<font size=3 face="Calibri">We don't allow mixing of different licensing
models (i.e. socket and capacity) within a single cluster*. As we worked
through the implications, we realized it would be just too complicated
to determine how to license any non-NSD nodes (management, CES, clients,
etc.). In the socket model they are chargeable, in the capacity model they
are not, and while we could have made up some rules, they would have added
even more complexity to Scale licensing.</font><br><br><font size=3 face="Calibri">This in turn is why we "grandfathered
in" those customers already on Advanced Edition, so that they don't
have to convert existing clusters to the new metric unless or until they
want to. They can continue to buy Advanced Edition. </font><br><br><font size=3 face="Calibri">The other thing we wanted to do with the
capacity metric was to make the licensing more friendly to architectural
best practices or design choices. So now you can have whatever management,
gateway, etc. servers you need without paying for additional server licenses.
In particular, client-only clusters cost nothing, and you don't have to
keep track of clients if you have a virtual environment where clients come
and go rapidly.</font><br><br><font size=3 face="Calibri">I'm always happy to answer other questions
about licensing.</font><br><br><font size=3 face="Calibri">regards,</font><br><font size=3 face="Calibri">Carl Zetie</font><br><br><font size=3 face="Calibri">*OK, there is one exception involving future
ESS models and existing clusters. If this is you, please have a conversation
with your account team.</font><br><br><font size=3 face="Calibri">Carl Zetie<br>Program Director, OM for Spectrum Scale, IBM<br><br>(540) 882 9353 ][ 15750 Brookhill Ct, Waterford VA 20197<br>carlz@us.ibm.com</font><br><br><br><br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">gpfsug-discuss-request@spectrumscale.org</font><br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org</font><br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">12/07/2016 09:59 AM</font><br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">gpfsug-discuss
Digest, Vol 59, Issue 20</font><br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Sent by:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org</font><br><hr noshade><br><br><br><tt><font size=2>Send gpfsug-discuss mailing list submissions to<br>
gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org<br><br>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
</font></tt><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss"><tt><font size=2>http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
gpfsug-discuss-request@spectrumscale.org<br><br>You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
gpfsug-discuss-owner@spectrumscale.org<br><br>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>than "Re: Contents of gpfsug-discuss digest..."<br><br><br>Today's Topics:<br><br> 1. Re: Any experience running native GPFS 4.2.1 on Xeon Phi node<br> booted with Centos 7.3? (Felipe Knop)<br> 2. Re: Any experience running native GPFS 4.2.1 on
Xeon Phi node<br> booted with Centos 7.3? (David D. Johnson)<br> 3. Re: Strategies - servers with local SAS disks<br> (Simon Thompson (Research Computing - IT Services))<br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 09:37:15 -0500<br>From: "Felipe Knop" <knop@us.ibm.com><br>To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org><br>Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Any experience running native GPFS 4.2.1<br>
on Xeon Phi node booted with Centos 7.3?<br>Message-ID:<br>
<OF76EE3FB4.4DB6D687-ON85258082.00502817-85258082.005050A1@notes.na.collabserv.com><br>
<br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br><br>All,<br><br>The SMAP issue has been addressed in GPFS in 4.2.1.1.<br><br>See </font></tt><a href=http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/STXKQY/gpfsclustersfaq.html><tt><font size=2>http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/STXKQY/gpfsclustersfaq.html</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br><br>Q2.4.<br><br> Felipe<br><br>----<br>Felipe Knop
knop@us.ibm.com<br>GPFS Development and Security<br>IBM Systems<br>IBM Building 008<br>2455 South Rd, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601<br>(845) 433-9314 T/L 293-9314<br><br><br><br><br><br>From: Aaron Knister <aaron.knister@gmail.com><br>To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org><br>Date: 12/07/2016 09:25 AM<br>Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Any experience
running native GPFS <br>4.2.1 on Xeon Phi node booted with Centos 7.3?<br>Sent by: gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org<br><br><br><br>I don't know if this applies her but I seem to recall an issue with CentOS
<br>7 (newer 3.X and on kernels), Broadwell processors and GPFS where GPFS
<br>upset SMAP and would eventually get the node expelled. I think this may
be <br>fixed in newer GPFS releases but the fix is to boot the kernel with the
<br>nosmap parameter. Might be worth a try. I'm not clear on whether SMAP is
<br>supported by the Xeon Phi's. <br><br>-Aaron<br><br>On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:34 AM <david_johnson@brown.edu> wrote:<br>IBM says it should work ok, we are not so sure. We had node expels that
<br>stopped when we turned off gpfs on that node. Has anyone had better luck?<br><br> -- ddj<br>Dave Johnson<br>_______________________________________________<br>gpfsug-discuss mailing list<br>gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<br></font></tt><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss"><tt><font size=2>http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>_______________________________________________<br>gpfsug-discuss mailing list<br>gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<br></font></tt><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss"><tt><font size=2>http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br><br><br><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <</font></tt><a href="http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/attachments/20161207/48aa0319/attachment-0001.html"><tt><font size=2>http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/attachments/20161207/48aa0319/attachment-0001.html</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 2<br>Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 09:47:46 -0500<br>From: "David D. Johnson" <david_johnson@brown.edu><br>To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org><br>Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Any experience running native GPFS 4.2.1<br>
on
Xeon Phi node booted with Centos 7.3?<br>Message-ID: <5FBAC3AE-39F2-453D-8A9D-5FDE90BADD38@brown.edu><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br><br>Yes, we saw the SMAP issue on earlier releases, added the kernel command
line option to disable it.<br>That is not the issue for this node. The Phi processors do not support
