On 13/01/2022 17:39, mark.berg...@uphs.upenn.edu wrote:
[SNIP]
The change that I noticed most was:
Repair functionality of mmfsck command in online mode is deprecated
The repair functionality of mmfsck command in online mode is no
longer available. The report-only
On 13/12/2021 00:03, Andrew Beattie wrote:
What is the main outcome or business requirement of the teaching cluster
( i notice your specific in the use of defining it as a teaching cluster)
It is entirely possible that the use case for this cluster does not
warrant the use of high speed low
On 12/12/2021 02:19, Alec wrote:
I feel the need to respond here... I see many responses on this
User Group forum that are dismissive of the fringe / extreme use
cases and of the "what do you need that for '' mindset. The thing is
that Spectrum Scale is for the extreme, just take the word
On 09/12/2021 16:04, Douglas O'flaherty wrote:
Though not directly about your design, our work with NVIDIA on GPUdirect
Storage and SuperPOD has shown how sensitive RDMA (IB & RoCE) to both
MOFED and Firmware version compatibility can be.
I would suggest anyone debugging RDMA issues should
On 09/12/2021 16:43, Ralf Eberhard wrote:
Jonathan,
my suspicion is that the GPFS daemon on fqdn-new is not reachable via
port 1191.
You can double check that by sending a lightweight CCR RPC to this
daemon from another quorum node by attempting:
mmccr echo -n fqdn-new;echo $?
If this echo
I am looking to replace the quorum node in our cluster. The RAID card in
the server we are currently using is a casualty of the RHEL8 SAS card
purge :-(
I have a "new" dual core server that is fully supported by RHEL8. After
some toing and throwing with IBM they agreed a Pentium G6400 is
On 07/12/2021 14:55, Simon Thompson wrote:
Or add:
UPDATECTIME yes
SKIPACLUPDATECHECK yes
To you dsm.opt file to skip checking for those updates and don’t back
them up again.
Yeah, but then a restore gives you potentially an unusable file system
as the ownership
On 07/12/2021 14:01, Frederick Stock wrote:
If you are running on a more recent version of Scale you might want to
look at the mmfind command. It provides a find-like wrapper around the
execution of policy rules.
I am not sure that will be any faster than a "chmod -R" as it will exec
On 08/11/2021 09:20, Billich Heinrich Rainer (ID SD) wrote:
Hello,
We use /tmp/mmfs as dataStructureDump directory. Since a while I
notice that this directory randomly vanishes. Mmhealth does not
complain but just notes that it will no longer monitor the directory.
Still I doubt that trace
On 11/10/2021 09:55, Peter Childs wrote>
We've had this same issue with characters that are fine in Scale but
Protect can't handle. Normally its because some script has embedded a
newline in the middle of a file name, and normally we end up renaming
that file by inode number
find . -inum
On 08/10/2021 19:14, Wahl, Edward wrote:
This goes back as far as I can recall to <=GPFS 3.5 days. And no, I
cannot recall what version of TSM-EE that was. But newline has been
the only stopping point, for what seems like forever. Having filed
many an mmbackup bug, I don't recall ever
On 02/09/2021 17:14, Uwe Falke wrote:
Hi, Jürgen,
try the command
dmidecode
lists a bunch of information, somewhere should be the serial of the
system.
You can cut the amount of information down by specifying the type of
information you want, so usually
dmidecode -t system
will display
On 18/08/2021 14:07, Christian Vieser wrote:
Hi out there.
Since CentOS 8 support ends end of this year (in favour of CentOS Stream
8), it's time to make decisions where to move.
There are two forks of CentOS, Alma and Rocky Linux, but nobody knows
whether they will survive the next years.
On 30/07/2021 15:11, Jaime Pinto wrote:
Hey Jonathan
3.10.0-1160.31.1 seems to be one of the last kernel releases prior to
the CVE-2021-33909 exploit.
It is the release immediately prior to 3.10.0-1160.31.2.
