>>> On 2/12/2013 at 06:38 PM, Leland Lucius <[email protected]> wrote: > As a followup to a posting over on the IBM/VM mailing list about using > dasd_configure to bring a device online and create the necessary udev > rules, I wanted to contribute this as I think having a separate rule file > for every disk device attached to my guests is just wrong.
I would disagree with the "wrong" bit. There are a number of reasons why you might want to do this. Keeping things fairly simple and therefore easier to understand is one of them. Trying to handle all the various attributes for all DASD from one file is not easy. Things like readonly, use_diag, eer_enabled, and so on. -snip- > All of our Linux disks are defined at address 1000 or greater. Anything > below that address is a CMS disk and is detached in the guests PROFILE > EXEC. So, Linux only sees the disks that we want him to see and everything > above 1000 SHOULD be seen without having to have another file to worry > whether it's there or not. That's fine in a well-controlled z/VM environment. I would definitely _not_ recommend this for anyone running any Linux in an LPAR. Too much potential for damage, and it will certainly slow down the boot process if all devices are visible to all LPARs as most sites have things defined these days. -snip- > Yes, dasd_configure will still create additional rules files, but it won't > hurt. As will YaST, since it calls dasd_configure under the covers. So don't be surprised if they show up again even if don't use dasd_configure directly. Mark Post ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information on Linux on System z, visit http://wiki.linuxvm.org/
