Ok, I checked the replication status with mmlsfs the output is: -r=1, -m=1, -R=2,-M=2, which means they don't use replication, although they could activate it. I told them that they could add the new disks to the file system with a different failure group e.g. 201 It shouldn't matter that much if they coexist with the 4001 disks, since they don't replicate. I'll follow up on Monday.
MVH Jan Finnerman Konsult Kista Science Tower 164 51 Kista Mobil: +46 (0)70 631 66 26<tel:+46%20(0)70%20631%2066%2026> Kontor: +46 (0)8 633 66 00<tel:+46%20(0)8%20633%2066%2000>/26 1 apr. 2016 kl. 21:05 skrev Jan-Frode Myklebust <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>: Hi :-) I seem to remember failure group 4001 was common at some point, but can't see why.. Maybe it was just the default when no failure group was specified ? Have you tried what happens if you use an empty failure group "::", does it default to "-1" on v3.4 -- or maybe "4001"? You might consider changing the failure groups of the existing disks using mmchdisk if you need them to be the same. Pro's and cons of using another failure group.. Depends a bit on if they're using any replication within the filesystem. If all other NSDs are in failure group 4001 -- they can't be doing any replication, so it doesn't matter much. Only side effect I know of is that new block allocations will first go round robin over the failure groups, then round robin within the failure group, so unless you have similar amount of disks in the two failure groups the disk load might become a bit uneven. -jf On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Jan Finnerman Load <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, I have a customer with GPFS 3.4.0.11 on Windows @VMware with VMware Raw Device Mapping. They just ran in to an issue with adding some nsd disks. They claim that their current file system's nsddisks are specified with 4001 as the failure group. This is out of bounds, since the allowed range is -1>-->4000. So, when they now try to add some new disks with mmcrnsd, with 4001 specified, they get an error message. Customer runs this command: mmcrnsd -F D:\slask\gpfs\gpfsdisk.txt <B13E252A-3014-49AD-97EE-6E9B4D57A9F4.png> His gpfsdisk.txt file looks like this. <7A01C40C-085E-430C-BA95-D4238AFE5602.png> A listing of current disks show all as belonging to Failure group 4001 <446525C9-567E-4B06-ACA0-34865B35B109.png> So, Why can't he choose failure group 4001 when the existing disks are member of that group ? If he creates a disk in an other failure group, what's the pros and cons with that ? I guess issues with replication not working as expected.... Brgds ///Jan <E895055E-B11B-47C3-BA29-E12D29D394FA.png> Jan Finnerman Senior Technical consultant <F1EE9474-7BCC-41E6-8237-D949E9DC35D3.png> <CertPowerSystems_sm[1].png> Kista Science Tower 164 51 Kista Mobil: +46 (0)70 631 66 26<tel:%2B46%20%280%2970%20631%2066%2026> Kontor: +46 (0)8 633 66 00<tel:%2B46%20%280%298%20633%2066%2000>/26 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<http://spectrumscale.org> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss _______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<http://spectrumscale.org> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
_______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
