From heathp at HPC.MsState.Edu  Tue Aug  3 19:11:16 2021
From: heathp at HPC.MsState.Edu (Peeples, Heath)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 18:11:16 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow
Message-ID: <BN0PR01MB70564A2E9198B54D3F68460A9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>

I am trying to use mmapplypolicy to determine what files are modified in a particular snapshop.  Below I have the policy and mmapplypolicy parameters I am using.  It is taking 3-4 hours to list these files. There are roughly 176M files.  This is running on a DDN Gridscaler 12K system.   Seems to me after seeing others posts we should be able to run this much quicker.  Any help would be appreciated.


mmapplypolicy fs2 -S 20210104 -I defer -A 175 -a 72 -B 10000  -N all -g /fs1/tmp/heath -P /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath.pol -f /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath/output/20210104

RULE 'find_mods' list 'mods'
DIRECTORIES_PLUS
WEIGHT(0)
SHOW( VARCHAR(USER_ID) || ' ' || varchar(FILE_SIZE) || ' ' || varchar(MODIFICATION_SNAPID) )


Heath
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210803/3d7ee2a4/attachment.htm>

From janfrode at tanso.net  Tue Aug  3 19:49:21 2021
From: janfrode at tanso.net (Jan-Frode Myklebust)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 20:49:21 +0200
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow
In-Reply-To: <BN0PR01MB70564A2E9198B54D3F68460A9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
References: <BN0PR01MB70564A2E9198B54D3F68460A9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Message-ID: <CAHwPatj7_wBXVaShd9m7sPzrHbBmf0zyOfXkxsKs99VRPxUSTg@mail.gmail.com>

So?. the advertisement ssys we should be able to do 1M files/s?
http://files.gpfsug.org/presentations/2018/USA/SpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf

First I  would try is if maybe limiting which nodes are used for the
processing helps. Maybe limit to the NSD-servers (-N nodenames) ?

Also,  --choice-algorithm fast might help..?



  -jf


tir. 3. aug. 2021 kl. 20:18 skrev Peeples, Heath <heathp at hpc.msstate.edu>:

> I am trying to use mmapplypolicy to determine what files are modified in a
> particular snapshop.  Below I have the policy and mmapplypolicy parameters
> I am using.  It is taking 3-4 hours to list these files. There are roughly
> 176M files.  This is running on a DDN Gridscaler 12K system.   Seems to me
> after seeing others posts we should be able to run this much quicker.  Any
> help would be appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
> mmapplypolicy fs2 -S 20210104 -I defer -A 175 -a 72 -B 10000  -N all -g
> /fs1/tmp/heath -P /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath.pol -f
> /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath/output/20210104
>
>
>
> RULE 'find_mods' list 'mods'
>
> DIRECTORIES_PLUS
>
> WEIGHT(0)
>
> SHOW( VARCHAR(USER_ID) || ' ' || varchar(FILE_SIZE) || ' ' ||
> varchar(MODIFICATION_SNAPID) )
>
>
>
>
>
> Heath
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210803/72631f54/attachment.htm>

From heathp at HPC.MsState.Edu  Tue Aug  3 19:52:39 2021
From: heathp at HPC.MsState.Edu (Peeples, Heath)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 18:52:39 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow
In-Reply-To: <CAHwPatj7_wBXVaShd9m7sPzrHbBmf0zyOfXkxsKs99VRPxUSTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BN0PR01MB70564A2E9198B54D3F68460A9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
	<CAHwPatj7_wBXVaShd9m7sPzrHbBmf0zyOfXkxsKs99VRPxUSTg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BN0PR01MB70566A92BFC96D56B171F6F19CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>

Yes, that advertisement makes me smile ?

I have tried both of those, and they do not seem to make any difference.  I have also played with the -A and -a parameters with no combination that I can find making it any better.

Thanks for the feedback.

From: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org> On Behalf Of Jan-Frode Myklebust
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 1:49 PM
To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow

So?. the advertisement ssys we should be able to do 1M files/s?
http://files.gpfsug.org/presentations/2018/USA/SpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1qQpvD9F4NtOuzGs8G_8PtFl-CwL-8JNJO1mx5gEbI7QwDLGI58rp5A1Zj3Q1nQoonzr0pdbS8-5R4oc5DLLmaBS6PQJ0HXdquIC5cLIlmasuY6rJfZ_dnC7zPJmBySjicZ0rFC-nrhKEnu-_J-arj4xmzx2VxDYJlbreMnsJfs8xW-c4B_Hnf7N9sPPXQ2b6C8jORSfUogYE0Lue9d2OEn-ITxLZdDzB34linSMOE1kYikuG5ewgP6p0nhcznywEWQr_aE1zvb_kgT9pW4ldt39RkTfGbH-O72Aa-sBxa9NilSUt8K-5wXh6KkXTvTln/http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.gpfsug.org%2Fpresentations%2F2018%2FUSA%2FSpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf>

First I  would try is if maybe limiting which nodes are used for the processing helps. Maybe limit to the NSD-servers (-N nodenames) ?

Also,  --choice-algorithm fast might help..?



  -jf


tir. 3. aug. 2021 kl. 20:18 skrev Peeples, Heath <heathp at hpc.msstate.edu<mailto:heathp at hpc.msstate.edu>>:
I am trying to use mmapplypolicy to determine what files are modified in a particular snapshop.  Below I have the policy and mmapplypolicy parameters I am using.  It is taking 3-4 hours to list these files. There are roughly 176M files.  This is running on a DDN Gridscaler 12K system.   Seems to me after seeing others posts we should be able to run this much quicker.  Any help would be appreciated.


mmapplypolicy fs2 -S 20210104 -I defer -A 175 -a 72 -B 10000  -N all -g /fs1/tmp/heath -P /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath.pol -f /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath/output/20210104

RULE 'find_mods' list 'mods'
DIRECTORIES_PLUS
WEIGHT(0)
SHOW( VARCHAR(USER_ID) || ' ' || varchar(FILE_SIZE) || ' ' || varchar(MODIFICATION_SNAPID) )


