Romney, That's kind of hard to answer. As I mentioned in my original note, I don't have a really good feel for how likely the lack of this is to cause a problem, just a vague feeling that this isn't quite right.
I can foresee a time when sites are dynamically moving DASD around a lot more than they might today, and someone's going to wind up with the same volume mounted r/w on two different guests or LPARs. I know there are lots of other ways to guard against this happening, but... I guess it will become an important requirement the first time someone loses an important database. :( I guess I would say it is of medium importance for right now, at least to me. Mark Post -----Original Message----- From: Romney White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 5:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: /proc/dasd/devices Rob: So doesn't the question become whether the requirement is important enough to warrant a redesign? How important is this requirement, Mark? Romney On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:53:36 +0200 Rob van der Heij said: >At 18:49 24-09-02, Post, Mark K wrote: > >>I would like to see a "remove device" command that would go one step further >>and require another "add device" before the volume is usable again. I'm not >>sure why, it just seems "right" to me. Perhaps a little bit of professional >>paranoia. > >With the normal risks that one runs as a messenger... > >The designer of the code feels that this would disturb the mapping of >virtual address to minor number and make it unpredictable. I would >immediately agree that it could have been designed differently, but >it was not. >While it does most of the job for me, the dynamic interface is >dangerous if you use it too casual. > >Rob
