Slashdot Mirror


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."

6 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. the correct solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Disable file shares on workstations. Use a file server.

    1. Re:the correct solution by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:the correct solution by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    3. Re:the correct solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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".

  2. Be assertive by QuoteMstr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  3. wrong*2==right by gandhi_2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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