Heath
_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<http://secure-web.cisco.com/13y0L5a_-UdTp06HAY-SQnbTVm8HkHswo4iplosUAzEBhW3s6Y6LnTuCvikd3KQuk_YPuAuKhDLAzBjCcmelrVS146XsPHgLLLSbAb3bAKY9dZ10sV8_ErYKn0OqyE8gPgh4kjWnswfL7oomTnhYj4D1Q2mY83UI82dAJAX-2n8NaxlfloOFS23DgFMEULXJgy-wNH_cLemLqseter9-Rj2yO3jsruIBj3_DcY_Z87ffxo0SQcYazbJvThTeqb5C1o6hepHZkalgmUvQE6K2CAV_sX4cWrNs5GNqPy7xifM9tlbvhwJvwSvZGlTO_da4e/http%3A%2F%2Fspectrumscale.org>
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1joeovhVrYzawY9kLy658LHgv3dW6Ta7uZzGAlu08q1o21Rw4o615cnGStXQ0NQeAYE2jCpJAzC7DKAzkxD_cgeRLlQkKVRPFm8QFIMXwGcESXOwOmKXVVD5fq8H0gBD6VasiBdUmWrijLwK0QFvEduBRSXIqQ-sWoxrR1onYwyJEPV--XMh-r1O-92mnjtaUNVuSS2KXElVq8rc2O33St8Ga2qd5QSTT2pUQcbr2IJUM4a2gu0ZrtVQgRBRTZU1ZuoPnFZY8AL4tubpqa6vK_x_dt-W6bkV1XKSre2XQMxCaNb9Bm2_bKJgfhamPC-Rf/http%3A%2F%2Fgpfsug.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpfsug-discuss>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210803/90209a26/attachment.htm>

From janfrode at tanso.net  Tue Aug  3 20:09:04 2021
From: janfrode at tanso.net (Jan-Frode Myklebust)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 21:09:04 +0200
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow
In-Reply-To: <BN0PR01MB70566A92BFC96D56B171F6F19CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
References: <BN0PR01MB70564A2E9198B54D3F68460A9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
	<CAHwPatj7_wBXVaShd9m7sPzrHbBmf0zyOfXkxsKs99VRPxUSTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BN0PR01MB70566A92BFC96D56B171F6F19CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Message-ID: <CAHwPath2C=7PG_QNDNiFgs81haXfTSuTodtb7ZhooEoL+MenyA@mail.gmail.com>

Just guessing, but maybe some ?where SNAP_ID('SnapshotName')? is better
than -S 20210104?


?

tir. 3. aug. 2021 kl. 20:59 skrev Peeples, Heath <heathp at hpc.msstate.edu>:

> Yes, that advertisement makes me smile ?
>
>
>
> I have tried both of those, and they do not seem to make any difference.
> I have also played with the -A and -a parameters with no combination that I
> can find making it any better.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
>
>
> *From:* gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org <
> gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org> *On Behalf Of *Jan-Frode
> Myklebust
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 3, 2021 1:49 PM
> *To:* gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow
>
>
>
> So?. the advertisement ssys we should be able to do 1M files/s?
>
> http://files.gpfsug.org/presentations/2018/USA/SpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf
> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1qQpvD9F4NtOuzGs8G_8PtFl-CwL-8JNJO1mx5gEbI7QwDLGI58rp5A1Zj3Q1nQoonzr0pdbS8-5R4oc5DLLmaBS6PQJ0HXdquIC5cLIlmasuY6rJfZ_dnC7zPJmBySjicZ0rFC-nrhKEnu-_J-arj4xmzx2VxDYJlbreMnsJfs8xW-c4B_Hnf7N9sPPXQ2b6C8jORSfUogYE0Lue9d2OEn-ITxLZdDzB34linSMOE1kYikuG5ewgP6p0nhcznywEWQr_aE1zvb_kgT9pW4ldt39RkTfGbH-O72Aa-sBxa9NilSUt8K-5wXh6KkXTvTln/http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.gpfsug.org%2Fpresentations%2F2018%2FUSA%2FSpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf>
>
>
>
> First I  would try is if maybe limiting which nodes are used for the
> processing helps. Maybe limit to the NSD-servers (-N nodenames) ?
>
>
>
> Also,  --choice-algorithm fast might help..?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   -jf
>
>
>
>
>
> tir. 3. aug. 2021 kl. 20:18 skrev Peeples, Heath <heathp at hpc.msstate.edu>:
>
> I am trying to use mmapplypolicy to determine what files are modified in a
> particular snapshop.  Below I have the policy and mmapplypolicy parameters
> I am using.  It is taking 3-4 hours to list these files. There are roughly
> 176M files.  This is running on a DDN Gridscaler 12K system.   Seems to me
> after seeing others posts we should be able to run this much quicker.  Any
> help would be appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
> mmapplypolicy fs2 -S 20210104 -I defer -A 175 -a 72 -B 10000  -N all -g
> /fs1/tmp/heath -P /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath.pol -f
> /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath/output/20210104
>
>
>
> RULE 'find_mods' list 'mods'
>
> DIRECTORIES_PLUS
>
> WEIGHT(0)
>
> SHOW( VARCHAR(USER_ID) || ' ' || varchar(FILE_SIZE) || ' ' ||
> varchar(MODIFICATION_SNAPID) )
>
>
>
>
>
> Heath
>
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/13y0L5a_-UdTp06HAY-SQnbTVm8HkHswo4iplosUAzEBhW3s6Y6LnTuCvikd3KQuk_YPuAuKhDLAzBjCcmelrVS146XsPHgLLLSbAb3bAKY9dZ10sV8_ErYKn0OqyE8gPgh4kjWnswfL7oomTnhYj4D1Q2mY83UI82dAJAX-2n8NaxlfloOFS23DgFMEULXJgy-wNH_cLemLqseter9-Rj2yO3jsruIBj3_DcY_Z87ffxo0SQcYazbJvThTeqb5C1o6hepHZkalgmUvQE6K2CAV_sX4cWrNs5GNqPy7xifM9tlbvhwJvwSvZGlTO_da4e/http%3A%2F%2Fspectrumscale.org>
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1joeovhVrYzawY9kLy658LHgv3dW6Ta7uZzGAlu08q1o21Rw4o615cnGStXQ0NQeAYE2jCpJAzC7DKAzkxD_cgeRLlQkKVRPFm8QFIMXwGcESXOwOmKXVVD5fq8H0gBD6VasiBdUmWrijLwK0QFvEduBRSXIqQ-sWoxrR1onYwyJEPV--XMh-r1O-92mnjtaUNVuSS2KXElVq8rc2O33St8Ga2qd5QSTT2pUQcbr2IJUM4a2gu0ZrtVQgRBRTZU1ZuoPnFZY8AL4tubpqa6vK_x_dt-W6bkV1XKSre2XQMxCaNb9Bm2_bKJgfhamPC-Rf/http%3A%2F%2Fgpfsug.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpfsug-discuss>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210803/8dfa3f5a/attachment.htm>

From heathp at HPC.MsState.Edu  Tue Aug  3 20:11:06 2021
From: heathp at HPC.MsState.Edu (Peeples, Heath)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 19:11:06 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow
In-Reply-To: <CAHwPath2C=7PG_QNDNiFgs81haXfTSuTodtb7ZhooEoL+MenyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BN0PR01MB70564A2E9198B54D3F68460A9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
	<CAHwPatj7_wBXVaShd9m7sPzrHbBmf0zyOfXkxsKs99VRPxUSTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BN0PR01MB70566A92BFC96D56B171F6F19CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
	<CAHwPath2C=7PG_QNDNiFgs81haXfTSuTodtb7ZhooEoL+MenyA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BN0PR01MB7056BCBEC671D0B48D05CF8C9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>

Well we want to run it against the snapshot so I think we need the -S option.  When you run it against the FS filtering by SNAP_ID, you miss any files that have been deleted since the snapshot.

