I'm not sure it's so uncommon, but yes. (and your line looks suspiciously like mine did) I've had other situations where it would have been nice to do maintenance on a single storage pool. Maybe this is a "scale" issue when you get too large and should maybe have multiple file systems instead? Single name space is nice for users though. Plus I was curious what others had done in similar situations.
I guess I could do what IBM does and just write the stupid script, name it "ts-something" and put a happy wrapper up front with a mm-something name. ;) Just FYI: 'suspend' does NOT stop I/O. Only stops new block creation,so 'stop' was what I did. >From the man page: "...Existing data on a suspended disk may still be read or >updated." Ed Wahl OSC ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Alex Chekholko [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 4:26 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Disabling individual Storage Pools by themselves? mmlsdisk fs | grep pool | awk '{print $1} | tr '\n' ';'| xargs mmchdisk suspend # seems pretty simple to me Then I guess you also have to modify your policy rules which relate to that pool. You're asking for a convenience wrapper script for a super-uncommon situation? On 06/18/2015 09:02 AM, Zachary Giles wrote: > I could "turn down" an entire Storage Pool that did not have metadata for > other pools on it, in a simpler manner. -- Alex Chekholko [email protected] _______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at gpfsug.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss _______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at gpfsug.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