To be fair I didn't consider it important to install 3.10.0-1160.31.2 on
our TSM
On 30/07/2021 05:16, Jaime Pinto wrote:
Alert related to sysadmins managing TSM/DB2 servers and those
responsible for applying security patches, in particular kernel
3.10.0-1160.36.2.el7.x86_64, despite security concerns raised by
CVE-2021-33909:
Please hold off on upgrading your RedHat
Anyone know what GPFS versions will work with kernel version
3.10.0-1160.36.2 on RHEL7 rebuilds to patch for the above local
privilege escalation bug?
JAB.
--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Tel: +44141-5483420
HPC System Administrator, ARCHIE-WeSt.
University of
On 29/06/2021 15:41, IBM Spectrum Scale wrote:
My suggestion for this question is that it should be directed to your
IBM sales team and not the Spectrum Scale support team. My reading of
the information you provided is that your processor counts as 2 cores.
As for the PVU value my guess is
Hum, it would appear there are gaps in IBM's PVU table. Specifically I
am looking at using a Pentium G4620 in a server
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/97460/intel-pentium-processor-g4620-3m-cache-3-70-ghz.html
It's dual core with ECC memory support all in a socket 1151.
On 17/06/2021 09:29, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
*All* nodes needs to be able to communicate on the daemon network. If
they don't have access to this network, they can't join the cluster.
Not strictly true.
TL;DR if all your NSD/master nodes are both Ethernet and Infiniband
connected then
On 10/06/2021 15:00, Ryan Novosielski wrote:>
The problem with not version locking the kernel, however, is that you
really need to know that the kernel you are going to is going to
support the GPFS version that you are going to be running. Typically
that only becomes a problem when you cross a
So you need to apply a kernel update and that means a new gpfs.gplbin
:-( So after going around the houses with several different approaches
on this I have finally settled on what IMHO is a most elegant method of
ensuring the right gpfs.gplbin version is installed for the kernel that
is
On 07/06/2021 13:46, Leonardo Sala wrote:
Hallo,
we do have multiple bare-metal GPFS clusters with infiniband fabric, and
I am actually considering adding some VMs in the mix, to perform admin
tasks (so that the bare metal servers do not need passwordless ssh keys)
and quorum nodes. Has
On 01/06/2021 17:48, Damir Krstic wrote:
IBM posted a security bulletin for the spectrum scale (CVE-2021-29740).
Not a lot of detail provided in that bulletin. Has anyone installed this
fix? Does anyone have more information about it?
Anyone know how quickly Lenovo are at putting up
On 02/06/2021 11:16, Ulrich Sibiller wrote:
[SNIP]
My rsync is using -AHS, so this should not be relevant here.
I wonder have you done more than one rsync? If so are you using --delete?
If not and the source fileset has changed then you will be accumulating
files at the destination and
On 28/05/2021 07:46, Henrik Morsing wrote:
That might not make sense if GPFS is holding the SP backup data, but
SP can do its own replication too - and could replicate using storage from a
second GPFS file system off-site. Take snapshots of this second storage,
as well as SP database, and
On 27/05/2021 16:23, Skylar Thompson wrote:
[SNIP]
at the end of the day, nothing beats the air-gap of tape backups, IMHO.
Changing/deleting lots of data on tape takes time. So tape is a really
good starting point even if you never take the tapes out the library
except to dispose of them.
On 20/05/2021 13:58, Dave Bond wrote:
As part of a project I am doing I am looking if there are any de
duplication options for GPFS? I see there is no native de dupe for the
filesystem. The scenario would be user A creates a file or folder and
user B takes a copy within the same filesystem,
On 20/04/2021 13:09, Ulrich Sibiller wrote:
Consider using mv to move it out the way or hide it while the delete is
in progress. If you do that think carefully about backups, you don't
want to back it all up again while it is being deleted :-)
;-) Yeah, that's why I did not the do the mv in
On 20/04/2021 12:18, Ulrich Sibiller wrote:
Hello *,
I have to delete a subtree of about ~50 million files in thousands of
subdirs, ~14TB of data. Running a recursive rm is very slow so I
setup a simple policy file:
RULE 'delstuff' DELETE
DIRECTORIES_PLUS >WHERE PATH_NAME LIKE
As promised last year I having just completed a storage upgrade, I have
sanitized my scripts and put them up on Github for other people to have
a look at the methodology I use in these sorts of scenarios.
