On Wednesday, 08/08/2007 at 08:37 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > IIRC, Alan (or was it Chuckie<g>) mentioned quite a while ago that more and > more IBM VM products were going to start using SFS as their default install > disks. I am neither pro nor con with regards to using SFS. Everything has > it's place. We use SFS quite a bit so I don't have to many problems with it. > It has made my life easier from a management point of view. Users always want > more disk space. I'm busy enough as it is without having to stop what I'm > doing, to enlarge a minidisk. But being an old VM'er, I'd still prefer > products to be installed on mdisks. IMO, SFS adds an extra layer of complexity > when doing Disaster Recovery testing.
It's not that *products* will use SFS, but z/VM itself, centered on BFS. The latest example is the LDAP server: it relies on BFS. The end-user utilities (ldapadd, etc.), however, only require BFS when using SSL. The alternative to using BFS (in either case) is to not have the function at all. The only financially-viable model to bring an IBM LDAP server to CMS was to run the z/OS LDAP server in a "cradle", as we do with the binder/loader and the C/C++ compiler. In the case of the end-user utilities, it turned out that we could tweak the cradle to elminate their use of BFS just for a message repository. If folks have issues about SFS, then you need to get them on the table. I don't recall anyone at SHARE, WAVV, or the zExpo bending my ear on this subject. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
