Just as a follow up to my own note, Stephan, already provided a list of existing RFEs from which to vote through the IBM RFE site, cheers, -Bryan
From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org <gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org> On Behalf Of Bryan Banister Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 10:51 AM To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org> Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] GPFS Independent Fileset Limit Note: External Email ________________________________ This is definitely a great candidate for a RFE, if one does not already exist. Not to try and contradict by friend Olaf here, but I have been talking a lot with those internal to IBM, and the PMR process is for finding and correcting operational problems with the code level you are running, and closing out the PMR as quickly as possible. PMRs are not the vehicle for getting substantive changes and enhancements made to the product in general, which the RFE process is really the main way to do this. I just got off a call with Kristie and Carl about the RFE process and those on the list may know that we are working to improve this overall process. More will be sent out about this in the near future!! So I thought I would chime in on this discussion here to hopefully help us understand how important the RFE (admittedly currently got great) process really is and will be a great way to work together on these common goals and needs for the product we rely so heavily upon! Cheers!! -Bryan From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org<mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org> <gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org<mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org>> On Behalf Of Peinkofer, Stephan Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 10:40 AM To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org<mailto:gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org>> Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] GPFS Independent Fileset Limit Note: External Email ________________________________ Dear Olaf, I know that this is "just" a "support" limit. However Sven some day on a UG meeting in Ehningen told me that there is more to this than just adjusting your QA qualification tests since the way it is implemented today does not really scale ;). That's probably the reason why you said you see sometimes problems when you are not even close to the limit. So if you look at the 250PB Alpine file system of Summit today, that is what's going to deployed at more than one site world wide in 2-4 years and imho independent filesets are a great way to make this large systems much more handy while still maintaining a unified namespace. So I really think it would be beneficial if the architectural limit that prevents scaling the number of independent filesets could be removed at all. Best Regards, Stephan Peinkofer ________________________________ From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org<mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org> <gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org<mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org>> on behalf of Olaf Weiser <olaf.wei...@de.ibm.com<mailto:olaf.wei...@de.ibm.com>> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 2:51 PM To: gpfsug main discussion list Cc: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org<mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org>; Doris Franke; Uwe Tron; Dorian Krause Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] GPFS Independent Fileset Limit Hallo Stephan, the limit is not a hard coded limit - technically spoken, you can raise it easily. But as always, it is a question of test 'n support .. I've seen customer cases, where the use of much smaller amount of independent filesets generates a lot performance issues, hangs ... at least noise and partial trouble .. it might be not the case with your specific workload, because due to the fact, that you 're running already close to 1000 ... I suspect , this number of 1000 file sets - at the time of introducing it - was as also just that one had to pick a number... ... turns out.. that a general commitment to support > 1000 ind.fileset is more or less hard.. because what uses cases should we test / support I think , there might be a good chance for you , that for your specific workload, one would allow and support more than 1000 do you still have a PMR for your side for this ? - if not - I know .. open PMRs is an additional ...but could you please .. then we can decide .. if raising the limit is an option for you .. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards Olaf Weiser EMEA Storage Competence Center Mainz, German / IBM Systems, Storage Platform, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBM Deutschland IBM Allee 1 71139 Ehningen Phone: +49-170-579-44-66 E-Mail: olaf.wei...@de.ibm.com<mailto:olaf.wei...@de.ibm.com> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBM Deutschland GmbH / Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martin Jetter Geschäftsführung: Martina Koederitz (Vorsitzende), Susanne Peter, Norbert Janzen, Dr. Christian Keller, Ivo Koerner, Markus Koerner Sitz der Gesellschaft: Ehningen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 14562 / WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE 99369940 From: "Peinkofer, Stephan" <stephan.peinko...@lrz.de<mailto:stephan.peinko...@lrz.de>> To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org<mailto:gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org>> Cc: Doris Franke <doris.fra...@de.ibm.com<mailto:doris.fra...@de.ibm.com>>, Uwe Tron <ut...@lenovo.com<mailto:ut...@lenovo.com>>, Dorian Krause <d.kra...@fz-juelich.de<mailto:d.kra...@fz-juelich.de>> Date: 08/10/2018 01:29 PM Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] GPFS Independent Fileset Limit Sent by: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org<mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org> ________________________________ Dear IBM and GPFS List, we at the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre and our GCS Partners from the Jülich Supercomputing Centre will soon be hitting the current Independent Fileset Limit of 1000 on a number of our GPFS Filesystems. There are also a number of RFEs from other users open, that target this limitation: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=56780 Sign up for an IBM account<https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=56780> www.ibm.com<http://www.ibm.com> IBM account registration https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=120534 https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=106530 https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=85282 I know GPFS Development was very busy fulfilling the CORAL requirements but maybe now there is again some time to improve something else. If there are any other users on the list that are approaching the current limitation in independent filesets, please take some time and vote for the RFEs above. Many thanks in advance and have a nice weekend. Best Regards, Stephan Peinkofer _______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss ________________________________ Note: This email is for the confidential use of the named addressee(s) only and may contain proprietary, confidential, or privileged information and/or personal data. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited, and requested to 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. Personal data, as defined by applicable data privacy laws, contained in this email may be processed by the Company, and any of its affiliated or related companies, for potential ongoing compliance and/or business-related purposes. You may have rights regarding your personal data; for information on exercising these rights or the Company's treatment of personal data, please email datareque...@jumptrading.com<mailto:datareque...@jumptrading.com>. ________________________________ Note: This email is for the confidential use of the named addressee(s) only and may contain proprietary, confidential, or privileged information and/or personal data. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited, and requested to 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. Personal data, as defined by applicable data privacy laws, contained in this email may be processed by the Company, and any of its affiliated or related companies, for potential ongoing compliance and/or business-related purposes. You may have rights regarding your personal data; for information on exercising these rights or the Company's treatment of personal data, please email datareque...@jumptrading.com.
_______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
