On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:01:22 -0500, Brian Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark (and others!)
>
>Thanks very much - just what I was hoping to hear - real user experiences.
>TFS for /dev, here we come!
>
You're welcome. BTW, I also use TFS for /var. You can also use it
for /tmp (one of our l
Mark (and others!)
Thanks very much - just what I was hoping to hear - real user experiences.
TFS for /dev, here we come!
Brian
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:02:13 -0500, Mark Zelden wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:48:49 -0500, Brian Peterson wrote:
>
>>Looking for advice
>>
>>On z/OS 1.7, should
If you run TFS in its own address space you can make it as large as you
need and it won't take any storage away from the kernel address space
Mark Jacobs
Time Customer Service Inc.
You've been able to use a TFS for /dev since OS/390 2.8. I have
been doing that at many different shops. No cons
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:48:49 -0500, Brian Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Looking for advice
>
>On z/OS 1.7, should the /dev file system be defined as a TFS (temporary
>file system)? The manuals seem to indicate that all character special
>files in /dev get created at IPL time anyway, so
Skip Robinson wrote:
Ours is an ordinary HFS created just for /dev . On our development system,
all the objects (?) in /dev are of type 'character' except for this one:
File 666 2006-06-20 11:42 27129 null
It appears to be a log of some kind. Note that is shows today's date.
Conte
>Ours is an ordinary HFS created just for /dev . On our
>development system, all the objects (?) in /dev are of
>type 'character' except for this one:
>
>File 666 2006-06-20 11:42 27129 null
>
>It appears to be a log of some kind. Note that is shows
>today's date.
That sure looks w
What prompted this thought/question was...
This happened a few weeks ago One of my LPARs had the wrong permissions
set for /dev/null, and had been that way who knows how long. Just kind of
feel foolish when a user comes to me to complain that he's getting a
security violation trying to write
As you say, there should be no need to keep it over IPLs. We've had it a TFS
since 1.4 with no problems and no need to futz with a physical filesystem.
Bob
Brian Peterson wrote:
Looking for advice
On z/OS 1.7, should the /dev file system be defined as a TFS (temporary
file system)? The
> Looking for advice
>
> On z/OS 1.7, should the /dev file system be defined as a TFS (temporary
> file system)? The manuals seem to indicate that all character special
> files in /dev get created at IPL time anyway, so why not have this file
> system be a TFS?
My immediate reaction was "why
ED]>
Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
06/20/2006 04:48 PM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List
To
IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
cc
Subject
Should the /dev file system be a TFS?
Looking for advice
On z/OS 1.7, should the /dev file system be defined as a TFS (temporary
file syste
Looking for advice
On z/OS 1.7, should the /dev file system be defined as a TFS (temporary
file system)? The manuals seem to indicate that all character special
files in /dev get created at IPL time anyway, so why not have this file
system be a TFS?
Pros? Cons?
Thanks, Brian
--
11 matches
Mail list logo