This time the upgrade involved pulling out all the existing disks and
fitting large
On 10/03/2021 02:59, Alec wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated outside the University. Check before
clicking links or attachments.
You would definitely be able to search by inode creation date and find
the files you want... our 1.25m file filesystem takes about 47 seconds
to query... One
On 08/03/2021 20:45, Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
[SNIP]
So noting that you can write very SQL like statements something like the
following should in theory do it
RULE finddangling LIST dangle WHERE MISC_ATTRIBUTES='L' AND
SUBSTR(PATH_NAME,0,4)='/fs1/'
Note the above is not checked in any way
On 08/03/2021 16:07, Frederick Stock wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated outside the University. Check before
clicking links or attachments.
Presumably the only feature that would help here is if policy could
determine that the end location pointed to by a symbolic link is within
the current
On 05/03/2021 19:12, Frederick Stock wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated outside the University. Check before
clicking links or attachments.
I was referring to this flash,
https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6381354?myns=swgtiv=OCSSEQVQ=E_sp=swgtiv-_-OCSSEQVQ-_-E
On 05/03/2021 12:15, Frederick Stock wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated outside the University. Check before
clicking links or attachments.
Have you checked to see if Spectrum Protect (TSM) has addressed this
problem. There recently was an issue with Protect and how it used the
GPFS API
I am seeing that whenever I try and restore a file with an ACL I get the
a ANS1589W error in /var/log/dsmerror.log
ANS1589W Unable to write extended attributes for ** due to errno:
13, reason: Permission denied
But bizarrely the ACL is actually restored. At least as far as I can
On 01/03/2021 15:18, Olaf Weiser wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated outside the University. Check before
clicking links or attachments.
JAB,
yes-this is in argument ;-) ... and personally I like the idea of having
smth like setfacl also for GPFS .. for years...
*but* it would not take away
On 01/03/2021 12:45, Olaf Weiser wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated outside the University. Check before
clicking links or attachments.
Hallo Stephen,
behavior ... or better to say ... predicted behavior for chmod and ACLs
.. is not an easy thing or only , if you stay in either POSIX
On 01/03/2021 09:08, Luis Bolinches wrote:
Hi
>
There other reasons to have more than 1. It is management of those. When
you have to add or remove NSDs of a FS having more than 1 makes it
possible to empty some space and manage those in and out. Manually but
possible. If you have one big NSD
On 28/02/2021 09:31, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
I’ve tried benchmarking many vs. few vdisks per RG, and never could see
any performance difference.
That's encouraging.
Usually we create 1 vdisk per enclosure per RG, thinking this will
allow us to grow with same size vdisks when adding
Doing an upgrade on our storage which involved replacing all the 4TB
disks with 16TB disks. Some hiccups with five of the disks being dead
when inserted but that is all sorted.
So the system was originally installed with DSS-G 2.0a so with "legacy"
commands for vdisks etc. We had 10
On 01/02/2021 21:09, Owen Morgan wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated outside the University. Check before
clicking links or attachments.
Jonathan,
If I have a single policy file with all the related department rules and
each time they want to add additional rules with different working day
On 01/02/2021 18:11, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated outside the University. Check before
clicking links or attachments.
Agree.. Write a policy that takes a "mmapplypolicy -M var=val" argument,
and figure out the workdays outside of the policy. Something like:
# cat
On 30/01/2021 00:31, Owen Morgan wrote:
[SNIP]
I would prefer to stay in the bounds of the SQL policy rule setup as
that is the framework I have created and started to implement..
