office this size, its doubtful that the computers are on different subnets. Same subnet = not going through the router, and just staying local on the switch.
    • There's an old saying:

      Never try to apply a technological solution to a social problem.

      I'm also reminded of the serenity prayer (which doesn't demand a theological interpretation, even):

      God, grant me the serenity
      To accept the things I cannot change;
      The courage to change the things that I can;
      And the wisdom to know the difference.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by forand (530402)
      This sounds like an explanation given by someone on Black Adder.

      W: Very well then. Three other paths are open to you. Three cunning plans to cure thy ailment.
      E: Oh good.
      W: The first is simple. Kill Bob!
      E: Never.
      W: Then try the second. Kill your self!
      E: Neu. And the third?
      W: The third is to ensure that no one else ever knows.
      E: Ha, that sounds more like it. How?
      W: Kill everybody in the whole world. Ah, ha, ha ...

  • check dis out: (Score:3, Informative)

    by riff420 (810435) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:15PM (#31362684)
    chmod the files so that only the appropriate user has read/write, and that the boss' son has read access. only allow him to replace the files in a different directory, so that you can evaluate the changes.
  • file server? (Score:3, Informative)

    by InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:15PM (#31362688)
    Who cares about throttling. Why isn't your data on a file server? Especially if there's intentions to share it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by anlprb (130123)

      You missed the part where he said "design studio" and "OS X." Also, since he is posting to /. for the answer, the idea of knowing what he _should_ be doing in an IT role is a stretch. I don't know why any office with more than 1 computer wouldn't have a file server, but hey, don't even ask him when his last off-site backup was, he may cry.

      • Mac Mini Server (Score:4, Interesting)

        by tepples (727027) <{tepples} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:41PM (#31363166) Homepage Journal

        You missed the part where he said "design studio" and "OS X."

        Which raises the question: why don't they have a $1000 Mac Mini Server [apple.com] already?

      • by Rand Race (110288) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @06:02PM (#31363460) Homepage

        Please come work for my design studio, someone who can pull multi-terabyte file-servers out of their ass will help my budgeting issues immensely.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by anlprb (130123)

          You obviously have never heard of productivity. The more your people have it, the less it costs you to get work done, the faster you can get work out and the more you can bill. We work on T&M, we make sure our people can produce as much as possible to leave as much buffer room in to check work and then take on more. A worker waiting costs me more than any hardware it would take to fix the situation.

          Centralizing using a NAS box as a file server wouldn't cost much more than your monthly budget for burn

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by QuantumRiff (120817)

        Right, but from what I hear, apple actually has an awesome solution to deal with this problem: http://www.apple.com/server/storage/ [apple.com]

        Their raid systems are supposedly cheaper than most others.. and work very well from what I have heard from people using them.

    • Judging from the post, it seems like there really isn't any intention to share it at the time.

      The impression I got is they have, say, 5 designers making, say, a logo. Designers 1-4 are the workers and designer 5 is the son. 1-4 work on different logos to present to the company, designer 5 was supposed to but instead sees what designers 1-4 are doing, takes elements from there and creates another design (claiming it was his own of course). At least thats the impression I got.
    • It's always amazing how when someone doesn't know the answer to a question, they just claim the asker is completely wrong. e.g. Question: "How can I do 'X' in Windows?" Answer: "Switch to Linux." Thanks for helping so much.
    • Re:file server? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by martinX (672498) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @06:13PM (#31363610)

      After a re-reading, I realised that the person asking the question doesn't describe themselves as a sys-admin. He said he "works in a design studio". So he might not have any real network responsibilities but might be looking to help a mate out.

      Secondly, the ID10T causing the problems is the Production Director. He may be the boss's son, but in the company structure his position is over the top of just about everyone else. Technical issues should be taken to the Production Director first and foremost since it's part of his job to oversee productions.

      Next: "He is fond of accessing a designer's computer via filesharing and working directly on files off of the designer's computers rather than transferring the files to his computer to work on them there."

      So he isn't accessing the same files the designer is using at the same time, but accessing files for a project which he is allowed to do because he is the Production Director.

