I agree with Dave.....if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Also, if you change volumes down the road, you only have only place to make the change, not the multiple MDISKS.
--- David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have a situation where multiple z/OS guests need > to share > > DASD. In the past I have used a userid as a disk > holder with > > MDISKs using DEVNO and MWV. > > The guests would then LINK to the MDISKs using MW. > It has > > been suggested that I eliminate the disk holder > userid and > > use MDISK statements only. Each guest would then > have an > > MDISK for the same address. For example, MDISK > D000 3390 > > DEVNO D000 MWV > > > > Does anyone know if there is any advantage or > disadvantage to > > one way over the other? > > Both work, but the disadvantage of the multiple > MDISK definition method > is that you have to keep multiple entries in > multiple places absolutely > in sync 100% of the time. If one is off-by-one or > you forget to update > one, Bad Things Ensue, and z/OS will get mucho > cranky. > > The MDISKs will also show up as overlaps in your > directory management > tooling, which is OK if you understand why, but > ignoring error messages > is a bad habit, and you might miss an important one > later if you get > accustomed to ignoring errors on mapping. > > You've got the best (IMHO) method in place now. > Don't change it. You > don't need the hassle, nor does the next person to > come along. > > -- db > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