Heath


From: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org> On Behalf Of Jan-Frode Myklebust
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 2:09 PM
To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow


Just guessing, but maybe some ?where SNAP_ID('SnapshotName')? is better than -S 20210104?


?

tir. 3. aug. 2021 kl. 20:59 skrev Peeples, Heath <heathp at hpc.msstate.edu<mailto:heathp at hpc.msstate.edu>>:
Yes, that advertisement makes me smile ?

I have tried both of those, and they do not seem to make any difference.  I have also played with the -A and -a parameters with no combination that I can find making it any better.

Thanks for the feedback.

From: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org<mailto:gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org> <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org<mailto:gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org>> On Behalf Of Jan-Frode Myklebust
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 1:49 PM
To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<mailto:gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>>
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow

So?. the advertisement ssys we should be able to do 1M files/s?
http://files.gpfsug.org/presentations/2018/USA/SpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1qQpvD9F4NtOuzGs8G_8PtFl-CwL-8JNJO1mx5gEbI7QwDLGI58rp5A1Zj3Q1nQoonzr0pdbS8-5R4oc5DLLmaBS6PQJ0HXdquIC5cLIlmasuY6rJfZ_dnC7zPJmBySjicZ0rFC-nrhKEnu-_J-arj4xmzx2VxDYJlbreMnsJfs8xW-c4B_Hnf7N9sPPXQ2b6C8jORSfUogYE0Lue9d2OEn-ITxLZdDzB34linSMOE1kYikuG5ewgP6p0nhcznywEWQr_aE1zvb_kgT9pW4ldt39RkTfGbH-O72Aa-sBxa9NilSUt8K-5wXh6KkXTvTln/http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.gpfsug.org%2Fpresentations%2F2018%2FUSA%2FSpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf>

First I  would try is if maybe limiting which nodes are used for the processing helps. Maybe limit to the NSD-servers (-N nodenames) ?

Also,  --choice-algorithm fast might help..?



  -jf


tir. 3. aug. 2021 kl. 20:18 skrev Peeples, Heath <heathp at hpc.msstate.edu<mailto:heathp at hpc.msstate.edu>>:
I am trying to use mmapplypolicy to determine what files are modified in a particular snapshop.  Below I have the policy and mmapplypolicy parameters I am using.  It is taking 3-4 hours to list these files. There are roughly 176M files.  This is running on a DDN Gridscaler 12K system.   Seems to me after seeing others posts we should be able to run this much quicker.  Any help would be appreciated.


mmapplypolicy fs2 -S 20210104 -I defer -A 175 -a 72 -B 10000  -N all -g /fs1/tmp/heath -P /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath.pol -f /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath/output/20210104

RULE 'find_mods' list 'mods'
DIRECTORIES_PLUS
WEIGHT(0)
SHOW( VARCHAR(USER_ID) || ' ' || varchar(FILE_SIZE) || ' ' || varchar(MODIFICATION_SNAPID) )


Heath
_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<http://secure-web.cisco.com/13y0L5a_-UdTp06HAY-SQnbTVm8HkHswo4iplosUAzEBhW3s6Y6LnTuCvikd3KQuk_YPuAuKhDLAzBjCcmelrVS146XsPHgLLLSbAb3bAKY9dZ10sV8_ErYKn0OqyE8gPgh4kjWnswfL7oomTnhYj4D1Q2mY83UI82dAJAX-2n8NaxlfloOFS23DgFMEULXJgy-wNH_cLemLqseter9-Rj2yO3jsruIBj3_DcY_Z87ffxo0SQcYazbJvThTeqb5C1o6hepHZkalgmUvQE6K2CAV_sX4cWrNs5GNqPy7xifM9tlbvhwJvwSvZGlTO_da4e/http%3A%2F%2Fspectrumscale.org>
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1joeovhVrYzawY9kLy658LHgv3dW6Ta7uZzGAlu08q1o21Rw4o615cnGStXQ0NQeAYE2jCpJAzC7DKAzkxD_cgeRLlQkKVRPFm8QFIMXwGcESXOwOmKXVVD5fq8H0gBD6VasiBdUmWrijLwK0QFvEduBRSXIqQ-sWoxrR1onYwyJEPV--XMh-r1O-92mnjtaUNVuSS2KXElVq8rc2O33St8Ga2qd5QSTT2pUQcbr2IJUM4a2gu0ZrtVQgRBRTZU1ZuoPnFZY8AL4tubpqa6vK_x_dt-W6bkV1XKSre2XQMxCaNb9Bm2_bKJgfhamPC-Rf/http%3A%2F%2Fgpfsug.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpfsug-discuss>
_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1Jxk0mTZJfEGRuwDAfk6WETmP_z5AYx4ZEYSsRf6Iq7v69ncxGgt70_hIM13VkBESWG6_5J1sazT3n6tfxKKmStUZmOj9j2XvYb9AXirO0aU5Doiod8DV6Exzl1bAO3nro5-AzRdLy12lqtXiY2AecwMn57_JZN9eTrPPB73pyXJrf2Pb0i5PfDRq6o4o2kC5pZ-UgYlYJP2b4Z37vzHDHis8pAUPvc6mKIBdtd_IUbJdvxGfErw3WZIyIdCVNIOyuvVqLDnQcJI9O291mb6-qOXUPiAxrONdm5c0LsU_HkgGbwYXkSRdEUuUtB3n3uM2/http%3A%2F%2Fspectrumscale.org>
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1-tpllNriTqNKP656g4djWNutzuUwZnTeFHXINw7U_4ltbsDdb04bvj1gxe7NEW3YrW-ANqci01QM9ftyYnaBWrgiTCH3PZYu5n3jFwUhSYE8cZh88leH2VaqiXQtN2yH0KW4fHgiO16MYEz35tyoaWGxVcPSk0ExX4ZuXohXCmMt9RrUuBygXw4_v15mAoDPha-mBUTOMtnoWQG7Hq4jJ8CpD6DGaYMV_E23CbJN5fInLFGYJ9b9tP80C_CKMhts_TuB1Z8l6bEYnWj62NqAV-936iq_nLtLoZLKwjZD2-WzENisFTchV_InvVhRgwoL/http%3A%2F%2Fgpfsug.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpfsug-discuss>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210803/ba397df3/attachment.htm>

From cabrillo at ifca.unican.es  Wed Aug  4 09:39:54 2021
From: cabrillo at ifca.unican.es (Iban Cabrillo)
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 10:39:54 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] GUI does not work after upgrade from 4.X to 5.1.1
Message-ID: <188673789.12219696.1628066394522.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>

