Re: [gpfsug-discuss] cross-cluster mounting different versions of gpfs

You do have to keep an eye out for filesystem version issues as you set this up. If the new filesystem is created with a version higher than the 3.5 cluster’s version, then the 3.5 cluster will not be able to mount it. You can specify the version of a new filesystem at creation time with, for

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] cross-cluster mounting different versions of gpfs

It's definitely doable, besides --version mentioned byJan-Frode, just a two things to consider (when cluster started as 3.5 or earlier version) we stumbled across: - keys nistCompliance=SP800-131A: we had to regenerate and exchange new keys with nistCompliance before old cluster could talk to new

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] cross-cluster mounting different versions of gpfs

Not sure about cluster features, but at minimum you'll need to create the filesystem with low enough mmcrfs --version string. -jf tir. 15. mar. 2016 kl. 21.32 skrev Damir Krstic : > We are deploying ESS with Spectrum Scale 4.2. Our compute cluster is > running GPFS

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] cross-cluster mounting different versions of gpfs

I’ve never used ESS, but I state for a fact you can cross mount clusters at various levels without a problem – I do it all the time during upgrades. I’m not aware of any co-exisitance problems with the 3.5 and above. Yo may be limited on 4.2 features when accessing it via the 3.5 cluster, but

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Use of commodity HDs on large GPFS client base clusters?

Hi Jamie I have some fairly large clusters (tho not as large as you describe) running on “roll your own” storage subsystem of various types. You’re asking a broad question here on performance and rebuild times. I can’t speak to a comparison with ESS (I’m sure IBM can comment) but if you want

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] upgrading to spectrum scale 4.1 from gpfs 3.5.0-21

Figured it out - this node had RedHat version of a kernel that was custom patched by RedHat some time ago for the IB issues we were experiencing. I could not build a portability layer on this kernel. After upgrading the node to more recent version of the kernel, I was able to compile portability

[gpfsug-discuss] cross-cluster mounting different versions of gpfs

We are deploying ESS with Spectrum Scale 4.2. Our compute cluster is running GPFS 3.5. We will remote cluster mount ESS to our compute cluster. When looking at GPFS coexistance documents, it is not clear whether GPFS 3.5 cluster can remote mount GPFS 4.2. Does anyone know if there are any issues

[gpfsug-discuss] Use of commodity HDs on large GPFS client base clusters?

I'd like to hear about performance consideration from sites that may be using "non-IBM sanctioned" storage hardware or appliance, such as DDN, GSS, ESS (we have all of these). For instance, how could that compare with ESS, which I understand has some sort of "dispersed parity" feature,