Lamar,

See:

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q205/5/24.ASP

IMO, its a bad idea to require the use of symlinks in order to be able to put different tablespaces on different drives. For a discussion on how DB2 supports tablespaces see my message entitled:
   "tablespace managed by system vs managed by database"

I think one of the reasons one needs a fairly complex syntax for creating table spaces is that different devices have different hardware characteristics and one might want to tell the RDBMS to treat them differently for that 
reason. You can see how DB2 allows you to do that if you read that message I posted about it. 

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:48:19 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:

>Does Win32 do symlinks these days?  I know Win32 does envvars, and Win32
>is currently a supported platform.



Lamar,

See:

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q205/5/24.ASP

IMO, its a bad idea to require the use of symlinks in order to be able to put different tablespaces on different drives. For a discussion on how DB2 supports tablespaces see my message entitled:
   "tablespace managed by system vs managed by database"

I think one of the reasons one needs a fairly complex syntax for creating table spaces is that different devices have different hardware characteristics and one might want to tell the RDBMS to treat them differently for that reason. You can see how DB2 allows you to do that if you read that message I posted about it. 

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:48:19 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:

>Does Win32 do symlinks these days?  I know Win32 does envvars, and Win32
>is currently a supported platform.
Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:52:56 -0700
"Randall Parker" <randall@nls.net>
Re: Big 7.1 open items