Dear, 
After the GPFS versi?n upgrade (from 4.3.9 to 5.1.1), I can not start the gpfs gui (FS works fine). Looking at logs I see these relevants lines: 
------------------------------------------- 
Aug 4 10:31:15 gpfsgui su: (to scalemgmt) root on none 
Aug 4 10:31:16 gpfsgui su: (to scalemgmt) root on none 
Aug 4 10:31:16 gpfsgui check4sudoers: Effective path: /sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/lpp/mmfs/bin:/usr/lpp/mmfs/gui/bin-sudo 
Aug 4 10:31:16 gpfsgui check4sudoers: env_keep configuration not found or wrong. Please check your sudoers configuration for scalemgmt user. 
--------------------------------- 

env_keep is set at /etc/sudoers.d/scalemgmt_sudoers file (of course scalemgmt user exits at the system): 

scalemgmt ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD: /usr/lpp/mmfs......./*,.... 
Defaults:scalemgmt env_keep += "PATH SUDO_USER REMOTE_USER GPFS_GUI_USER" 
Defaults:scalemgmt secure_path=/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/lpp/mmfs/bin:/usr/lpp/mmfs/gui/bin-sudo 
Defaults:scalemgmt !requiretty 

Is any thing wrong at env_keep line? 

Any advise is welcomed 
regards, I 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210804/a2b5fff6/attachment.htm>

From cabrillo at ifca.unican.es  Wed Aug  4 12:34:12 2021
From: cabrillo at ifca.unican.es (Iban Cabrillo)
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 13:34:12 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] GUI does not work after upgrade from 4.X to
 5.1.1
In-Reply-To: <188673789.12219696.1628066394522.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>
References: <188673789.12219696.1628066394522.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>
Message-ID: <1015214365.12247735.1628076852775.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>

Hi

   Fixing the line from /usr/lpp/mmfs/gui/bin-sudo/check4sudoers:

   msg=$(echo "$ii" | egrep "env_keep=\"PATH SUDO_USER REMOTE_USER GPFS_GUI_USER ANSIBLE_\*\"")

   by

   msg=$(echo "$ii" | egrep "env_keep=\"PATH SUDO_USER REMOTE_USER GPFS_GUI_USER\"")

do the trick

Regards I



From Renar.Grunenberg at huk-coburg.de  Wed Aug  4 14:45:34 2021
From: Renar.Grunenberg at huk-coburg.de (Grunenberg, Renar)
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 13:45:34 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] GUI does not work after upgrade from 4.X to
	5.1.1
In-Reply-To: <1015214365.12247735.1628076852775.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>
References: <188673789.12219696.1628066394522.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>
	<1015214365.12247735.1628076852775.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>
Message-ID: <a2dfe458d0ac443e87d09b529f372430@huk-coburg.de>

Hallo Iban,
this is already fixed in 5.1.1.1.



Renar Grunenberg
Abteilung Informatik - Betrieb

HUK-COBURG
Bahnhofsplatz
96444 Coburg
Telefon:  09561 96-44110
Telefax:  09561 96-44104
E-Mail:   Renar.Grunenberg at huk-coburg.de
Internet: www.huk.de
=======================================================================
HUK-COBURG Haftpflicht-Unterst?tzungs-Kasse kraftfahrender Beamter Deutschlands a. G. in Coburg
Reg.-Gericht Coburg HRB 100; St.-Nr. 9212/101/00021
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bahnhofsplatz, 96444 Coburg
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. Heinrich R. Schradin.
Vorstand: Klaus-J?rgen Heitmann (Sprecher), Stefan Gronbach, Dr. Hans Olav Her?y, Dr. J?rg Rheinl?nder, Thomas Sehn, Daniel Thomas.
=======================================================================
Diese Nachricht enth?lt vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich gesch?tzte Informationen.
Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese Nachricht irrt?mlich erhalten haben,
informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese Nachricht.
Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Nachricht ist nicht gestattet.

This information may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this information in error) please notify the
sender immediately and destroy this information.
Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this information is strictly forbidden.
=======================================================================

-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org> Im Auftrag von Iban Cabrillo
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. August 2021 13:34
An: gpfsug-discuss <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
Betreff: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] GUI does not work after upgrade from 4.X to 5.1.1

Hi

   Fixing the line from /usr/lpp/mmfs/gui/bin-sudo/check4sudoers:

   msg=$(echo "$ii" | egrep "env_keep=\"PATH SUDO_USER REMOTE_USER GPFS_GUI_USER ANSIBLE_\*\"")

   by

   msg=$(echo "$ii" | egrep "env_keep=\"PATH SUDO_USER REMOTE_USER GPFS_GUI_USER\"")

do the trick

Regards I

_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss

From barryc at northwestern.edu  Fri Aug  6 18:04:51 2021
From: barryc at northwestern.edu (Barry Chiu)
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 17:04:51 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
Message-ID: <SN6PR05MB4960EF826D26133FC466848BBAF39@SN6PR05MB4960.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Hi,

So, it's been about two months since this security bulletin has been posted, and we haven't seen many replies on this listserv about it.

Just curious:  Has anyone mitigated the vulnerability by installing the patch or upgrading GPFS?  And how stable has it been for anyone who has?

Thanks,
Barry



Barry Chiu
Team Lead
CyberInfrastructure | Platform Services | RCI
Northwestern University | Information Technology
barryc at northwestern.edu
847.491.2803

---



Damir Krstic damir.krstic at gmail.com<mailto:gpfsug-discuss%40spectrumscale.org?Subject=Re:%20Re%3A%20%5Bgpfsug-discuss%5D%20CVE-2021-29740&In-Reply-To=%3CCAKV%2BWqf2mWH_y7K4djGdOwebm-8Ece_EYZ2bPMt3AB4thV2u7Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
Tue Jun 1 17:48:26 BST 2021

  *   Next message: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740<http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/2021-June/007752.html>
  *   Messages sorted by: [ date ]<http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/2021-June/date.html#7751> [ thread ]<http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/2021-June/thread.html#7751> [ subject ]<http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/2021-June/subject.html#7751> [ author ]<http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/2021-June/author.html#7751>

Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740

IBM posted a security bulletin for the spectrum scale (CVE-2021-29740). Not
a lot of detail provided in that bulletin. Has anyone installed this fix?
Does anyone have more information about it?

