Don, Did the person suggesting that you eliminate the "disk owner" userid give a reason why it was better and to justify the effort?
One possibility that it could be better with a "disk owner" userid is that by doing so, one can use an External Security Manager (ESM) such as VM:Secure or RACF/VM to limit the access to the disks from a single place. Regardless of which method you choose, you can (we do) include all the z/OS guest "common" directory statements and shared mdisks in one place using a directory profile, e.g. DIRECTORY ... ... PROFILE xxxxPROF ACCOUNT OVERHEAD 93S0 MACH ESA 64 IPL CMS PARM AUTOCR OPTION CFUSER OPTION COMSRV OPTION DEVINFO OPTION DEVMAINT *OPTION DIAG98 !! NOT FOR z/OS vm's - causes OSA and TCPIP errors !! OPTION MAINTCCW OPTION MAXCONN 65535 OPTION MAXVMCFI 2147483647 OPTION MIH OPTION NOMDCFS OPTION QUICKDSP OPTION RMCHINFO OPTION STGEXEMPT OPTION SVC76VM OPTION TODENABLE OPTION SVMSTAT *OPTION V=F *OPTION V=R *XCONFIG ACCESSLIST ALSIZE alecount *XCONFIG ADDRSPACE MAXNUMBER nnnnn TOTSIZE nnnnG SHARE|NOSHARE *XSTORE ALL|size LINK MAINT 190 190 RR LINK MAINT 19D 19D RR LINK MAINT 19E 19E RR SPECIAL 701 3270 SPECIAL 702 3270 ... * SPECIAL 0100 MSGPROC CF1 SPECIAL 0200 MSGPROC CF2 * LINK xxxxDASD 5500 5500 MW LINK xxxxDASD 5501 5501 MW LINK xxxxDASD 5502 5502 MW ... USER xxxxDASD NOLOG (as you can see, we have a "disk owner" ID, too) MDISK 5500 3390 DEVNO 5500 RV READ WRITE MULT MDISK 5501 3390 DEVNO 5501 RV READ WRITE MULT MDISK 5502 3390 DEVNO 5502 RV READ WRITE MULT ... USER xxx1 xxxxxxxx 4G 16E GB 64 * See above: PROFILE xxxxPROF for common xxxn statements INCLUDE xxxxPROF SHARE RELATIVE 250 ACCOUNT xxx1 wherever ... Using a directory profile keeps things in one place so that all the guests are changed at one time in one place - leaving fewer moving parts to keep in synch. Ultimately, it comes down on which way you want to skin the furry critter of your choice. Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. "Don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "VM/ESA and z/VM Discussions" <[email protected]> 01/31/2006 11:51 AM Please respond to "VM/ESA and z/VM Discussions" <[email protected]> To [email protected] cc Subject MDISK versus LINK 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? The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.