      Why does the designer have all the files for a project that others working on the project (indeed others who actually direct the project) may need to use stored locally on his hard drive?

      My advice is: don't take shortcuts. They'll only hurt you in the end. There is no such thing as a temporary fix, nor a permanent solution.

  • by dave562 (969951) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:15PM (#31362696) Journal

    I want to throttle just about every OSX user I've ever met.

  • Simple Fix (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dyingtolive (1393037)
    It's really easy, I swear:

    Write a script that will hammer the everlasting fuck out of his shared drive when he's trying to do something. As (I assume) the IT department, he will complain to you. When he does, politely say, "Yeah, I think that can happen when users constantly access files on a remote shared drive. Someone must be doing that to your box. It really sucks, huh?"

    When someone acts like a child, you must treat them like a child. Some people just have to find out what "Think about how that
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Except you are responding to childish behavior by acting like a child yourself, not treating them like a child. When your child kicks you in the shin, you don't kick them back to demonstrate the error of their ways. Being an asshole and pretending you're not responsible is not a mature way of dealing with things. (I was about to write "...not an *adult* way of dealing with things," but as you've probably noticed, many adults are not mature)
  • Explain (Score:3, Insightful)

    by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:16PM (#31362720)

    Is it not possible to explain to this person the negative impact that his actions have? You explained it to us with one sentence:

    In so doing, he causes the designer's computer to grind to a near-halt as the harddrive is now tasked with his open/save requests along with whatever the designer is doing.

    Right after that line you say he doesn't see anything wrong with it. Have you not explained this to him?

    And why are you sharing every workstation instead of using a single file server?

    • My thoughts too. This isn't 1985 any more. If you have a network, grab a spare box, throw a file server on it and away you go. How does this organization do backups? It's such a pain in the ass to set your backup system to go grabbing data off of every workstation, and inevitably someone will either walk away from the evening with half a dozen files opened and locked, or will turn the machine off.

      I haven't run a network in 15 years where workstations kept data local, with the exception of notebooks, an

      • by LWATCDR (28044)

        Why use a spare box?
        There are are ton of inexpensive NAS solutions you can get at Best Buy.
        Or pick up a Drobo.

        • by 0racle (667029)

          Why use a spare box?

          Designers are notorious for being retarded. Using another Mac as the fileserver is most likely the best solution as anything else, short of netatalk on Linux, is going to loose the resource fork. With out that, the OS doesn't know what to do with the file because the idiot user is too stupid to name the file with file extensions.

          I really wish Apple would move away from a forked filesystem.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by IANAAC (692242)

            Designers are notorious for being retarded.

            I wouldn't call them retarded, just focused elsewhere. Hell, the same could be said about pretty much any non-IT worker or home user using any operating system.

            Unless it's their job to know better, most people won't.

      • Re:Explain (Score:5, Informative)

        by mikael_j (106439) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:41PM (#31363174)

        Well, when it comes to people working with graphics they often use local storage as their primary "work storage" because it's faster (and when you're working with lots of large files this becomes critical if you want to retain your sanity) and then they just use the server for saving backups at the end of the day and for final production work. So a lot of times the actual work copy is always stored on the local workstation, this is especially true when dealing with video/animation as you can easily end up with insane amounts of data, if you're working on uncompressed 1080p video rendered as independent targa images (so you can easily re-render specific short runs of frames, very common when working with software like Maya and 3dsmax) you may be looking at roughly 7 GiB of data for 30 seconds of video (8 bit color with alpha and 30 fps), not the kind of thing you want to be pushing back and forth across the network all the time (even if you're just copying the data that's changed it ends up being pretty heavy).

        tl;dr: People who work with CGI have datasets and a workflow that don't work well with using servers for data storage other than as an easy way to backup data.

        /Mikael

    • I would wonder whether the designer has considered simply talking to the boss and explaining the impact in terms of dollars and hour?. If his boss does not try to correct his sons behaviour, then I would consider the throttling approach and then what other job opportunities there are. If this continual behaviour results in you wanting to leave the company, then you shouldn't really be worried about being getting fired for bringing the issue up with your boss.

