<html><body><p><font size="2">Yes, older versions of GPFS don't recognize /dev/nvme*. So you would need /var/mmfs/etc/nsddevices user exit. On newer GPFS versions, the nvme devices are also generic. So, it is good that you are using the same NSD sub-type.</font><br><br><font size="2">Cheers,</font><br><font size="2">Tru.</font><br><br><img width="16" height="16" src="cid:1__=0ABB0839DFD827D68f9e8a93df938690918c0AB@" border="0" alt="Inactive hide details for gpfsug-discuss-request---06/12/2018 06:47:05 AM---Send gpfsug-discuss mailing list submissions to gp"><font size="2" color="#424282">gpfsug-discuss-request---06/12/2018 06:47:05 AM---Send gpfsug-discuss mailing list submissions to gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org</font><br><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">From: </font><font size="2">gpfsug-discuss-request@spectrumscale.org</font><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">To: </font><font size="2">gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org</font><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">Date: </font><font size="2">06/12/2018 06:47 AM</font><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">Subject: </font><font size="2">gpfsug-discuss Digest, Vol 77, Issue 15</font><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">Sent by: </font><font size="2">gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org</font><br><hr width="100%" size="2" align="left" noshade style="color:#8091A5; "><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><tt><font size="2"><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss">http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</a></font></tt><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: RHEL updated to 7.5 instead of 7.4 (Felipe Knop)<br> 2. Re: RHEL updated to 7.5 instead of 7.4 (Jeffrey R. Lang)<br> 3. Lroc on NVME (Peter Childs)<br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 09:52:16 -0400<br>From: "Felipe Knop" <knop@us.ibm.com><br>To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org><br>Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] RHEL updated to 7.5 instead of 7.4<br>Message-ID:<br> <OFE6ED5366.7E225BA2-ON002582A9.004C0F93-852582A9.004C327D@notes.na.collabserv.com><br> <br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br><br>Fred,<br><br>Correct. The FAQ should be updated shortly.<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: "Frederick Stock" <stockf@us.ibm.com><br>To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org><br>Date: 06/11/2018 07:52 AM<br>Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] RHEL updated to 7.5 instead of 7.4<br>Sent by: gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org<br><br><br><br>Spectrum Scale 4.2.3.9 does support RHEL 7.5.<br><br>Fred<br>__________________________________________________<br>Fred Stock | IBM Pittsburgh Lab | 720-430-8821<br>stockf@us.ibm.com<br><br><br><br>From: "Sobey, Richard A" <r.sobey@imperial.ac.uk><br>To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org><br>Date: 06/11/2018 06:59 AM<br>Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] RHEL updated to 7.5 instead of 7.4<br>Sent by: gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org<br><br><br><br>Thanks Simon. Do you mean you pinned the minor release to 7.X but yum<br>upgraded you to 7.Y? This has just happened to me:<br><br>[root@ ~]# subscription-manager release<br>Release: 7.4<br>[root@ ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release<br>Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 7.5 (Maipo)<br><br>Granted I didn?t issue a yum clean all after changing the release however<br>I?ve never seen this happen before.<br><br>Anyway, I need to either downgrade back to 7.4 or upgrade GPFS, whichever<br>will be the best supported. I need to learn to pay attention to what kernel<br>version I?m being updated to in future!<br><br>Cheers<br>Richard<br><br>From: gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org<br><gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org> On Behalf Of Simon Thompson (IT<br>Research Support)<br>Sent: 11 June 2018 11:50<br>To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org><br>Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] RHEL updated to 7.5 instead of 7.4<br><br>We have on our DSS-G ?<br><br>Have you looked at:<br></font></tt><tt><font size="2"><a href="https://access.redhat.com/solutions/238533">https://access.redhat.com/solutions/238533</a></font></tt><tt><font size="2"><br><br>?<br><br>Simon<br><br>From: <gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org> on behalf of "Sobey,<br>Richard A" <r.sobey@imperial.ac.uk><br>Reply-To: "gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org" <<br>gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org><br>Date: Monday, 11 June 2018 at 11:46<br>To: "gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org" <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org><br>Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] RHEL updated to 7.5 instead of 7.4<br><br>Has anyone ever used subscription-manager to set a release to 7.4 only for<br>the system to upgrade to 7.5 anyway?