I generally use M, since if I can¹t get write access, I don¹t really need it at all at the moment.
The whole issue isn¹t that great here, as we have only four actual users that would ever attempt to get write access to the Linux guest 191 shared disk, and two of us sit within shouting distance (much to our other neighbor¹s regret). Integrity for the disk is handled by saying loudly ³You using the Linux 191 disk?² and waiting for a response. The point was that the actual Linux guests certainly never need write access to their own 191 minidisk, and their read-only usage is only for a few seconds of time, and hopefully very, very seldom. This is a very safe candidate for read-only sharing among all the guests, freeing you to think about other things when you¹re creating a new Linux image. You don¹t have to add allocating and populating a 191 disk to the list of tasks in building a new image. You can take care of it in a directory profile included in each new directory entry and have it completely covered. And, you know that all the guests are always using exactly the same thing, where with the individual 191 minidisks, you can¹t ever be really sure. Someone might have changed something in the profile for one of them, and you¹ll be stuck later trying to figure out why it doesn¹t work quite the same as all the others. This alone is a good reason for sharing a single 191 image throughout your guests. -- Robert P. Nix Mayo Foundation .~. RO-OE-5-55 200 First Street SW /V\ 507-284-0844 Rochester, MN 55905 /( )\ ----- ^^-^^ "In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different." On 10/28/08 2:45 PM, "Scott Rohling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well - technically true if MW is used on the LINK instead of MR -- that's such > a big no no in general I guess I assume people won't do it -- but good point. > > Scott Rohling > >> >>> > Until you have two users, access the shared disk in >>> > R/W mode, to update it. No protection. SFS will always protect you. >> > >