Thanks,
Damir


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210806/d128808c/attachment.htm>

From knop at us.ibm.com  Fri Aug  6 19:13:16 2021
From: knop at us.ibm.com (Felipe Knop)
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 18:13:16 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR05MB4960EF826D26133FC466848BBAF39@SN6PR05MB4960.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <SN6PR05MB4960EF826D26133FC466848BBAF39@SN6PR05MB4960.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <OF0E31AD9F.F519635F-ON00258729.0063DF65-00258729.006417C8@ibm.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210806/c489213b/attachment.htm>

From novosirj at rutgers.edu  Fri Aug  6 19:18:37 2021
From: novosirj at rutgers.edu (Ryan Novosielski)
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 18:18:37 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
In-Reply-To: <OF0E31AD9F.F519635F-ON00258729.0063DF65-00258729.006417C8@ibm.com>
References: <SN6PR05MB4960EF826D26133FC466848BBAF39@SN6PR05MB4960.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<OF0E31AD9F.F519635F-ON00258729.0063DF65-00258729.006417C8@ibm.com>
Message-ID: <A8A5CE6B-2ACE-4E14-98DD-298118C1828A@rutgers.edu>

Can you clarify which components are affected by this? Do I need to upgrade all clients to mitigate this CVE, or every system that has any portion of GPFS installed, or something different?

--
#BlackLivesMatter
____
|| \\UTGERS,  	 |---------------------------*O*---------------------------
||_// the State	 |         Ryan Novosielski - novosirj at rutgers.edu
|| \\ University | Sr. Technologist - 973/972.0922 (2x0922) ~*~ RBHS Campus
||  \\    of NJ	 | Office of Advanced Research Computing - MSB C630, Newark
     `'

> On Aug 6, 2021, at 2:13 PM, Felipe Knop <knop at us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> Barry,
>  
> At least from the development point of view, the fix should have very minimal impact. ("none",  based on the nature of the code change itself)
>  
>   Felipe
>  
> ----
> Felipe Knop knop at us.ibm.com
> GPFS Development and Security
> IBM Systems
> IBM Building 008
> 2455 South Rd, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
> (845) 433-9314 T/L 293-9314
>  
>  
>  
> ----- Original message -----
> From: "Barry Chiu" <barryc at northwestern.edu>
> Sent by: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org
> To: "gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org" <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
> Cc:
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
> Date: Fri, Aug 6, 2021 1:10 PM
>  
> Hi,
>  
> So, it's been about two months since this security bulletin has been posted, and we haven't seen many replies on this listserv about it.
>  
> Just curious:  Has anyone mitigated the vulnerability by installing the patch or upgrading GPFS?  And how stable has it been for anyone who has?
>  
> Thanks,
> Barry
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Barry Chiu
> Team Lead
> CyberInfrastructure | Platform Services | RCI
> Northwestern University | Information Technology
> barryc at northwestern.edu
> 847.491.2803
>  
> ---
>  
>  
> Damir Krstic damir.krstic at gmail.com
> Tue Jun 1 17:48:26 BST 2021
> 	? Next message: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
> 	? Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
> IBM posted a security bulletin for the spectrum scale (CVE-2021-29740). Not
> a lot of detail provided in that bulletin. Has anyone installed this fix?
> Does anyone have more information about it?
> 
> Thanks,
> Damir
>  
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss


From novosirj at rutgers.edu  Fri Aug  6 19:20:52 2021
From: novosirj at rutgers.edu (Ryan Novosielski)
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 18:20:52 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
In-Reply-To: <6aae1c6e-d46b-2fdc-daa6-be8d92882cb4@strath.ac.uk>
References: <CAKV+Wqf2mWH_y7K4djGdOwebm-8Ece_EYZ2bPMt3AB4thV2u7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<6aae1c6e-d46b-2fdc-daa6-be8d92882cb4@strath.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <2AC9CD6A-A594-405B-9373-450D58B747D4@rutgers.edu>

I contacted them about the GUI fix and they said that there would be no fix until the next DSS-G package, and that I could turn off the GUI if that wasn?t good enough.

Not exactly the same situation, but ?not fast? has been my experience. Maybe there?s someone here from Lenovo who could comment on the SLA situation.

--
#BlackLivesMatter
____
|| \\UTGERS,  	 |---------------------------*O*---------------------------
||_// the State	 |         Ryan Novosielski - novosirj at rutgers.edu
|| \\ University | Sr. Technologist - 973/972.0922 (2x0922) ~*~ RBHS Campus
||  \\    of NJ	 | Office of Advanced Research Computing - MSB C630, Newark
     `'

> On Jun 4, 2021, at 5:12 AM, Jonathan Buzzard <jonathan.buzzard at strath.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> On 01/06/2021 17:48, Damir Krstic wrote:
> 
>> IBM posted a security bulletin for the spectrum scale (CVE-2021-29740). Not a lot of detail provided in that bulletin. Has anyone installed this fix? Does anyone have more information about it?
> 
> Anyone know how quickly Lenovo are at putting up security fixes like this?
> 
> Two days in and there is still nothing to download, which in the current security threat environment we are all operating in is bordering on unacceptable.
> 
> 
> JAB.
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan A. Buzzard                         Tel: +44141-5483420
> HPC System Administrator, ARCHIE-WeSt.
> University of Strathclyde, John Anderson Building, Glasgow. G4 0NG
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss


From knop at us.ibm.com  Fri Aug  6 22:07:56 2021
From: knop at us.ibm.com (Felipe Knop)
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 21:07:56 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
In-Reply-To: <A8A5CE6B-2ACE-4E14-98DD-298118C1828A@rutgers.edu>
References: <A8A5CE6B-2ACE-4E14-98DD-298118C1828A@rutgers.edu>,
	<SN6PR05MB4960EF826D26133FC466848BBAF39@SN6PR05MB4960.namprd05.prod.outlook.com><OF0E31AD9F.F519635F-ON00258729.0063DF65-00258729.006417C8@ibm.com>
Message-ID: <OF124B605B.C81C6005-ON00258729.0072D52A-00258729.0074157D@ibm.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210806/2c243523/attachment.htm>

From christian.vieser at 1und1.de  Wed Aug 18 14:07:50 2021
From: christian.vieser at 1und1.de (Christian Vieser)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 15:07:50 +0200
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] Future of Spectrum Scale support for Centos
In-Reply-To: <CAGedhdcML21fYjhr7SKvYUBq0dkaR4cWPmCAeiGiRFcicR7CtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGedhdcML21fYjhr7SKvYUBq0dkaR4cWPmCAeiGiRFcicR7CtA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <164f1e7d-1f64-cf10-56ff-b57206ee075f@1und1.de>

Hi out there.

Since CentOS 8 support ends end of this year (in favour of CentOS Stream
8), it's time to make decisions where to move.

There are two forks of CentOS, Alma and Rocky Linux, but nobody knows
whether they will survive the next years. Then there is Oracle Linux,
but there is always some threat that Oracle will turn it into a paid
product any time.

With CentOS Stream we probably will see more often new kernels that are
not supported by the actual Spectrum Scale version, as we have already
seen it from time to time with RHEL/CentOS. So this means more testing
and manual work with pinning kernel versions on our clusters.

We just successfully passed an evaluation of Oracle Linux and decided to
move there with several products running on CentOS. Only restraint with
Spectrum Scale was, that we had to fake the /etc/os-release when
configuring object service, since the mmobj command has some specific
code distinguishing between RHEL and CentOS and fails with other release
identifiers.

