While Karl points out some of the issues with user volume sets, I have
seen one major advantage with them.  If you lose a disk drive on a user
volume set, only the applications with data (or programs) on that set
are down.  Additionally, you can mirror the user volume sets, but you
cannot mirror the SVS.  Finally, if you lose a drive on the SVS, the
smaller your SVS in size, the faster it is to recover.
 
So, the *one* major advantage (I can't count) is that user volume sets
give you a much better chance for keeping your system up.
 
lb
 
On 27 Aug 96 at 12:25, karl knapp wrote:
 
>      They are a pain when you have software from a vendor that assumes all
>      components of the package are on the system volume set.  Some install
>      jobs cant handle multiple volume sets.  An upgrade release for a
>      package may require rebuilding groups or creating a new group.  This
>      becomes a nightmare for upgrades.  I encountered this problem and
>      decided the better option was not implementing multiple volume sets.
>      (hind sight is always 20-20)
>
>      I no there are also advantages to multiple volume sets.  One is not
>      filling up the system volume with garbage from user applications. My
>      memory is failing but I think this causes a system crash if it is
>      ldev-1.  Someone please correct me if I am wrong
>
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
> Subject: Private Volume Sets
> Author:  Backuj <[log in to unmask]> at Internet-Gateway
> Date:    8/27/96 11:52 AM
>
>
>      We are about to get some additional disk drives and we're
> contemplating
> the idea of implementing private volume sets.  I would like to get as
> much
> feed back
> as possible about the pros and cons of doing this, as apposed to
> having them
> all part
> of the system volume set.
>
> Thanx,
>     Jon Backus
>     AB&C Group
>
>