  • by pete-classic (75983) <hutnick@gmail.com> on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:18PM (#31362744) Homepage Journal

    Store all the files on the offendor's computer. Let the other designers work off of his computer. Done!

    But seriously, why should anyone be able to access anyone else's files? Secure everyone's computer. You should put shared files on a shared file server [apple.com].

    And why not use revision control?

    -Peter

    • And why not use revision control?

      Revision control on 1920x1080(resolution)x4(colors)x30(fps) bytes per second of video? If you do have a good binary revision control, please let me know.

  • These aren't suggestions for your question, but rather for your situation. (I'm betting you're going to get a lot of these; so I apologize.) 1) When the designer notices the HD slowdown, why doesn't he just go offline for a while? After doing that 5 or 15 times maybe that clown will get the idea. 2) Can the designers make the shared files read-only?
  • File Permissions (Score:3, Informative)

    by DownWithTheMan (797237) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:19PM (#31362780)
    Why not just set the file permissions to not allow write access - then said director will be forced to work on and save files locally..
  • ipfw (Score:5, Informative)

    by thittesd0375 (1111917) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:20PM (#31362792)
    You can configure a firewall rate limiting statement based on source ip address using ipfw. Then just have an applescript that toggles this than can be run as soon as you notice the computer getting slow.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Culture20 (968837)

      You can configure a firewall rate limiting statement based on source ip address using ipfw. Then just have an applescript that toggles this than can be run as soon as you notice the computer getting slow.

      For bonus points, use fail2ban or similar to detect the slowness from some log or script, and have it apply the ipfw statement for 10 minute intervals.

  • IPFW should work (Score:5, Informative)

    by AngusH (611073) <Angus@malcolmhar d i e . c om> on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:21PM (#31362800)
    Try using the advice in this tip: http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20080119112509736 [macosxhints.com] which demonstrates bandwidth throttling by port number
    but add a rule that limits by ip address as well as port number
    see http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man8/ipfw.8.html [apple.com] for details of the ipfw rules
    I haven't tried this combination myself but I can't see why it wouldn't work.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by AngusH (611073)
      Posted too soon :-(
      It appears IPFW may not be able to filter AFP (file sharing) after all. Worth a try possibly, but may not work.
  • by BitZtream (692029) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:21PM (#31362806)

    His mac grinds to a halt due to samba? Lower the process priority of samba on the mac serving the files.

    But the better question is, if these are shared files that he's working on, why aren't they on a central server thats made to serve files. Why are they on individual machines anyway? If your network is fast enough that it can make the server mac get loaded down with disk IO than its certainly fast enough to serve the files from a central share for both users anyway.

    The solution is to throttle the 'workstations' file server by turning it off and moving the files to a proper server.

    The hack'd solution is to realize that you're talking about a mac serving files ... which means samba ... which has all the power you need to limit the user in question to a sane rate.

    man smb.conf and be prepared for lots of reading.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jo_ham (604554)

      Why is it necessarily samba? If it's an all-Mac office, it could be AFP.

    • by Andy Dodd (701) <atd7@@@cornell...edu> on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:36PM (#31363074) Homepage

      Unfortunately, when you're dealing with disk I/O, you can have processes that use little CPU but severely degrade disk performance by beating on the disk.

      Even if it's at low priority, any seeks at all to a part of the drive that normally wouldn't be accessed will hurt performance.

      It's not a case of "90% of the disk throughput for app A and 10% for B" - the moment you introduce B, the total performance drops significantly due to seeking coming into play.

    • by BitZtream (692029)

      Self replies are bad, yada yada ...

      The more I read the original post the more I think that slashdot has turned into a generic 'ask about your computer problems' forum than news for nerds.

      This question appears to be from someone with no administration experience at all, nor does it appear that even the slightest effort has been put into finding a solution to the problem. Just for reference, telling us that you googled without actually doing it doesn't count as making an effort.

