<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">If you think about it, if a CES node opens a file for an NFS client and then a client in a remote MC mounted cluster opens the same file then that MC client node needs to talk to that CES node to negotiate the lock.<br><br><div><div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Daniel</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><img alt="/spectrum_storage-banne" src="http://ausgsa.ibm.com/projects/t/tivoli_visual_design/public/2015/Spectrum-Storage/Email-signatures/Storage/spectrum_storage-banner.png" width="432.5" height="auto" style="width: 601px; height: 5px;"></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br> </span></div><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-family: sans-serif;"><tbody><tr style="word-wrap: break-word; max-width: 447.5px;"><td style="word-wrap: break-word; max-width: 447.5px; width: 201px; padding: 0cm;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><img alt="Spectrum Scale Logo" src="http://ausgsa.ibm.com/projects/t/tivoli_visual_design/public/2015/Spectrum-Storage/Email-signatures/Storage/spectrum_scale-logo.png" style="width: 75px; height: 120px; float: left;"></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><font face=".SFUIDisplay"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </span></font></div></td><td style="word-wrap: break-word; max-width: 447.5px; width: 21px; padding: 0cm;"><font face=".SFUIDisplay"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </span></font></td><td style="word-wrap: break-word; max-width: 447.5px; width: 202px; padding: 0cm;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><font face=".SFUIDisplay"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><strong>Dr Daniel Kidger</strong> <br>IBM Technical Sales Specialist<br>Software Defined Solution Sales<br><br><a dir="ltr" href="tel:+%2044-7818%20522%20266" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone" x-apple-data-detectors-result="1">+</a> <a dir="ltr" href="tel:+%2044-7818%20522%20266" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone" x-apple-data-detectors-result="1">44-(0)7818 522 266</a> <br><a dir="ltr" href="mailto:daniel.kidger@uk.ibm.com" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="link" x-apple-data-detectors-result="2">daniel.kidger@uk.ibm.com</a></span></font></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div><br>On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:35, Knister, Aaron S. (GSFC-606.2)[COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP] <<a href="mailto:aaron.s.knister@nasa.gov">aaron.s.knister@nasa.gov</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<div dir="ltr">It’s my understanding and experience that all member nodes of two clusters that are multi-clustered must be able to (and will eventually given enough time/activity) make connections to any and all nodes in both clusters. Even if you don’t designate
the 2 protocol nodes as contact nodes I would expect to see connections from remote clusters to the protocol nodes just because of the nature of the beast. If you don’t want remote nodes to make connections to the protocol nodes then I believe you would need
to put the protocol nodes in their own cluster. CES/CNFS hasn’t always supported this but I think it is now supported, at least with NFS. <br></div><span id="draft-break"></span><br><br><br><span id="draft-break"></span><br><br><div><div class="null" dir="auto">On November 30, 2017 at 11:28:03 EST, <a href="mailto:valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu">valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu</a> wrote:<br class="null"></div><blockquote type="cite" style="border-left-style:solid;border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;" class="null"><div class="null" dir="auto"><div class="null"><div class="null"><div class="null">We have a 10-node cluster running gpfs 4.2.2.3, where 8 nodes are GPFS contact
<br class="null">nodes for 2 filesystems, and 2 are protocol nodes doingNFS exports of the <br class="null">filesystems. <br class="null"><br class="null">But we see some nodes in remote clusters trying to GPFS connect to <br class="null">the 2 protocol nodes anyhow. <br class="null"><br class="null">My reading of the manpages is that the remote cluster is responsible <br class="null">for setting '-n contactNodes' when they do the 'mmremotecluster add', <br class="null">and there's no way to sanity check or enforce that at the local end, and <br class="null">fail/flag connections to unintended non-contact nodes if the remote <br class="null">admin forgets/botches the -n. <br class="null"><br class="null">Is that actually correct? If so, is it time for an RFE? <br class="null">_______________________________________________ <br class="null">gpfsug-discuss mailing list <br class="null">gpfsug-discuss at <a href="http://spectrumscale.org">spectrumscale.org</a> <br class="null"><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss">http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</a> <br class="null"></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div>Unless stated otherwise above:<BR>
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. <BR>
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU<BR>
<BR>
</body></html>