<span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Arial">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. Further,
there is no a priori means to confirm if the lack of a working directory
will cause the command to fail. I will agree that there may be admins
that would prefer the command fail fast and allow them to restart the command
anew, but I suspect there are admins that prefer the command press ahead
in hopes that it can complete successfully and not require another execution.
I'm sure we can conjure scenarios that support both points of view.
Perhaps what is desired is a message that more clearly describes
what is being undertaken. For example, "The current working
directory, <directory_name>, no longer exists. Execution continues."</span><br><br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Regards, The Spectrum
Scale (GPFS) team<br><br>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>If you feel that your question can benefit other users of Spectrum
Scale (GPFS), then please post it to the public IBM developerWroks Forum
at </span><a href="https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/forums/html/forum?id=11111111-0000-0000-0000-000000000479"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/forums/html/forum?id=11111111-0000-0000-0000-000000000479</span></a><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">.
<br><br>If your query concerns a potential software error in Spectrum Scale (GPFS)
and you have an IBM software maintenance contract please contact 1-800-237-5511
in the United States or your local IBM Service Center in other countries.
<br><br>The forum is informally monitored as time permits and should not be used
for priority messages to the Spectrum Scale (GPFS) team.</span><br><br><br><br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">From:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">Jonathan
Buzzard <jonathan.buzzard@strath.ac.uk></span><br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">To:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org</span><br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Date:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">09/08/2020
12:10 PM</span><br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Subject:
</span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">[EXTERNAL]
Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Best of spectrum scale</span><br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Sent
by: </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org</span><br><hr noshade><br><br><br><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt">On 08/09/2020 14:04, IBM Spectrum
Scale wrote:<br>> I think a better metaphor is that the bridge we just crossed has <br>> collapsed and as long as we do not need to cross it again our journey
<br>> should reach its intended destination :-) As I understand the
intent of <br>> this message is to alert the user (and our support teams) that the
<br>> directory from which a command was executed no longer exist. Should
<br>> that be of consequence to the execution of the command then failure
is <br>> not unexpected, however, many commands do not make use of the current
<br>> directory so they likely will succeed. If you consider the view
point <br>> of a command failing because the working directory was removed, but
not <br>> knowing that was the root cause, I think you can see why this message
<br>> was added into the administration infrastructure. It allows
this odd <br>> failure scenario to be quickly recognized saving time for both the
user <br>> and IBM support, in tracking down the root cause.<br>> <br><br>I think the issue being taken is that you get an error message of<br><br> The command may fail in an unexpected way. Processing
continues ..<br><br>Now to my mind that is an instant WTF, and if your description is <br>correct the command should IMHO have exiting saying something like<br><br> Working directory vanished, exiting command<br><br>If there is any chance of the command failing then it should not be <br>executed IMHO. I would rather issue it again from a directory that exists.<br><br>The way I look at it is that file systems have "state", that
is if <br>something goes wrong then you could be looking at extended downtime as
<br>you break the backup out and start restoring. GPFS file systems have a
<br>tendency to be large, so even if you have a backup it is not a pleasant
<br>process and could easily take weeks to get things back to rights.<br><br>Consequently most system admins would prefer the command does not <br>continue if there is any possibility of it failing and messing up the <br>"state" of my file system.<br><br>That's unlike say the configuration on a network switch that can be <br>quickly be put back with minimal interruption.<br><br>JAB.<br><br>-- <br>Jonathan A. Buzzard
Tel: +44141-5483420<br>HPC System Administrator, ARCHIE-WeSt.<br>University of Strathclyde, John Anderson Building, Glasgow. G4 0NG<br>_______________________________________________<br>gpfsug-discuss mailing list<br>gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<br></span></tt><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss"><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt">http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</span></tt></a><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt"><br><br></span></tt><br><br><BR>