      Its unacceptable that you don'

  • Wait, What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by moosesocks (264553) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:22PM (#31362822) Homepage

    Somehow, I find it surprising that you're managing to saturate a modern hard drive via a single network connection. Are you running extremely slow PCs on a ridiculously fast network? The workflow that you describe sounds pretty normal for a design studio.

    • Re:Wait, What? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Big Boss (7354) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:41PM (#31363172)

      Most current Macs, even a few versions back, are quite quick machines dragging an anchor around in the form of a 5400RPM laptop hard drive. With multi-user access, seek times add up fast. Upgrading my Mac Mini to a mid-level SSD made it feel 10x faster. Now it's the stupid SATA1 interface slowing things down. Not much I can do about that.

      Upgrading the machine to a "modern hard drive" would help a lot. Even in laptop form factor, 7200RPM is easy to come by. SSD is ideal, but design places tend to use big files, so an SSD might be too small.

      Or, as suggested by every other reply, put up a real file server. A few mirrors stripped into a single big drive should give excellent performance.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by moosesocks (264553)

        I put a 7200 RPM hard drive in my mini, and definitely appreciated the speed boost, so I can definitely see where you're coming from. (And unlike the SSD, I ended up increasing my internal storage capacity, and didn't go broke in the process)

        Of course, my own personal pet peeve with the Mini is its absurdly maximum memory capacity -- 2gb on early Intel models, 4gb on more recent models. This is barely acceptable for a laptop, let alone a (tiny) desktop.

  • Install Samba from something like Darwinports or Fink, and then assign the samba process a max of 0.001% cpu time.

    The other option is to share the images folder off a secondary eithernet card (how??), and connect the secondary eithernet card to the router using 100' of phone cable crimped into RJ-45 connectors for maximum latency.

    If you want to increase his latency even more, connect that phone cable-come-eithernet cable to a dumb 10mb (not 10/100, but ten mbps) hub, add two other computers

  • by gbrandt (113294) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:28PM (#31362936)

    OS X uses ipfw as its firewall. Look up 'ipfw throttling' in google. If you don't want to edit ipfw files by hand, hunt out WaterRoof as well.

  • Version control software. Figure out how to use it and install it. When the files stop being on the designers machines, the owners son will get them where he is supposed to, the version control server.

  • The Jewish form of the Golden Rule reads, "Don't do unto others what you wouldn't like them to do unto you." When he starts messing with somebody else's hard disk, open up a file on his box, make a trivial change and save it. Undo the change and save again. Lather, rinse, repeat until he complains about how his box is grinding to a halt. Explain to him that this is exactly what he's doing to others, and that he might want to reconsider his attitude.

    Warning: don't do this unless you're willing to go jo

  • After trying to convert my linux v4 nat firewall with bucket traffic shaping, I wanted to see how readily I could convert it to os x. I realized, after about 50% success, that if it's not part of the GUI, apple is basically not endorsing it. This was on their server version, mind you. I haven't tried anything with the client, which was less feature complete but more stable.

    Anyways, there's plenty of other ways of solving it. And I tried it 9 or 10 months ago, so if someone can prove me wrong then they s

  • Throttle the port. (Score:5, Informative)

    by googlesmith123 (1546733) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:29PM (#31362964)
    You have to throttle the port the file sharing is running on. Probably 548 or/and 427. To throttle these ports you have to go into terminal and type this:

    sudo ipfw pipe 1 config bw 15KByte/s
    sudo ipfw add 1 pipe 1 src-port 548

    To remove the throttling just type:
    sudo ipfw delete 1

    Source: http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20080119112509736 [macosxhints.com]
    http://homepage.mac.com/car1son/static_port_fwd_firewall.html
  • Be assertive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuoteMstr (55051) <dan.colascione@gmail.com> on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:33PM (#31363026)

    This twit isn't your problem. Throttling him on your own initiative is both passive-aggressive and might overstep what the owner expects, which could land you in hot water. Don't do that. Here's what you do instead. Go to the owner's office and say the following:

    I've been receiving complaints from some of the design staff about their computers slowing down and interfering with their work. The cause of the problem is the Production Director accessing files on designers' computers instead of copying them to his own. The hard drives on designer computers are not designed to accommodate two users accessing the files at once.