I would like to hear from other CentOS users here: Where are you moving
to? What are your reasons?

@IBM: What will happen to release specific code in Spectrum Scale, at
present differing between CentOS and RHEL? Will there be support for
Alma/Rocky/Oracle Linux? Do we have to raise RFEs for this?

Thank you very much,

Christian

On 09.12.20 Carl Zetie wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> With the announcement of Centos 8 moving to stream
> https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/future-is-centos-stream/
>
> Will Centos still be considered a clone OS?
> https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/STXKQY/gpfsclustersfaq.html#linuxclone
>
> What does this mean for the future for support for folk that are running Centos?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl.
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss

-- 
Christian Vieser

Senior Systemadministrator AIX & Storage
Portal Infrastructure - Storage Services

1&1 Mail & Media Development & Technology GmbH | Brauerstra?e 50 | 76135 Karlsruhe | Germany

Amtsgericht Montabaur, HRB 5452

Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Ludwig, Jan Oetjen, Sandra Vollmer

Member of United Internet



From jonathan.buzzard at strath.ac.uk  Wed Aug 18 20:09:00 2021
From: jonathan.buzzard at strath.ac.uk (Jonathan Buzzard)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 20:09:00 +0100
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] Future of Spectrum Scale support for Centos
In-Reply-To: <164f1e7d-1f64-cf10-56ff-b57206ee075f@1und1.de>
References: <CAGedhdcML21fYjhr7SKvYUBq0dkaR4cWPmCAeiGiRFcicR7CtA@mail.gmail.com>
	<164f1e7d-1f64-cf10-56ff-b57206ee075f@1und1.de>
Message-ID: <52c764e7-adae-7e27-26a4-d0e15578b21b@strath.ac.uk>

On 18/08/2021 14:07, Christian Vieser wrote:
> 
> Hi out there.
> 
> Since CentOS 8 support ends end of this year (in favour of CentOS Stream
> 8), it's time to make decisions where to move.
> 
> There are two forks of CentOS, Alma and Rocky Linux, but nobody knows
> whether they will survive the next years. Then there is Oracle Linux,
> but there is always some threat that Oracle will turn it into a paid
> product any time.

Oracle could charge, but given the length of time it has been available 
without charge I am not sure they will gain anything from a change.


> With CentOS Stream we probably will see more often new kernels that are
> not supported by the actual Spectrum Scale version, as we have already
> seen it from time to time with RHEL/CentOS. So this means more testing
> and manual work with pinning kernel versions on our clusters.
> 
> We just successfully passed an evaluation of Oracle Linux and decided to
> move there with several products running on CentOS. Only restraint with
> Spectrum Scale was, that we had to fake the /etc/os-release when
> configuring object service, since the mmobj command has some specific
> code distinguishing between RHEL and CentOS and fails with other release
> identifiers.
> 

You would likely need to have done more than that because by default 
Oracle Linux has it's own "unbreakable" kernel. You can go back to a 
stock RHEL kernel but it's a pain.

At least they are not being as devious as the Spectrum Protect lot that 
actively look for an RPM called redhat-release. Most pointless thing in 
the world as it is not like it takes any time to knock up an RPM to 
mimic it.

> I would like to hear from other CentOS users here: Where are you moving
> to? What are your reasons?
> 

Going to be Alma I think. Firstly CloudLinux have been rebuilding RHEL 
for a long time, so it is not a huge additional effort to package it up 
in ISO's etc.

Call me a cynic but my view is the $1m a year funding they are claiming 
to put into the Alma rebuild is mostly likely money already being spent 
on the CloudLinux rebuild. Lets say they where spending $900k already so 
it's an extra $100k which is a lot but for that amount of publicity and 
advertising it is a total bargain and throwing the towel in would be a 
PR disaster.

I also like the fact that they are neck and neck with Oracle for getting 
patches out. Way faster than CentOS has been historically which in the 
current threat environment is only a good thing.

Rocky to my mind seems the weakest of the lot.

However I don't think any of the three is a wrong choice as they all 
offer scripts now to migrate an install between them. For us it would be 
mirror a different repo, fiddle with some xCAT tables and redeploy for 
most of the machines.


JAB.

-- 
Jonathan A. Buzzard                         Tel: +44141-5483420
HPC System Administrator, ARCHIE-WeSt.
University of Strathclyde, John Anderson Building, Glasgow. G4 0NG


From p.ward at nhm.ac.uk  Tue Aug 24 11:03:54 2021
From: p.ward at nhm.ac.uk (Paul Ward)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:03:54 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] 'force user' samba parameter not implemented
Message-ID: <LO0P265MB521532E2A826B15D54BD0A73D3C59@LO0P265MB5215.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Hi,

We are moving from our v4 SCALE install to a 5.0.5 SCALE install.
We make extensive use of the 'force user' parameter in our cross protocol shares.
I have just been informed, that although we can set the parameter using 'net conf' it isn't implemented in the current version of Samba in v5.0.5 of SCALE.

Has anyone else faced this issue, and what has been your workaround.


Kindest regards,
Paul

Paul Ward
TS Infrastructure Architect
Natural History Museum
T: 02079426450
E: p.ward at nhm.ac.uk<mailto:p.ward at nhm.ac.uk>
[A picture containing drawing  Description automatically generated]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210824/fe79ff35/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5356 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210824/fe79ff35/attachment.jpg>

From christof.schmitt at us.ibm.com  Wed Aug 25 23:22:27 2021
From: christof.schmitt at us.ibm.com (Christof Schmitt)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 22:22:27 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] 'force user' samba parameter not implemented
In-Reply-To: <LO0P265MB521532E2A826B15D54BD0A73D3C59@LO0P265MB5215.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <LO0P265MB521532E2A826B15D54BD0A73D3C59@LO0P265MB5215.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <OF5BE44333.8A244F7D-ON0025873C.007AE3C7-0025873C.007AE7EA@ibm.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210825/462f1553/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Image.image001.jpg at 01D798D3.21E13E10.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5356 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210825/462f1553/attachment.jpg>

From ragho.mahalingam+spectrumscaleug at pathai.com  Thu Aug 26 16:49:59 2021
From: ragho.mahalingam+spectrumscaleug at pathai.com (Ragho Mahalingam)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 11:49:59 -0400
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] mmsysmon exception with pmcollector socket being
	absent
Message-ID: <CAPGcQxjmFei3DsdftK4cxV0R4=fvpsptn6RLe4RyNot+k1QZyg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

We've been working on setting up mmperfmon; after creating a new
configuration with the new collector on the same manager node, mmsysmon
keeps throwing exceptions.

  File "/usr/lpp/mmfs/lib/mmsysmon/container/PerfmonController.py", line
123, in _getDataFromZimonSocket
    sock.connect(SOCKET_PATH)
FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory

Tracing this a bit, it appears that SOCKET_PATH is
 /var/run/perfmon/pmcollector.socket and this unix domain socket is absent,
even though pmcollector has started and is running successfully.