In general SQL is Turing complete. Though I have not checked in detail I
believe the SQL of the policy engine
On 10/12/2020 21:59, Andrew Beattie wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated outside the University. Check before
clicking links or attachments.
Thanks Ed,
The UQ team are well aware of the current limits published in the FAQ.
However the issue is not the number of physical nodes or the
On 09/12/2020 01:08, Carl wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated outside the University. Check before clicking
links or attachments.
Hi all,
With the announcement of Centos 8 moving to stream
> https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/future-is-centos-stream>
Will Centos still be considered a clone
On 09/12/2020 14:02, Carl Zetie - ca...@us.ibm.com wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated outside the University. Check before
clicking links or attachments.
We don’t have an official statement yet, however I did want to give you
all an indication of our early thinking on this.
Er yes we do,
On 07/12/2020 22:37, Simon Thompson wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated outside the University. Check before
clicking links or attachments.
Codeready I think you can just enable with subscription-manager, but it
is disabled by default. RHOSP is an additional license. But as it says
On 01/12/2020 19:07, Christopher Black wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated outside the University. Check before clicking
links or attachments.
We tune vm-related sysctl values on our gpfs clients.
These are values we use for 256GB+ mem hpc nodes:
vm.min_free_kbytes=2097152
vm.dirty_bytes =
On 19/11/2020 18:13, Caubet Serrabou Marc (PSI) wrote:
Hi all,
thanks a lot for your comments. Agreed, I better avoid it for now. I was
concerned about how GPFS would behave in such case. For production I
will take the safe route, but, just out of curiosity, I'll give it a try
on a couple
On 19/11/2020 16:40, KG wrote:
You can also set mount priority on filesystems so that gpfs can try to
mount them in order...parent first
One of the things that systemd brings to the table
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/3519d230c8bafe834b2dac26ace49fcfba139823
JAB.
--
Jonathan
On 19/11/2020 17:34, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
I would not mount a GPFS filesystem within a GPFS filesystem.
Technically it should work, but I’d expect it to cause surprises if ever
the lower filesystem experienced problems. Alone, a filesystem might
recover automatically by remounting. But
On 19/11/2020 15:34, Caubet Serrabou Marc (PSI) wrote:
Hi,
I have a filesystem holding many projects (i.e., mounted under
/projects), each project is managed with filesets.
I have a new big project which should be placed on a separate filesystem
(blocksize, replication policy, etc. will be
On 17/11/2020 23:17, Chris Schlipalius wrote:
So at my last job we used to rsync data between isilons across campus,
and isilon to Windows File Cluster (and back).
I recommend using dry run to generate a list of files and then use this
to run with rysnc.
This allows you also to be able to
On 17/11/2020 15:55, Simon Thompson wrote:
Fortunately, we seem committed to GPFS so it might be we never have to do
another bulk transfer outside of the filesystem...
Until you want to move a v3 or v4 created file-system to v5 block sizes __
You forget the v2 to v3 for more than
On 17/11/2020 11:51, Andi Christiansen wrote:
Hi all,
thanks for all the information, there was some interesting things
amount it..
I kept on going with rsync and ended up making a file with all top
level user directories and splitting them into chunks of 347 per
rsync session(total 42000 ish
On 16/11/2020 21:58, Skylar Thompson wrote:
When we did a similar (though larger, at ~2.5PB) migration, we used rsync
as well, but ran one rsync process per Isilon node, and made sure the NFS
clients were hitting separate Isilon nodes for their reads. We also didn't
have more than one rsync
On 16/11/2020 19:44, Andi Christiansen wrote:
Hi all,
i have got a case where a customer wants 700TB migrated from isilon to
Scale and the only way for him is exporting the same directory on NFS
from two different nodes...
as of now we are using multiple rsync processes on different parts
On 07/10/2020 11:28, Simon Thompson wrote:
Agreed ...
Report to me a pdisk is failing in my monitoring dashboard we use for
*everything else*.
Tell me that kswapd is having one of those days.