that cpu feature.<br><br> ? ddj<br><br>> On Dec 7, 2016, at 9:37 AM, Felipe Knop <knop@us.ibm.com> wrote:<br>> <br>> All,<br>> <br>> The SMAP issue has been addressed in GPFS in 4.2.1.1.<br>> <br>> See </font></tt><a href=http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/STXKQY/gpfsclustersfaq.html><tt><font size=2>http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/STXKQY/gpfsclustersfaq.html</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><</font></tt><a href=http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/STXKQY/gpfsclustersfaq.html><tt><font size=2>http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/STXKQY/gpfsclustersfaq.html</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>><br>> <br>> Q2.4.<br>> <br>> Felipe<br>> <br>> ----<br>> Felipe Knop
knop@us.ibm.com<br>> GPFS Development and Security<br>> IBM Systems<br>> IBM Building 008<br>> 2455 South Rd, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601<br>> (845) 433-9314 T/L 293-9314<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> From: Aaron Knister <aaron.knister@gmail.com><br>> To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org><br>> Date: 12/07/2016 09:25 AM<br>> Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Any experience
running native GPFS 4.2.1 on Xeon Phi node booted with Centos 7.3?<br>> Sent by: gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> I don't know if this applies her but I seem to recall an issue with
CentOS 7 (newer 3.X and on kernels), Broadwell processors and GPFS where
GPFS upset SMAP and would eventually get the node expelled. I think this
may be fixed in newer GPFS releases but the fix is to boot the kernel with
the nosmap parameter. Might be worth a try. I'm not clear on whether SMAP
is supported by the Xeon Phi's. <br>> <br>> -Aaron<br>> <br>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:34 AM <david_johnson@brown.edu <</font></tt><a href=mailto:david_johnson@brown.edu><tt><font size=2>mailto:david_johnson@brown.edu</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>>
wrote:<br>> IBM says it should work ok, we are not so sure. We had node expels
that stopped when we turned off gpfs on that node. Has anyone had better
luck?<br>> <br>> -- ddj<br>> Dave Johnson<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> gpfsug-discuss mailing list<br>> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org <</font></tt><a href=http://spectrumscale.org/><tt><font size=2>http://spectrumscale.org/</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>><br>> </font></tt><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss"><tt><font size=2>http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><</font></tt><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss"><tt><font size=2>http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>_______________________________________________<br>> gpfsug-discuss mailing list<br>> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<br>> </font></tt><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss"><tt><font size=2>http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><</font></tt><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss"><tt><font size=2>http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>><br>> <br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> gpfsug-discuss mailing list<br>> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<br>> </font></tt><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss"><tt><font size=2>http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <</font></tt><a href="http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/attachments/20161207/92819f21/attachment-0001.html"><tt><font size=2>http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/attachments/20161207/92819f21/attachment-0001.html</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 3<br>Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 14:58:39 +0000<br>From: "Simon Thompson (Research Computing - IT Services)"<br>
<S.J.Thompson@bham.ac.uk><br>To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org><br>Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Strategies - servers with local SAS<br>
disks<br>Message-ID: <D46DD3A5.33E50%s.j.thompson@bham.ac.uk><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br><br>I was going to ask about this, I recall it being mentioned about "grandfathering"
and also having mixed deployments.<br><br>Would that mean you could per TB license one set of NSD servers (hosting
only 1 FS) that co-existed in a cluster with other traditionally licensed
systems?<br><br>I would see having NSDs with different license models hosting the same
FS being problematic, but if it were a different file-system?<br><br>Simon<br><br>From: <gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org<</font></tt><a href="mailto:gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org"><tt><font size=2>mailto:gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>>
on behalf of Daniel Kidger <daniel.kidger@uk.ibm.com<</font></tt><a href=mailto:daniel.kidger@uk.ibm.com><tt><font size=2>mailto:daniel.kidger@uk.ibm.com</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>><br>Reply-To: "gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org<</font></tt><a href="mailto:gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org"><tt><font size=2>mailto:gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>"
<gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org<</font></tt><a href="mailto:gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org"><tt><font size=2>mailto:gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>><br>Date: Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 12:36<br>To: "gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org<</font></tt><a href="mailto:gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org"><tt><font size=2>mailto:gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>"
<gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org<</font></tt><a href="mailto:gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org"><tt><font size=2>mailto:gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>><br>Cc: "gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org<</font></tt><a href="mailto:gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org"><tt><font size=2>mailto:gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>"
<gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org<</font></tt><a href="mailto:gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org"><tt><font size=2>mailto:gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>>><br>Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Strategies - servers with local SAS disks<br><br>The new volume based licensing option is I agree quite pricey per TB at
first sight, but it could make some configuration choice, a lot cheaper
than they used to be under the Client:FPO:Server model.<br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <</font></tt><a href="http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/attachments/20161207/51c1a2ea/attachment.html"><tt><font size=2>http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/attachments/20161207/51c1a2ea/attachment.html</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>gpfsug-discuss mailing list<br>gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<br></font></tt><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss"><tt><font size=2>http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br><br><br>End of gpfsug-discuss Digest, Vol 59, Issue 20<br>**********************************************<br><br></font></tt><br><br><BR>