Regarding automount feature: IMHO it is less than useless.
- It require some effort to establish and manage (including storage adm.)
- It wastes space, because even smallest empty home directory occupies
first extent of the ZFS/HFS.
- Space (extents) taken by some large files and then deleted is still
occupied by the user.
- Tools like find may omit currently unmounted directories, sometimes
making the search ineffective.
- I vaguely remember the z/OS Unix does not like excessive filesystems
being mounted.
- Automount/demount consume some resources.
- Last, but not least: I observed the are more active TSO users than USS
users. The same apply to CICS, etc. Sometimes one may enter TSO OMVS
just out of curiosity. In case of automount yet another filesystem is
created.
From the other hand one can create common filesystems for all home
directories.
When needed it can be divided among multiple filesystems.
Users with large needs may have dedicated filesystems.
Empty user directory does not consume resources. Even "touched".
My €0.02
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
W dniu 31.07.2023 o 17:08, Paul Gilmartin pisze:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:43:38 -0500, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 7/31/23 8:06 AM, Rick Troth wrote:
per-user automount does not necessarily waste space
IMHO automount is completely independent of shared / separate per user
disk space.
The thing which is mounted might be a sub-directory of a shared space.
Agreed.
Wasn't true in the Bad Old Days, when the only thing that could be mounted
was an entire HFS content (or an NFS [sub]directory.)
And I was dismayed that the MVS mount maps needed to differ between
MVS NFS server and client. Solaris was smarter: mount on the server
would look at the map, say, "Oh! That's me!" and mount the directory as local.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