Tell me rsyslogd has stopped sending for some reason.
Tell me if there are long waiters on the hosts.
On 05/10/2020 09:40, Simon Thompson wrote:
I now need to check IBM are not going to throw a wobbler down the
line if I need to get support before deploying it to the DSS-G
nodes :-)
I know there were a lot of other emails about this ...
I think you maybe want to be careful doing this. Whilst
On 05/10/2020 07:27, Jordi Caubet Serrabou wrote:
> Coming to the routing point, is there any reason why you need it ? I
> mean, this is because GPFS trying to connect between compute nodes or
> a reason outside GPFS scope ?
> If the reason is GPFS, imho best approach - without knowledge of
On 04/10/2020 10:29, Luis Bolinches wrote:
Hi
As stated on the same link you can do remote mounts from each other and
be a supported setup.
“ You can use the remote mount feature of IBM Spectrum Scale to share
file system data across clusters.”
You can, but imagine I have a DSS-G
On 03/10/2020 12:19, Luis Bolinches wrote:
Are you mixing those ESS DSS in the same cluster? Or you are only
running DSS
Only running DSS. We are too far down the rabbit hole to ever switch to
ESS now.
Mixing DSS and ESS in the same cluster is not a supported configuration.
I know,
On 03/10/2020 11:55, Andrew Beattie wrote:
Why do you need to run any kind of monitoring client on an IO server the
GUI / performance monitor already does all of that work for you and
collects the data on the dedicated EMS server.
Because any remotely sensible admin demands a single pane
On 02/10/2020 23:19, Andrew Beattie wrote:
Jonathan,
I suggest you get a formal statement from Lenovo as the DSS-G Platform
is no longer an IBM platform.
But for ESS based platforms the answer would be, it is not supported to
run anything on the IO Servers other than GNR and the relevant
What if any are the rules around running additional services on DSS/ESS
nodes with regard to support? Let me outline our scenario
Our main cluster uses 10Gbps ethernet for storage with the DSS-G nodes
hooked up with redundant 40Gbps ethernet.
However we have an older cluster that is used
On 22/09/2020 16:47, Truong Vu wrote:
You are correct, the "identical architecture" means the same machine
hardware name as shown by the -m option of the uname command.
Thanks for clearing that up. It just seemed something of a blindly
obvious statement; surely nobody would expect an RPM
I have a question about using RPM's for the portability interface on
different CPU's.
According to /usr/lpp/mmfs/src/README
The generated RPM can ONLY be deployed to the machine with
identical architecture, distribution level, Linux kernel version
and GPFS version.
So does this
On 11/09/2020 15:25, Stephen Ulmer wrote:
On Sep 9, 2020, at 10:04 AM, Skylar Thompson <mailto:skyl...@uw.edu>> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 12:02:53PM +0100, Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
On 08/09/2020 18:37, IBM Spectrum Scale wrote:
I think it is incorrect to assume that
On 08/09/2020 18:37, IBM Spectrum Scale wrote:
I think it is incorrect to assume that a command that continues
after detecting the working directory has been removed is going to
cause damage to the file system.
No I am not assuming it will cause damage. I am making the fairly
reasonable
On 08/09/2020 14:04, IBM Spectrum Scale wrote:
I think a better metaphor is that the bridge we just crossed has
collapsed and as long as we do not need to cross it again our journey
should reach its intended destination :-) As I understand the intent of
this message is to alert the user (and
On 02/09/2020 23:28, Andrew Beattie wrote:
Giovanni, I have clients in Australia that are running AMD ROME
processors in their Visualisation nodes connected to scale 5.0.4
clusters with no issues. Spectrum Scale doesn't differentiate between
x86 processor technologies -- it only looks at x86_64
On 17/08/2020 10:53, Jim Roche wrote:
Simon is correct from that point of view. If you can see it on your
commercial.lenovo.com site then you are able to use it within your
licensing rules and that you are still compatible from a Spectrum
Scale point of view. The DSS-G specific tarballs
On 15/08/2020 19:24, Simon Thompson wrote:
When you "web portal" it's not clear if you refer to fix central or
the commercial.lenovo.com site, the client binaries are a separate
set of downloads to the DSS-G bundle for the servers, from where you
should be able to download 5.0.5.1 (at least I
On 06/08/2020 14:35, IBM Spectrum Scale wrote:
This has been fixed in Spectrum Scale 4.2.3.20, 5.0.4.2, and 5.0.5.0.
