Thank you for the detailed answer Andrew. I do understand that anything above the posix level will not be supported by IBM and might lead to scaling/other issues. We will start small, and discuss with IBM representative on any other possible efforts.
Regards, Lohit On May 15, 2018, 10:39 PM -0400, Andrew Beattie <[email protected]>, wrote: > Lohit, > > There is no technical reason why if you use the correct licensing that you > can't publish a Posix fileystem using external Protocol tool rather than CES > the key thing to note is that if its not the IBM certified solution that IBM > support stops at the Posix level and the protocol issues are your own to > resolve. > > The reason we provide the CES environment is to provide a supported > architecture to deliver protocol access, does it have some limitations - > certainly > but it is a supported environment. Moving away from this moves the risk onto > the customer to resolve and maintain. > > The other part of this, and potentially the reason why you might have been > warned off using an external solution is that not all systems provide > scalability and resiliency > so you may end up bumping into scaling issues by building your own > environment --- and from the sound of things this is a large complex > environment. These issues are clearly defined in the CES stack and are well > understood. moving away from this will move you into the realm of the > unknown -- again the risk becomes yours. > > it may well be worth putting a request in with your local IBM representative > to have IBM Scale protocol development team involved in your design and see > what we can support for your requirements. > > > Regards, > Andrew Beattie > Software Defined Storage - IT Specialist > Phone: 614-2133-7927 > E-mail: [email protected] > > > > ----- Original message ----- > > From: [email protected] > > Sent by: [email protected] > > To: gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]> > > Cc: > > Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] SMB server on GPFS clients and Followsymlinks > > Date: Wed, May 16, 2018 12:25 PM > > > > Thanks Stephen, > > > > Yes i do acknowledge, that it will need a SERVER license and thank you for > > reminding me. > > > > I just wanted to make sure, from the technical point of view that we won’t > > face any issues by exporting a GPFS mount as a SMB export. > > > > I remember, i had seen in documentation about few years ago that it is not > > recommended to export a GPFS mount via Third party SMB services (not CES). > > But i don’t exactly remember why. > > > > Regards, > > Lohit > > > > On May 15, 2018, 10:19 PM -0400, Stephen Ulmer <[email protected]>, wrote: > > > Lohit, > > > > > > Just be aware that exporting the data from GPFS via SMB requires a SERVER > > > license for the node in question. You’ve mentioned client a few times > > > now. :) > > > > > > -- > > > Stephen > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 15, 2018, at 6:48 PM, Lohit Valleru <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks Christof. > > > > > > > > The usecase is just that : it is easier to have symlinks of files/dirs > > > > from various locations/filesystems rather than copying or duplicating > > > > that data. > > > > > > > > The design from many years was maintaining about 8 PB of NFS filesystem > > > > with thousands of symlinks to various locations and the same > > > > directories being exported on SMB. > > > > > > > > Now we are migrating most of the data to GPFS keeping the symlinks as > > > > they are. > > > > Thus the need to follow symlinks from the GPFS filesystem to the NFS > > > > Filesystem. > > > > The client wants to effectively use the symlinks design that works when > > > > used on Linux but is not happy to hear that he will have to redo years > > > > of work just because GPFS does not support the same. > > > > > > > > I understand that there might be a reason on why CES might not support > > > > this, but is it an issue if we run SMB server on the GPFS clients to > > > > expose a read only or read write GPFS mounts? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Lohit > > > > > > > > On May 15, 2018, 6:32 PM -0400, Christof Schmitt > > > > <[email protected]>, wrote: > > > > > > I could use CES, but CES does not support follow-symlinks outside > > > > > > respective SMB export. > > > > > > > > > > Samba has the 'wide links' option, that we currently do not test and > > > > > support as part of the mmsmb integration. You can always open a RFE > > > > > and ask that we support this option in a future release. > > > > > > > > > > > Follow-symlinks is a however a hard-requirement for to follow > > > > > > links outside GPFS filesystems. > > > > > > > > > > I might be reading this wrong, but do you actually want symlinks that > > > > > point to a file or directory outside of the GPFS file system? Could > > > > > you outline a usecase for that? > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Christof Schmitt || IBM || Spectrum Scale Development || Tucson, AZ > > > > > [email protected] || +1-520-799-2469 (T/L: 321-2469) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original message ----- > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > > > Sent by: [email protected] > > > > > > To: gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]> > > > > > > Cc: > > > > > > Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] SMB server on GPFS clients and > > > > > > Followsymlinks > > > > > > Date: Tue, May 15, 2018 3:04 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello All, > > > > > > > > > > > > Has anyone tried serving SMB export of GPFS mounts from a SMB > > > > > > server on GPFS client? Is it supported and does it lead to any > > > > > > issues? > > > > > > I understand that i will not need a redundant SMB server > > > > > > configuration. > > > > > > > > > > > > I could use CES, but CES does not support follow-symlinks outside > > > > > > respective SMB export. Follow-symlinks is a however a > > > > > > hard-requirement for to follow links outside GPFS filesystems. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Lohit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
_______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