    These slowdowns will persist unless we take action to correct the problem. If these remote accesses continue, we will need to increase the capacity of each designer's workstation at a cost of $A per machine for a total of $B. Another option would be to limit these remote accesses by implementing an automatic throttling system. That will take C hours of my time [optionally: at cost $D]." The last, which I recommend, is to create a new workflow for the Production Manager that ensures that designer computers are not overloaded.

    What is your decision?

    • Re:Be assertive (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ccandreva (409807) <chris@westnet.com> on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:43PM (#31363220) Homepage

      I actually did a variation on this years ago (1988 or so) in a company running Novell. One of the servers was also acting as a router (it had two network cards and connected two 10base-2 segments). Every time someone did a database update, I got kicked off the network for an hour.

      No one listened to me that this was a problem, so I just brought a book to the office, and when this happened, put my feet up on the desk and read.

      It was only a few days of this before the owner of the company 'caught' me and goes nuts. I explained calmly the situation, that I couldn't work when an update was going on, and had been told there was no money to upgrade the server.

      A new server was ordered that afternoon.

    • Re:Be assertive (Score:5, Insightful)

      by natehoy (1608657) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @06:32PM (#31363836) Journal

      I like it. A lot. One small refinement. If you were worried about familial doucebaggery, you might even remove the specific job title of the person doing it, and fill out the explanation a tad.

      "The cause of the problem is the Production Director accessing files on designers' computers instead of copying them to his own. The hard drives on designer computers are not designed to accommodate two users accessing the files at once."

      becomes

      "This problem occurs when two people need data at the same time on a specific designer workstation. One user is working at the workstation, and another will need to change a file that is located there, so the second user makes the changes remotely. The workstations simply aren't set up to handle that kind of usage, and it slows the workstation down considerably. We could upgrade the workstations at a cost of $X per station. We could also add a central file server where we can all share common project work, but that will cost $X. There is also a free way to reduce the impact of this - simply asking everyone to make local copies of everything they are working on."

      Then you haven't blamed the kid for anything, merely pointed out that a practice that occurs within the office is having an impact, and that impact can be mitigated. No one, especially Dad, needs to know that Junior is the only one doing it, so you have given Junior a way to mend his ways without confrontation.

  • Access his files and grind his computer to a halt.

  • Lag Switch (Score:3, Funny)

    by KevMar (471257) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:36PM (#31363088) Homepage Journal

    Give a few people lag switches.

    http://images.google.com/images?q=lag+switch [google.com]

    it is a button on a network cord that when you press it the cord stops working. If he is working on another machine and it keeps giving him network errors, he will figure out another way.

  • wrong*2==right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gandhi_2 (1108023) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:40PM (#31363152) Homepage

    plant some weed in his desk and call the cops anon.

  • be nice (Score:3, Informative)

    by MrKaos (858439) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:43PM (#31363210) Journal
    Can't you just change the nice value of the process running the file server software and alter it's CPU priority, should work on MAC.

    Check the nice manual page [manpagez.com]

    Increment it slowly and he won't know whats going on (mu-ha ha)

  • In pebkac or id10t situations, throttling the user is often the best option. He's just going to complain to daddy that you're preventing him from doing work if you retard his remote file access.
  • No-win situation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by orev (71566) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:51PM (#31363330) Homepage
    If the user already enjoys immunity due to nepotism, what do you think the boss will do to you if he finds out you are specifically targeting his favorite employee? You can't win here, not matter what you do.
  • by DigitalGodBoy (142596) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @08:03PM (#31365054) Homepage
    This should help: sudo nano -w /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.AppleFileServer.plist Add in the following lines: LowPriorityIO This will cause the AFP server on the file share to have only spare access to the disk.

When in doubt, mumble; when in trouble, delegate; when in charge, ponder. -- James H. Boren

Working...