Thanks for that suggestion, which is something we already do, but as you say is not as flexible. I think Jez is correct about the overhead being too high to support directory path for data placement, -B
-----Original Message----- From: Edward Wahl [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 12:26 PM To: Bryan Banister Cc: gpfsug main discussion list Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] wanted...gpfs policy that places larger files onto a pool based on size On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:09:55 +0000 Bryan Banister <[email protected]> wrote: > -Bryan > > PS. I really wish that we could use a path for specifying data > placement in a GPFS Pool, and not just the file name, owner, etc. > I’ll submit a RFE for this. So... use a fileset with a linked directory and a fileset placement policy to a pool? Might be a bit more rigid for what you really want, and it would be messy, but it would work just fine. -- Ed Wahl Ohio Supercomputer Center 614-292-9302 ________________________________ Note: This email is for the confidential use of the named addressee(s) only and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited, and to please notify the sender immediately and destroy this email and any attachments. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The Company, therefore, does not make any guarantees as to the completeness or accuracy of this email or any attachments. This email is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation, offer, request or solicitation of any kind to buy, sell, subscribe, redeem or perform any type of transaction of a financial product. _______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
