Koen Verbeeck (5/13/2011)
Nils Gustav Stråbø (5/13/2011)
"-Extents can be owned by only one object"False, since they can be a mixed extent (or even an extent that has not been allocated). Perhaps it's your use of the word "only" that confuses me, but what I read is "an extent must be owned by one, and only one, object."
The question uses the word can, not must. If an extent can be owned by multiple objects, it can certainly be owned by one object.
Anyway, nice question, but only one point?
I'm with Nils on this. The sentence can be interpreted as "it is only possible for an extent to be owned by one object" or as "it is possible for an extent to be owned by only one object". I went for the former and so got it wrong. But, as has been pointed out, it's the discussion and what you learn that's important, not the points.
John