It’s my understanding and experience that all member nodes of two clusters that are multi-clustered must be able to (and will eventually given enough time/activity) make connections to any and all nodes in both clusters. Even if you don’t designate the 2 protocol nodes as contact nodes I would expect to see connections from remote clusters to the protocol nodes just because of the nature of the beast. If you don’t want remote nodes to make connections to the protocol nodes then I believe you would need to put the protocol nodes in their own cluster. CES/CNFS hasn’t always supported this but I think it is now supported, at least with NFS.
On November 30, 2017 at 11:28:03 EST, [email protected] wrote: We have a 10-node cluster running gpfs 4.2.2.3, where 8 nodes are GPFS contact nodes for 2 filesystems, and 2 are protocol nodes doingNFS exports of the filesystems. But we see some nodes in remote clusters trying to GPFS connect to the 2 protocol nodes anyhow. My reading of the manpages is that the remote cluster is responsible for setting '-n contactNodes' when they do the 'mmremotecluster add', and there's no way to sanity check or enforce that at the local end, and fail/flag connections to unintended non-contact nodes if the remote admin forgets/botches the -n. Is that actually correct? If so, is it time for an RFE? _______________________________________________ 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
