On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 08:50:39 +1000, Andrew Rowley wrote: > >An automounted filesystem per user has always been a terrible idea. I >think it was given as an example of how you could use automount and >somehow morphed into a recommendation. (Other OSes can e.g. use >automount to mount a remote user filesystem via NFS). > >Reasons it's a bad idea: > >1) Freespace in the filesystem is not shared between users. This means >that you need much more space than if there was one pool of freespace >shared between all. > It mimics the MVS tradition of overallocating datasets. Aren't modern filesystems virtual and dynamically extensible?
>2) It makes simple questions like e.g. "Which users have a >.ssh/authorized_keys file?" much harder to answer. > Hmmm... Use RACF to enumerate hone directories in OMVS segments. The "hard" then is just the performance cost of so many automounts. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
