[gpfsug-discuss] -Y option for many commands, precious few officially!

[Jonathon A Anderson]

Sure; but that only helps if you know the flag even exists.

~jonathon


On 3/28/17, 10:37 AM, "gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org on behalf of Simon Thompson (Research Computing - IT Services)" <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org on behalf of S.J.Thompson at bham.ac.uk> wrote:

    I thought the header rows defined what the format of the output was. Its a bit weird as there can be multiple header rows for different content rows ...
    
    
    Simon
    
    
    From: <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org> on behalf of Marc A Kaplan <makaplan at us.ibm.com>
    Reply-To: "gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org" <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
    Date: Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 17:14
    To: "gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org" <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
    Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] -Y option for many commands, precious few officially!
    
    
    
    Just looking/scanning the latest (4.2.2) Spectrum Scale Command (and Programming) Reference I only found a few commands that officially are documented as supporting a -Y option:  mmnfs, mmsmb, mmuserauth.
    
    But as many of you have discovered, -Y is accepted and yields "interesting" output for many of the mmXXXX commands.  
    Moreover the output *seems to* have easily discernible patterns that can be parsed by simple programs.
    
    I believe there is no guarantee that the exact command output formats will not change from release to release, so, as a practical matter, if you're going to parse command output, you're probably better off parsing the -Y output,
     even if that is not officially supported.