I personally don’t think lack of a migration tool is a problem. I do think that 2 format changes in such quick succession is a problem. I am willing to migrate occasionally, but then the amount of data we have in GPFS is still small. I do value my data, so I'd trust a manual migration using standard tools that have been around for a while over a custom migration tool any day. This last format change seems fairly major to me, so doubly so in this case. Trying to find a plus in this, maybe use it test DR procedures at the same time.
Apologies in advance to those, that simply can't. I hope you get your migration tool. To IBM, thank you for making GPFS faster. Greg -----Original Message----- From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org [mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Knister Sent: Monday, 27 November 2017 4:01 AM To: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] Online data migration tool With the release of Scale 5.0 it’s no secret that some of the performance features of 5.0 require a new disk format and existing filesystems cannot be migrated in place to get these features. There’s also an issue for long time customers who have had scale since before the 4.1 days where filesystems crested prior to I think 4.1 are not 4K aligned and thus cannot use 4K sector LUNs to hold metadata. At some point we’re not going to be able to buy storage that’s not got 4K sectors. In both situations IBM has hamstrung its customer base with large filesystems by requiring them to undergo extremely disruptive and expensive filesystem migrations to either keep using their filesystem with new hardware or take advantage of new features. The expensive part comes from having to purchase new storage hardware in order migrate the data. My question is this— I know filesystem migration tools are complicated (I believe that’s why customers purchase support) but why on earth are there no migration tools for these features? How are customers supposed to take the product seriously as a platform for long term storage when IBM is so willing to break the on disk format and leave customers stuck unable to replacing aging storage hardware or leverage new features? What message does this send to customers who have had the product on site for over a decade? There is at least one open RFE on this issue and has been for some time that has seen no movement. That speaks volumes. Frankly I’m a little tired of bringing problems to the mailing list, being told to open RFEs then having the RFEs denied or just sit there stagnant. -Aaron _______________________________________________ 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
