Thanks all.  I realized that my file creation command was building 200k size 
files instead of the 200MB files.  I fixed that and now I see the mmapplypolicy 
command take a bit more time and show accurate data as well as my bytes are now 
on the proper NSDs.  It’s always some little thing that the human messes up 
isn’t it?  ☺


From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Marc A Kaplan 
<[email protected]>
Reply-To: gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 9:20 AM
To: gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Migration policy confusion

At the very least, LOOK at the messages output by the mmapplypolicy command at 
the beginning and end.
The "occupancy" stats for each pool are shown BEFORE and AFTER  the command 
does its work.

In even more detail, it shows you how many files and how many KB of data were 
(or will be or would be) migrated.

Also, options matter.  ReadTheFineManuals.  -I test vs -I defer vs -I yes.

To see exactly which files are being migrated, use -L 2
To see exactly which files are being selected by your rule(s), use -L 3
And for more details about the files being skipped over, etc, etc,   -L 6

Gee, I just checked the doc myself, I forgot some of the details and it's 
pretty good.
Admittedly mmapplypolicy is a complex command.  You can do somethings simply, 
only knowing
a few options and policy rules, BUT...

As my father used to say, "When all else fails, read the directions!"

-L n
Controls the level of information displayed by the mmapplypolicy command. 
Larger values indicate
the display of more detailed information. These terms are used:
candidate file
A file that matches a MIGRATE, DELETE, or LIST policy rule.
chosen file
A candidate file that has been scheduled for action.

These are the valid values for n:
0 Displays only serious errors.
1 Displays some information as the command runs, but not for each file. This is 
the default.
2 Displays each chosen file and the scheduled migration or deletion action.
3 Displays the same information as 2, plus each candidate file and the 
applicable rule.
4 Displays the same information as 3, plus each explicitly EXCLUDEed or LISTed 
file, and the
applicable rule.
5 Displays the same information as 4, plus the attributes of candidate and 
EXCLUDEed or LISTed
files.
6 Displays the same information as 5, plus non-candidate files and their 
attributes.

For examples and more information on this flag, see the section: The 
mmapplypolicy -L command in the
IBM Spectrum Scale: Problem Determination Guide.

--marc



From:        "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To:        gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]>
Date:        07/07/2016 09:17 AM
Subject:        Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Migration policy confusion
Sent by:        [email protected]
________________________________



Thanks Daniel.  I did wait for 15-20 minutes after.

From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Daniel Kidger 
<[email protected]>
Reply-To: gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 8:10 AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Migration policy confusion

Mark,
For performance reasons, mmdf gets its data updated asynchronously.
Did you try waiting a few minutes?
Daniel
Error! Filename not specified.
Error! Filename not specified.




Dr Daniel Kidger
IBM Technical Sales Specialist
Software Defined Solution Sales

+44-07818 522 266
[email protected]








----- Original message -----
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent by: [email protected]
To: gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]>
Cc:
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] Migration policy confusion
Date: Thu, Jul 7, 2016 2:00 PM

Hello all, I’m struggling trying to understand tiering and policies in general 
in SpecScale.  I have a single filesystem with two pools defined (system, 
GOLD).  The GOLD pool is made up of some faster disks than the system pool.  
The policy I’m trying to get working is as follows



RULE 'go_gold'

    MIGRATE

        FROM POOL 'system'

    TO POOL 'GOLD'

        WHERE (LOWER(NAME) LIKE '%.perf')



I’m simply trying to get the data to move the NDS’s in GOLD pool.



When I do an mmapplypolicy, mmlsattr shows that it’s now in the GOLD pool but 
when I do a mmdf the data shows 100% free still.  I tried a mmrestripefs as 
well and no change to the mmdf output.  Am I missing something here?  Is this 
just normal behavior and the blocks will get moved at some other time?  I guess 
I was expecting instant gratification and that those files would have been 
moved to the correct NSD.













Mark R. Bush| Solutions Architect
Mobile: 210.237.8415 | [email protected]
Sirius Computer Solutions | www.siriuscom.com<http://www.siriuscom.com/>
10100 Reunion Place, Suite 500, San Antonio, TX 78216



This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the 
individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that 
is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from 
disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are 
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. This message may be viewed by parties at 
Sirius Computer Solutions other than those named in the message header. This 
message does not contain an official representation of Sirius Computer 
Solutions. If you have received this communication in error, notify Sirius 
Computer Solutions immediately and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or 
(ii) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication. 
Thank you.
Sirius Computer Solutions<http://www.siriuscom.com/>

_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 
3AU_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at 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

Reply via email to