[gpfsug-discuss] mmauth/mmremotecluster wonkyness?

Daniel Kidger daniel.kidger at uk.ibm.com
Tue Dec 5 22:44:31 GMT 2017


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.

Daniel


 

 
 	
Dr Daniel Kidger 
IBM Technical Sales Specialist
Software Defined Solution Sales

+ 44-(0)7818 522 266 
daniel.kidger at uk.ibm.com

> On 30 Nov 2017, at 17:35, Knister, Aaron S. (GSFC-606.2)[COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP] <aaron.s.knister at nasa.gov> wrote:
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On November 30, 2017 at 11:28:03 EST, valdis.kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
>> We have a 10-node cluster running gpfs 4.2.2.3, where 8 nodes are GPFS contact 
>> nodes for 2 filesystems, and 2 are protocol nodes doingNFS exports of the 
>> filesystems. 
>> 
>> But we see some nodes in remote clusters trying to GPFS connect to 
>> the 2 protocol nodes anyhow. 
>> 
>> My reading of the manpages is that the remote cluster is responsible 
>> for setting '-n contactNodes' when they do the 'mmremotecluster add', 
>> and there's no way to sanity check or enforce that at the local end, and 
>> fail/flag connections to unintended non-contact nodes if the remote 
>> admin forgets/botches the -n. 
>> 
>> Is that actually correct? If so, is it time for an RFE? 
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> gpfsug-discuss mailing list 
>> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org 
>> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20171205/da71f602/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the gpfsug-discuss mailing list