> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 08:29:07 AM PDT, Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
> Regarding automount feature: IMHO it is less than useless.
While there is truth to what you say about automount, there are uses where
people find it useful because it provides features that some customers need.
Most notably, everything in a filesystem is randomly placed within that
filesystem without any controls. Ask a z/OS storage admin if he could tolerate
the same situation where all z/OS datasets are placed randomly (no SMS nor disk
esoterics).
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 08:29:07 AM PDT, Radoslaw Skorupka
<[email protected]> wrote:
Regarding automount feature: IMHO it is less than useless.
- It require some effort to establish and manage (including storage adm.)
- It wastes space, because even smallest empty home directory occupies
first extent of the ZFS/HFS.
- Space (extents) taken by some large files and then deleted is still
occupied by the user.
- Tools like find may omit currently unmounted directories, sometimes
making the search ineffective.
- I vaguely remember the z/OS Unix does not like excessive filesystems
being mounted.
- Automount/demount consume some resources.
- Last, but not least: I observed the are more active TSO users than USS
users. The same apply to CICS, etc. Sometimes one may enter TSO OMVS
just out of curiosity. In case of automount yet another filesystem is
created.
From the other hand one can create common filesystems for all home
directories.
When needed it can be divided among multiple filesystems.
Users with large needs may have dedicated filesystems.
Empty user directory does not consume resources. Even "touched".
My €0.02
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
W dniu 31.07.2023 o 17:08, Paul Gilmartin pisze:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:43:38 -0500, Grant Taylor wrote:
>
>> On 7/31/23 8:06 AM, Rick Troth wrote:
>>> per-user automount does not necessarily waste space
>> IMHO automount is completely independent of shared / separate per user
>> disk space.
>>
>>> The thing which is mounted might be a sub-directory of a shared space.
>> Agreed.
>>
> Wasn't true in the Bad Old Days, when the only thing that could be mounted
> was an entire HFS content (or an NFS [sub]directory.)
>
> And I was dismayed that the MVS mount maps needed to differ between
> MVS NFS server and client. Solaris was smarter: mount on the server
> would look at the map, say, "Oh! That's me!" and mount the directory as local.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