Under what scenarios is pmcollector supposed to create this socket?  I
don't see any configuration for this in /opt/IBM/zimon/ZIMonCollector.cfg,
so I'm assuming the socket is automatically created when pmcollector starts.

Any thoughts on how to debug and resolve this?

Thanks, Ragu

-- 
*Disclaimer: This email and any corresponding attachments may contain 
confidential information. If you're not the intended recipient, any 
copying, distribution, disclosure, or use of any information contained in 
the email or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you believe to have 
received this email in error, please email security at pathai.com 
<mailto:security at pathai.com> immediately, then destroy the email and any 
attachments without reading or saving.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210826/237c477e/attachment.htm>

From scale at us.ibm.com  Thu Aug 26 19:15:30 2021
From: scale at us.ibm.com (IBM Spectrum Scale)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 13:15:30 -0500
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] Fw: Re: 'force user' samba parameter not
	implemented
Message-ID: <OF6CB89861.870DC5B7-ON8525873D.00641CCE-8625873D.00644BDE@ibm.com>


Forwarding for Christof.  Please see below.

Regards, The Spectrum Scale (GPFS) team

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/forums/html/forum?id=11111111-0000-0000-0000-000000000479.


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.

The forum is informally monitored as time permits and should not be used
for priority messages to the Spectrum Scale (GPFS) team.
----- Forwarded by Doug Ledden/Austin/IBM on 08/26/2021 01:13 PM -----

From:	Christof Schmitt/Tucson/IBM at IBM
To:	gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
Cc:	gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
Date:	08/25/2021 05:22 PM
Subject:	[EXTERNAL] Re: [gpfsug-discuss] 'force user' samba parameter
            not implemented
Sent by:	gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org



Hi Paul,

> We are moving from our v4 SCALE install to a 5.0.5 SCALE install.
> We make extensive use of the ?force user? parameter in our cross
> protocol shares.
> I have just been informed, that although we can set the parameter
> using ?net conf? it isn?t implemented in the current version of
> Samba in v5.0.5 of SCALE.

This config option is not tested and not supported as part of Spectrum
Scale. Only SMB/Samba config parameters that are accessible through
the GUI or mmsmb CLI are officially supported. If you have a usecase
requiring support for additional Samba parameters, the proper way to
request support is through a RFE.

That said, i do not see why the Samba behavior would change here from
v4 to v5. If you want to debug this, i would suggest to recreate the
problem with this parameter in place while capturing a SMB trace
(mmprotocoltrace start smb). The SMB trace should then have sufficient
information to determine why the owner of the file is not as expected.

Regards,

Christof Schmitt
Software Engineer
IBM Systems, Spectrum Scale Development
+1 520 799 2469
christof.schmitt at us.ibm.com
@chsc Twitter

IBM


 ----- Original message -----
 From: "Paul Ward" <p.ward at nhm.ac.uk>
 Sent by: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org
 To: "gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org" <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
 Cc:
 Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gpfsug-discuss] 'force user' samba parameter not
 implemented
 Date: Tue, Aug 24, 2021 3:04 AM

 Hi,

 We are moving from our v4 SCALE install to a 5.0.5 SCALE install.
 We make extensive use of the ?force user? parameter in our cross protocol
 shares.
 I have just been informed, that although we can set the parameter using
 ?net conf? it isn?t implemented in the current version of Samba in v5.0.5
 of SCALE.

 Has anyone else faced this issue, and what has been your workaround.


 Kindest regards,
 Paul

 Paul Ward
 TS Infrastructure Architect
 Natural History Museum
 T: 02079426450
 E: p.ward at nhm.ac.uk
 A picture containing drawingDescription automatically generated



 _______________________________________________
 gpfsug-discuss mailing list
 gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
 http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss


_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210826/466f391f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1D367310.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5356 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210826/466f391f/attachment.jpg>

From heathp at HPC.MsState.Edu  Tue Aug  3 19:11:16 2021
From: heathp at HPC.MsState.Edu (Peeples, Heath)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 18:11:16 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow
Message-ID: <BN0PR01MB70564A2E9198B54D3F68460A9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>

I am trying to use mmapplypolicy to determine what files are modified in a particular snapshop.  Below I have the policy and mmapplypolicy parameters I am using.  It is taking 3-4 hours to list these files. There are roughly 176M files.  This is running on a DDN Gridscaler 12K system.   Seems to me after seeing others posts we should be able to run this much quicker.  Any help would be appreciated.


mmapplypolicy fs2 -S 20210104 -I defer -A 175 -a 72 -B 10000  -N all -g /fs1/tmp/heath -P /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath.pol -f /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath/output/20210104

RULE 'find_mods' list 'mods'
DIRECTORIES_PLUS
WEIGHT(0)
SHOW( VARCHAR(USER_ID) || ' ' || varchar(FILE_SIZE) || ' ' || varchar(MODIFICATION_SNAPID) )


Heath
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210803/3d7ee2a4/attachment-0001.htm>

From janfrode at tanso.net  Tue Aug  3 19:49:21 2021
From: janfrode at tanso.net (Jan-Frode Myklebust)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 20:49:21 +0200
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow
In-Reply-To: <BN0PR01MB70564A2E9198B54D3F68460A9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
References: <BN0PR01MB70564A2E9198B54D3F68460A9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Message-ID: <CAHwPatj7_wBXVaShd9m7sPzrHbBmf0zyOfXkxsKs99VRPxUSTg@mail.gmail.com>

So?. the advertisement ssys we should be able to do 1M files/s?
http://files.gpfsug.org/presentations/2018/USA/SpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf

First I  would try is if maybe limiting which nodes are used for the
processing helps. Maybe limit to the NSD-servers (-N nodenames) ?

Also,  --choice-algorithm fast might help..?



  -jf


tir. 3. aug. 2021 kl. 20:18 skrev Peeples, Heath <heathp at hpc.msstate.edu>:

> I am trying to use mmapplypolicy to determine what files are modified in a
> particular snapshop.  Below I have the policy and mmapplypolicy parameters
> I am using.  It is taking 3-4 hours to list these files. There are roughly
> 176M files.  This is running on a DDN Gridscaler 12K system.   Seems to me
> after seeing others posts we should be able to run this much quicker.  Any
> help would be appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
> mmapplypolicy fs2 -S 20210104 -I defer -A 175 -a 72 -B 10000  -N all -g
> /fs1/tmp/heath -P /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath.pol -f
> /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath/output/20210104
>
>
>
> RULE 'find_mods' list 'mods'
>
> DIRECTORIES_PLUS
>
> WEIGHT(0)
>
> SHOW( VARCHAR(USER_ID) || ' ' || varchar(FILE_SIZE) || ' ' ||
> varchar(MODIFICATION_SNAPID) )
>
>
>
>
>
> Heath
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210803/72631f54/attachment-0001.htm>

From heathp at HPC.MsState.Edu  Tue Aug  3 19:52:39 2021
From: heathp at HPC.MsState.Edu (Peeples, Heath)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 18:52:39 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow
In-Reply-To: <CAHwPatj7_wBXVaShd9m7sPzrHbBmf0zyOfXkxsKs99VRPxUSTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BN0PR01MB70564A2E9198B54D3F68460A9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
	<CAHwPatj7_wBXVaShd9m7sPzrHbBmf0zyOfXkxsKs99VRPxUSTg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BN0PR01MB70566A92BFC96D56B171F6F19CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>

Yes, that advertisement makes me smile ?

