Obviously it is not big deal. Yes, automount or not-automount is not the
question (Hamlet). :-)
It is just my opinion that automount require some setup and provide no
value. And of course this is discussion forum, so I expect other
opinions or arguments. This is kind of learning opportunity, which I
appreciate.
Regarding personal files - yes, it is not big deal, even for dozens of
almost-empty filesystems multiplied by nn cylinders. Yes, DASD is quite
cheap nowadays and we have a lot of.
However when I take a time to consider minor deals, I see some
disadvantages of automount and no advantages. With one exception: there
are cases when a user wants his filesystem to be migrated. Migrated from
system A to system B, etc. Important: it is not a migration of all the
users. In that case it would be easier or quicker (for whom?) to use
ADRDSSU dump/restore instead of pax.
Note, I still consider automount and separate filesystems for every home
dir vs common filesystem for home directories.
Regards
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
W dniu 07.08.2023 o 16:00, Steve Smith pisze:
Every user on our system has dozens of "personal" files, ISPF-related,
DDIR, etc. One more is no big deal. And if a user blows up their home
filesystem, it's a minor issue (1 user), not a critical one (all users
affected). I also do not want to manage space usage in the filesystems.
I appreciate that you haven't continued the conflation of "automount" with
what we're really talking about, which is individual home filesystems.
Different systems have different requirements. If you think that a common
user home filesystem is best for yours, fine. Nothing I've seen here has
changed my view that automounted (with auto-create) individual filesystems
is the best for us.
sas
On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 9:40 AM Radoslaw Skorupka <
[email protected]> wrote:
Objection: I do not compare thousands of automounted filesystems to same
thousands of permanently mounted same filesystems.
Absolutely the opposite, I mean INSTEAD of thousands (I'd say dozens)
automounted filesystems I'd like to have ONE or few permanently mounted
filesystems. Caution: common filesystem does not mean common/shared home
directory. In the filesystem I still can have thousands (dozens?) of
separate user directiories. Just another mountpoint above the home dir.
So, the mount time at the IPL will not be a problem. The same for mount
table and parmlib member.
Regarding mount table - I would bet it will be smaller. One (common)
filesystem vs (few) dozens filesystems belonging to active users.
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
