Only if it were included in every directory entry, or at least the one in question. Having a global MAXSTORAGE would be better protection.
Regards, Richard Schuh > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Ron Schmiedge > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:20 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: VM lockup due to storage typo > > I've been trying to follow the discussion and wondering if > the directory control statement > > MAXSTORAGE > > would have provided some protection from the finger check problem? > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Alan Altmark > <alan_altm...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, 09/16/2009 at 04:44 EDT, Lee Stewart > > <lstewart.dsgr...@attglobal.net> wrote: > >> I guess as the one who got bit, I'd offer one easy suggestion... > >> > >> The finger check asked for 9728G (9.7+T), VM > unceremoniously chopped > >> it to 8T as the architecture limit. Why not have an option (not > >> enabled by > >> default) in the SYSTEM CONFIG file that says Max_Virt_Size. It > >> could take numbers (like the USER storage specification), > or OFF to > >> indicate no checking. And maybe something like RSS for > Real Storage > >> Size to say you can't logon with or define storage to more > than the > >> amount of Real Storage. > >> > >> And if you really wanted a full circle, then a directory > option that > >> said this one user could override that setting. > >> > >> That said I'm kind of swamped for the next two weeks, but > after that > >> if someone wants to coach me on writing a requirement, I will... > > > > For DIRMAINT, look at the DVHXRA/B/C exits to implement > whatever kind > > of policy limits you like. > > > > Alan Altmark > > z/VM Development > > IBM Endicott > > >
