immich-app/immich
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/immich-app/immich.git synced 2026-02-05 08:41:28 +03:00
Code Issues 26 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

[Web] Storage quota is higher than possible #2070

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-02-05 04:58:12 +03:00 by OVERLORD · 9 comments
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-05 04:58:12 +03:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @aviv926 on GitHub (Jan 27, 2024).

Currently, a storage quota can be set for the user that is higher than the system is capable of.

When a new storage quota is set and the quota exceeds the current drive size, show a warning message to the administrator.

Originally created by @aviv926 on GitHub (Jan 27, 2024). Currently, a storage quota can be set for the user that is higher than the system is capable of. When a new storage quota is set and the quota exceeds the current drive size, show a warning message to the administrator.
OVERLORD added the good first issue label 2026-02-05 04:58:12 +03:00
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-05 04:58:21 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mertalev commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2024):

The storage on the server can be changed at any time, so I'm not sure we should try to enforce a limit based on that. If you set a quota and remove a drive, should it now try to clamp the quota based on that? If yes, then the admin's quota isn't respected if a drive is re-added later. If not, then we're back to square 1 with a quota that's higher than what the storage allows.

@mertalev commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2024): The storage on the server can be changed at any time, so I'm not sure we should try to enforce a limit based on that. If you set a quota and remove a drive, should it now try to clamp the quota based on that? If yes, then the admin's quota isn't respected if a drive is re-added later. If not, then we're back to square 1 with a quota that's higher than what the storage allows.
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-05 04:58:27 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@aviv926 commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2024):

The storage on the server can be changed at any time, so I'm not sure we should try to enforce a limit based on that. If you set a quota and remove a drive, should it now try to clamp the quota based on that? If yes, then the admin's quota isn't respected if a drive is re-added later. If not, then we're back to square 1 with a quota that's higher than what the storage allows.

That's a good thought, I think that in general the system administrator should choose how much storage space there will be for the Immich only, from that he can divide/allocate/limit the amount between the users.

Another option would be to store the available storage space in the database, every time this space is added it could suggest to the system administrator to allocate new space to users.

@aviv926 commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2024): > The storage on the server can be changed at any time, so I'm not sure we should try to enforce a limit based on that. If you set a quota and remove a drive, should it now try to clamp the quota based on that? If yes, then the admin's quota isn't respected if a drive is re-added later. If not, then we're back to square 1 with a quota that's higher than what the storage allows. That's a good thought, I think that in general the system administrator should choose how much storage space there will be for the Immich only, from that he can divide/allocate/limit the amount between the users. Another option would be to store the available storage space in the database, every time this space is added it could suggest to the system administrator to allocate new space to users.
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-05 04:58:30 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mertalev commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2024):

Maybe we could validate the quota when it's set and from then on just display either the quota or the available storage + the amount currently used by the user, whichever is lower. So if the storage was decreased it would look normal, and if it was later increased it would still respect the original quota since the value in the DB never changed.

@mertalev commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2024): Maybe we could validate the quota when it's set and from then on just display either the quota or the available storage + the amount currently used by the user, whichever is lower. So if the storage was decreased it would look normal, and if it was later increased it would still respect the original quota since the value in the DB never changed.
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-05 04:58:39 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jrasm91 commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2024):

I think this is all a bit confusing, but it involves a hypothetical situation where the admin incorrectly sets a limit above the drive capacity, which is odd. I don't think we should make any server changes for this. I would say show a popup warning in this case, but that's probably the only thing I would change.

@jrasm91 commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2024): I think this is all a bit confusing, but it involves a hypothetical situation where the admin incorrectly sets a limit above the drive capacity, which is odd. I don't think we should make any server changes for this. I would say show a popup warning in this case, but that's probably the only thing I would change.
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-05 04:58:52 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@aviv926 commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2024):

I think the warning message would be helpful in this case.
Although Mart's method can be good too.

@aviv926 commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2024): I think the warning message would be helpful in this case. Although Mart's method can be good too.
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-05 04:58:54 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mertalev commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2024):

The pop-up idea seems like the simplest solution.

@mertalev commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2024): The pop-up idea seems like the simplest solution.
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-05 04:59:03 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jrasm91 commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2024):

I've updated the title/description to indicate the current status. Seems like an easy issue for a new contributor to work on.

@jrasm91 commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2024): I've updated the title/description to indicate the current status. Seems like an easy issue for a new contributor to work on.
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-05 04:59:07 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@aviv926 commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2024):

I've updated the title/description to indicate the current status. Seems like an easy issue for a new contributor to work on.

Absolutely, I just wasn't sure how you would want to approach it (I guess next time on Discord it will be faster to discuss it). Thanks for fixing the "problem"
I misread your comment, I'll take care of it.

@aviv926 commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2024): > I've updated the title/description to indicate the current status. Seems like an easy issue for a new contributor to work on. Absolutely, I just wasn't sure how you would want to approach it (I guess next time on Discord it will be faster to discuss it). ~Thanks for fixing the "problem"~ I misread your comment, I'll take care of it.
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-05 04:59:07 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@etnoy commented on GitHub (Feb 1, 2024):

Closed via #6737

@etnoy commented on GitHub (Feb 1, 2024): Closed via #6737
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
accessibility
changelog:enhancement
changelog:security
changelog:skip
changelog:translation
cli
date-time
documentation
external-library
format
good first issue
needs-answer
nice to have
sharing
tech-debt
📱mobile
🖥️web
🗄️server
🧠machine-learning
No Label good first issue
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
OVERLORD
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: immich-app/immich#2070
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?