Regards, The Spectrum Scale (GPFS) team
Thanks, that explains my issue.
I am running DSS-G, and the latest DSS-G release only does the 5.0.4.3-2
version of GPFS. However I
I upgraded the TSM client for security reasons to 8.1.10 from 8.1.3 last
week. It would now appear that my scheduled mmbackup is not running, and
trying by hand gives
[root@tsm ~]# mmbackup dssgfs -s /opt/mmbackup
mmbackup: Backup of
On 05/08/2020 11:32, Simon Thompson wrote:
3.0 isn't supported on first gen DSS-G servers (x3650m5) so if you
have those, you'd hope that it would continue to be supported.
Or it's now old hardware and out of support. Here I have some shinny new
storage to sell you :-)
We're just looking
I notice that there is now a 3.x version of the DSS-G software that is
based on RHEL8, which took me a bit by surprise as the ESS still seems
to be on RHEL7.
I did however notice that 2.6b which is still based on RHEL7 was
released after 3.0a.
So this brings the question how much longer
My university has been giving me Fridays off during lock down so I
I have spent a bit of time and added modification of Posix ACL's through
the standard library and tidied up the code a bit. Much of it is based
on preexisting code which did speed things up.
The error checking is still
On 11/06/2020 08:53, Giovanni Bracco wrote:
[SNIP]
not really: both clusters, the 400 OPA nodes and the 300 QDR nodes share
the same data lake in Spectrum Scale/GPFS so the NSD servers support the
flexibility of the setup.
NSD servers make use of a IB SAN fabric (Mellanox FDR switch) where
On 10/06/2020 16:31, Lohit Valleru wrote:
[SNIP]
> I might mostly start small with a single lab, and only change files
> without ACLs. May I know if anyone has a method/tool to find out
which > files/dirs have NFS4 ACLs set? As far as we know - it is just one
> fileset/lab, but it would be
We have a mixture of 10Gb Ethernet and Infiniband connected (using
IPoIB) nodes on our compute cluster using a DSS-G for storage. Each
SR650 has a bonded pair of 40Gb Ethernet connections and a 40Gb
Infiniband connection. Performance and stability are *way* better than
the old Lustre
On 10/06/2020 02:15, Aaron Knister wrote:
Lohit,
I did this while working @ NASA. I had two tools I used, one
affectionately known as "luke file walker" (to modify traditional unix
permissions) and the other known as the "milleniumfacl" (to modify posix
ACLs). Stupid jokes aside, there were
On 09/06/2020 14:57, Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
[SNIP]
I actually thinking on it more thought a generic C random UID/GID to
UID/GID mapping program is a really simple piece of code and should be
nearly as fast as chown -R. It will be very slightly slower as you have
to look the mapping up
On 09/06/2020 14:07, Stephen Ulmer wrote:
Jonathan brings up a good point that you’ll only get one shot at this —
if you’re using the file system as your record of who owns what.
Not strictly true if my existing UID's are in the range 1-1 and
my target UID's are in the range
On 08/06/2020 18:44, Lohit Valleru wrote:
Hello Everyone,
We are planning to migrate from LDAP to AD, and one of the best solution
was to change the uidNumber and gidNumber to what SSSD or Centrify would
resolve.
May I know, if anyone has come across a tool/tools that can change the
On 03/06/2020 16:25, Frederick Stock wrote:
Could you please provide the exact Scale version, or was it really 4.2.3.0?
4.2.3-7 with setuid taken off a bunch of the utilities per relevant CVE
while I work on the upgrade to 5.0.5
JAB.
