> I suppose that I should have started this thread by stating right away that > we have and use > SAFESFS. Given it's price, ease of use, the complexity of SFS's native ACLs, > and the > reduction in backup times from hugely fewer authorizations, I can't > understand why anyone > using SFS would not have purchased and installed SAFESFS.
It is lovely, isn't it? I thought I remembered you had it, but worth reminding others of how nifty it is. It cures almost all the annoying bits about SFS. Now, if someone would teach SFS to do snapshot and copy-on-write so that one could do easy, consistent backups with it live... well, that's another project. > R: I did not seriously consider that. I figured that we have so few CMS > users now that > everyone could have their own 19E disk accessed without noticing all that > much resource > utilization. It might be true. But the Y-STAT might be mitigated by Kris' > DIRCONTROL/dataspace suggestion. These days, it probably doesn't matter much. Most people have comparatively so much real storage available that the old ways of saving every little scrap are probably more work than absolutely necessary. > But given that we'll keep the MAINT 019E disk current, we'll probably just > not place most > hidden files on SFS to begin with (except the VMSES PARTCAT Y1, HEWITT > PARTCAT Y1, and the > GENDIRT'ed files). I guess I would ask at this point why you want the SFS copy if you're going to maintain the minidisk anyway. Multi-system access, or just an excuse to clean out the cruft?
