Throttle Shared Users With OS X — Is It Possible?

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."

Comments

the correct solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Disable file shares on workstations. Use a file server.

Re:the correct solution

[Captain Splendid]

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.

Re:the correct solution

[nine-times]

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?

Re:the correct solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because an IT Admin that can't find the problem in the technology is TOTALLY demonstrating why he continues to be worth his salary.

NEVER PLAY DUMB. EVER. Unless you want your boss to think you are dumb.

Let me repeat: NEVER PLAY DUMB. Especially in an area that within which it is your responsibility to be knowledgeable.

DO be proactive and professional. Do your cost benefit analysis and present it. A file server has enough advantages here that it will easily be worth the money. If cost/benefit doesn't justify it and it's instead a personal gripe, get over it and move on.

Boss is a tightwad that won't spend the cash when it's of obvious benefit (and will make him more in the long run?) You need a new boss who has a more business-like mind. Until then, you can count on not seeing further raises once he feels like you get "enough".

Re:the correct solution

[nine-times]

Yeah, well... that's why I asked the question. However, if the boss isn't around too often and his son is somewhat manageable and the economy is falling apart and you have an otherwise good, high-paying job, you might not want to quit immediately.

If the boss isn't intelligent enough I wouldn't expect him or her to remain in business long

Meh. You really buy into the idea that success is determined by ability and virtue, or what? Like bad businesses never make money? If a company manages to stay afloat, it means the owner was smart and mature and professional?

Doesn't really work that way. You just need to be entrenched, be less incompetent than your direct competition, or have better connections than your competition. Sometimes it's better sales and marketing, worse product. Sometimes your boss is good at some things that really matter, but still an unprofessional irrational bastard. And sometimes your boss isn't so bad when you add it all up, but he's still not emotionally detached enough to stay rational when he thinks his son is being insulted.

Be assertive

[QuoteMstr]

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

[natehoy]

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.

Re:Sounds like info is missing, but here goes

[Andy Dodd]

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.

wrong*2==right

[gandhi_2]

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

Re:file server?

[martinX]

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.