RO cache filesets doesn't support failover command. Is NICKTESTFSET RO mode fileset ?
>The infocenter and documentation say the cache expects home to be empty. I did a small test and it seems to work but it may have happened too fast for me to notice any data movement. mmafmctl failover/resync commands does not remove extra files at home, if home is empty this won't be an issue. ~Venkat ([email protected]) From: Nick Savva <[email protected]> To: gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]> Date: 04/24/2018 12:18 PM Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] AFM cache re-link Sent by: [email protected] The caches are RO. Thanks that’s exactly what I tested, its just the infocenter threw me when it said it expects the home to be empty….. This was the command I used mmafmctl cachefs1 failover -j NICKTESTFSET --new-target nfs://10.0.0.142/ibm/scalefs2/fsettest Appreciate the confirmation Nick From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Venkateswara R Puvvada Sent: Monday, 23 April 2018 8:56 PM To: gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] AFM cache re-link What is the fileset mode ? AFM won't attempt to copy the data back to home if file data already exists (checks if file size, mtime with nano seconds granularity and number of data blocks allocated are same). For example rsync version >= 3.1.0 keeps file mtime in sync with nano seconds granularity. Copy the data from old home to new home and run failover command from cache to avoid resynching the entire data. ~Venkat ([email protected]) From: Nick Savva <[email protected]> To: "'[email protected]'" < [email protected]> Date: 04/22/2018 05:48 PM Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] AFM cache re-link Sent by: [email protected] Hi all, I was always preface my questions with an apology first up if this has been covered before. I am curious if anyone has tested relinking an AFM cache to a new home where the new home, old home and cache have the exact same data. What is the behaviour? The infocenter and documentation say the cache expects home to be empty. I did a small test and it seems to work but it may have happened too fast for me to notice any data movement. If anyone is interested in the use case, I am attempting to avoid pulling data from production over the link. The idea is to sync the data locally in DR to the cache, and then relink the cache to production. Where prod/dr are gpfs filesystems with a replica set of data. Again its to avoid moving TB’s across the link that are already there. Appreciate the help in advance, Nick _______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gpfsug.org_mailman_listinfo_gpfsug-2Ddiscuss&d=DwICAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=92LOlNh2yLzrrGTDA7HnfF8LFr55zGxghLZtvZcZD7A&m=nXbwwQdO-Ul1CumnSmAKP5UCePJCaBVsley8z-eLJgw&s=Rho3eJsFXeOseZuGqDzP33yLYKUUpyIA1DUGGtmx_LU&e= _______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gpfsug.org_mailman_listinfo_gpfsug-2Ddiscuss&d=DwICAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=92LOlNh2yLzrrGTDA7HnfF8LFr55zGxghLZtvZcZD7A&m=ZSOnMkeNsw6v92UHjeMBC3XPHfpzZlHBMAOJcNpXuNE&s=dZGOYMPF40W5oLiOu-cyilyYzFr4tWalJWKjo1D7PsQ&e=
_______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