--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Tel:
Hum, on a "normal" Linux file system only the root user can change the
immutible attribute on a file.
Running on 4.2.3 I have just removed the immutible attribute as an
ordinary user if I am the owner of the file.
I would suggest that this is a bug as the manual page for mmchattr does
On 31/05/2020 17:47, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
No, this is a common misconception. You don’t need any NSD servers. NSD
servers are only needed if you have nodes without direct block access.
I see that has changed then. In the past mmcrnsd would simply fail
without a server list passed
On 29/05/2020 20:55, Stephen Ulmer wrote:
I have a question about multi-cluster, but it is related to this thread
(it would be solving the same problem).
Let’s say we have two clusters A and B, both clusters are normally
shared-everything with no NSD servers defined.
Er, even in a
On 29/05/2020 16:02, Prasad Surampudi wrote:
Jim, The minimum release for 5.0.4 cluster is 5.0.4.3.
We are aware that we can't merge both gpfs_4 and gpfs_5 filesystems.
Our plan is to import the gpfs_4 filesystem into the Spectrum Scale
5.0 cluster (with its NSDs mapped to Spectrum Scale 5.0
On 29/05/2020 02:35, Jim Doherty wrote:
What is the minimum release level of the Spectrum Scale 5.0.4
cluster? Is it 4.2.3.X?
According to the email Cluster-B (the one with 5.0.4) has the variable
block size thing, so that is going to be a no.
Besides which even if you could mmimport
On 24/05/2020 16:58, Achim Rehor wrote:
no, as this is a .0 package .. there are no 'bug-fixes' ;) you will see
this again, when PTF 1 is announced.
So you are saying that no bugs that existed in 5.0.4.x have been fixed
in 5.0.5.0? That has the credibility of Dominic Cummings driving to
On 14/05/2020 13:31, Flanders, Dean wrote:
Hello, It is great, that RHEL 7.8 is supported on SS 4.2.3.22, when will
RHEL 8.x be supported on GPFS SS 4.2.3.X?? Thanks, Dean
That would be never, 4.2.3 goes out of support in September.
Is 5.x supported in 7.8 yet? Some urgent upgrading of
On 10/05/2020 14:28, Jaime Pinto wrote:
The rationale for my suggestion doesn't have much to do with the central
DNS server, but everything to do with the DNS client side of the service.
If you have a very busy cluster at times, and a number of nodes really
busy with 1000+ IOPs for instance, so
On 09/05/2020 12:06, Jaime Pinto wrote:
DNS shouldn't be relied upon on a GPFS cluster for internal
communication/management or data.
The 1980's have called and want their lack of IP resolution protocols
back :-)
I would kindly disagree. If your DNS is not working then your cluster is
On 04/05/2020 10:11, Kenneth Waegeman wrote:
Hi all,
I didn't see any updates in the faq yet about the new 5.0.4.4 release.
Does this release support rhel 7.8 ?
Has the fix for 7.7 with a kernel >= 3.10.0-1062.18.1.el7 been released
yet? If it hasn't then there is no chance of 7.8
On 28/04/2020 11:57, Ulrich Sibiller wrote:
Hi,
when the gpfs systemd service returns from startup the filesystems are
usually not mounted. So having another service depending on gpfs is not
feasible if you require the filesystem(s).
Therefore we have added a script to the systemd gpfs
On 16/04/2020 04:26, Flanders, Dean wrote:
Hello All,
As IBM has completely switched to capacity based licensing in order to
use SS v5 I was wondering how others are dealing with this? We do not
find the capacity based licensing sustainable. Our long term plan is to
migrate away from SS v5
On 17/04/2020 11:31, T.A. Yeep wrote:
Hi Carl,
I'm confused here, in the previous email it was said *And for ESS, it is
licensed Per Drive with different prices for HDDs and SSDs.*
But then you mentioned in below email that:
But new customers and new OEM systems are *all licensed by
1 - 100 of 237 matches
Mail list logo
