Every user on our system has dozens of "personal" files, ISPF-related, DDIR, etc. One more is no big deal. And if a user blows up their home filesystem, it's a minor issue (1 user), not a critical one (all users affected). I also do not want to manage space usage in the filesystems.
I appreciate that you haven't continued the conflation of "automount" with what we're really talking about, which is individual home filesystems. Different systems have different requirements. If you think that a common user home filesystem is best for yours, fine. Nothing I've seen here has changed my view that automounted (with auto-create) individual filesystems is the best for us. sas On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 9:40 AM Radoslaw Skorupka < 00000471ebeac275-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > Objection: I do not compare thousands of automounted filesystems to same > thousands of permanently mounted same filesystems. > Absolutely the opposite, I mean INSTEAD of thousands (I'd say dozens) > automounted filesystems I'd like to have ONE or few permanently mounted > filesystems. Caution: common filesystem does not mean common/shared home > directory. In the filesystem I still can have thousands (dozens?) of > separate user directiories. Just another mountpoint above the home dir. > > So, the mount time at the IPL will not be a problem. The same for mount > table and parmlib member. > Regarding mount table - I would bet it will be smaller. One (common) > filesystem vs (few) dozens filesystems belonging to active users. > > > > -- > Radoslaw Skorupka > Lodz, Poland > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