<br><br>Also is 7.5 now supported with the 4.2.3.9 PTF or should I concentrate on<br>downgrading back to 7.4?<br><br>Richard_______________________________________________<br>gpfsug-discuss mailing list<br>gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<br></font></tt><tt><font size="2"><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss">http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</a></font></tt><tt><font size="2"><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>gpfsug-discuss mailing list<br>gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<br></font></tt><tt><font size="2"><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss">http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</a></font></tt><tt><font size="2"><br><br><br><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <</font></tt><tt><font size="2"><a href="http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/attachments/20180611/d13470c2/attachment-0001.html">http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/attachments/20180611/d13470c2/attachment-0001.html</a></font></tt><tt><font size="2">><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>Name: graycol.gif<br>Type: image/gif<br>Size: 105 bytes<br>Desc: not available<br>URL: <</font></tt><tt><font size="2"><a href="http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/attachments/20180611/d13470c2/attachment-0001.gif">http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/attachments/20180611/d13470c2/attachment-0001.gif</a></font></tt><tt><font size="2">><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 2<br>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:01:48 +0000<br>From: "Jeffrey R. Lang" <JRLang@uwyo.edu><br>To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org><br>Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] RHEL updated to 7.5 instead of 7.4<br>Message-ID:<br> <BYAPR05MB3944D14F48CDDC82F3F29245A8780@BYAPR05MB3944.namprd05.prod.outlook.com><br> <br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br><br>Yes, I recently had this happen.<br><br>It was determined that the caches had been updated to the 7.5 packages, before I set the release to 7.4/ Since I didn't clear and delete the cache it used what it had and did the update to 7.5.<br><br>So always clear and remove the cache before an update.<br><br>Jeff<br><br>From: gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org <gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org> On Behalf Of Sobey, Richard A<br>Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 5:46 AM<br>To: 'gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org' <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org><br>Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] RHEL updated to 7.5 instead of 7.4<br><br>Has anyone ever used subscription-manager to set a release to 7.4 only for the system to upgrade to 7.5 anyway?<br><br>Also is 7.5 now supported with the 4.2.3.9 PTF or should I concentrate on downgrading back to 7.4?<br><br>Richard<br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <</font></tt><tt><font size="2"><a href="http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/attachments/20180611/f085e78e/attachment-0001.html">http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/attachments/20180611/f085e78e/attachment-0001.html</a></font></tt><tt><font size="2">><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 3<br>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:42:32 +0000<br>From: Peter Childs <p.childs@qmul.ac.uk><br>To: "gpfsug-discuss@gpfsug.org" <gpfsug-discuss@gpfsug.org><br>Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] Lroc on NVME<br>Message-ID:<br> <687c534347c7e02365cb3c5de4532a60f8a296fb.camel@qmul.ac.uk><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br><br>We have a new computer, which has an nvme drive that is appearing as<br>/dev/nvme0 and we'd like to put lroc on /dev/nvme0p1p1. which is a<br>partition on the drive.<br><br>After doing the standard mmcrnsd to set it up Spectrum Scale fails to<br>see it.<br><br>I've added a script /var/mmfs/etc/nsddevices so that gpfs scans them,<br>and it does work now. What "type" should I set the nvme drives too?<br>I've currently set it to "generic"<br><br>I want to do some tidying of my script, but has anyone else tried to<br>get lroc running on nvme and how well does it work.<br><br>We're running CentOs 7.4 and Spectrum Scale 4.2.3-8 currently.<br><br>Thanks in advance.<br><br><br><br> <br>-- <br>Peter Childs<br>ITS Research Storage<br>Queen Mary, University of London<br><br>------------------------------<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>gpfsug-discuss mailing list<br>gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<br></font></tt><tt><font size="2"><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss">http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</a></font></tt><tt><font size="2"><br><br><br>End of gpfsug-discuss Digest, Vol 77, Issue 15<br>**********************************************<br><br></font></tt><br><br><BR>
</body></html>