I have tried both of those, and they do not seem to make any difference.  I have also played with the -A and -a parameters with no combination that I can find making it any better.

Thanks for the feedback.

From: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org> On Behalf Of Jan-Frode Myklebust
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 1:49 PM
To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow

So?. the advertisement ssys we should be able to do 1M files/s?
http://files.gpfsug.org/presentations/2018/USA/SpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1qQpvD9F4NtOuzGs8G_8PtFl-CwL-8JNJO1mx5gEbI7QwDLGI58rp5A1Zj3Q1nQoonzr0pdbS8-5R4oc5DLLmaBS6PQJ0HXdquIC5cLIlmasuY6rJfZ_dnC7zPJmBySjicZ0rFC-nrhKEnu-_J-arj4xmzx2VxDYJlbreMnsJfs8xW-c4B_Hnf7N9sPPXQ2b6C8jORSfUogYE0Lue9d2OEn-ITxLZdDzB34linSMOE1kYikuG5ewgP6p0nhcznywEWQr_aE1zvb_kgT9pW4ldt39RkTfGbH-O72Aa-sBxa9NilSUt8K-5wXh6KkXTvTln/http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.gpfsug.org%2Fpresentations%2F2018%2FUSA%2FSpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf>

First I  would try is if maybe limiting which nodes are used for the processing helps. Maybe limit to the NSD-servers (-N nodenames) ?

Also,  --choice-algorithm fast might help..?



  -jf


tir. 3. aug. 2021 kl. 20:18 skrev Peeples, Heath <heathp at hpc.msstate.edu<mailto:heathp at hpc.msstate.edu>>:
I am trying to use mmapplypolicy to determine what files are modified in a particular snapshop.  Below I have the policy and mmapplypolicy parameters I am using.  It is taking 3-4 hours to list these files. There are roughly 176M files.  This is running on a DDN Gridscaler 12K system.   Seems to me after seeing others posts we should be able to run this much quicker.  Any help would be appreciated.


mmapplypolicy fs2 -S 20210104 -I defer -A 175 -a 72 -B 10000  -N all -g /fs1/tmp/heath -P /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath.pol -f /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath/output/20210104

RULE 'find_mods' list 'mods'
DIRECTORIES_PLUS
WEIGHT(0)
SHOW( VARCHAR(USER_ID) || ' ' || varchar(FILE_SIZE) || ' ' || varchar(MODIFICATION_SNAPID) )


Heath
_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<http://secure-web.cisco.com/13y0L5a_-UdTp06HAY-SQnbTVm8HkHswo4iplosUAzEBhW3s6Y6LnTuCvikd3KQuk_YPuAuKhDLAzBjCcmelrVS146XsPHgLLLSbAb3bAKY9dZ10sV8_ErYKn0OqyE8gPgh4kjWnswfL7oomTnhYj4D1Q2mY83UI82dAJAX-2n8NaxlfloOFS23DgFMEULXJgy-wNH_cLemLqseter9-Rj2yO3jsruIBj3_DcY_Z87ffxo0SQcYazbJvThTeqb5C1o6hepHZkalgmUvQE6K2CAV_sX4cWrNs5GNqPy7xifM9tlbvhwJvwSvZGlTO_da4e/http%3A%2F%2Fspectrumscale.org>
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1joeovhVrYzawY9kLy658LHgv3dW6Ta7uZzGAlu08q1o21Rw4o615cnGStXQ0NQeAYE2jCpJAzC7DKAzkxD_cgeRLlQkKVRPFm8QFIMXwGcESXOwOmKXVVD5fq8H0gBD6VasiBdUmWrijLwK0QFvEduBRSXIqQ-sWoxrR1onYwyJEPV--XMh-r1O-92mnjtaUNVuSS2KXElVq8rc2O33St8Ga2qd5QSTT2pUQcbr2IJUM4a2gu0ZrtVQgRBRTZU1ZuoPnFZY8AL4tubpqa6vK_x_dt-W6bkV1XKSre2XQMxCaNb9Bm2_bKJgfhamPC-Rf/http%3A%2F%2Fgpfsug.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpfsug-discuss>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210803/90209a26/attachment-0001.htm>

From janfrode at tanso.net  Tue Aug  3 20:09:04 2021
From: janfrode at tanso.net (Jan-Frode Myklebust)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 21:09:04 +0200
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow
In-Reply-To: <BN0PR01MB70566A92BFC96D56B171F6F19CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
References: <BN0PR01MB70564A2E9198B54D3F68460A9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
	<CAHwPatj7_wBXVaShd9m7sPzrHbBmf0zyOfXkxsKs99VRPxUSTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BN0PR01MB70566A92BFC96D56B171F6F19CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Message-ID: <CAHwPath2C=7PG_QNDNiFgs81haXfTSuTodtb7ZhooEoL+MenyA@mail.gmail.com>

Just guessing, but maybe some ?where SNAP_ID('SnapshotName')? is better
than -S 20210104?


?

tir. 3. aug. 2021 kl. 20:59 skrev Peeples, Heath <heathp at hpc.msstate.edu>:

> Yes, that advertisement makes me smile ?
>
>
>
> I have tried both of those, and they do not seem to make any difference.
> I have also played with the -A and -a parameters with no combination that I
> can find making it any better.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
>
>
> *From:* gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org <
> gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org> *On Behalf Of *Jan-Frode
> Myklebust
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 3, 2021 1:49 PM
> *To:* gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow
>
>
>
> So?. the advertisement ssys we should be able to do 1M files/s?
>
> http://files.gpfsug.org/presentations/2018/USA/SpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf
> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1qQpvD9F4NtOuzGs8G_8PtFl-CwL-8JNJO1mx5gEbI7QwDLGI58rp5A1Zj3Q1nQoonzr0pdbS8-5R4oc5DLLmaBS6PQJ0HXdquIC5cLIlmasuY6rJfZ_dnC7zPJmBySjicZ0rFC-nrhKEnu-_J-arj4xmzx2VxDYJlbreMnsJfs8xW-c4B_Hnf7N9sPPXQ2b6C8jORSfUogYE0Lue9d2OEn-ITxLZdDzB34linSMOE1kYikuG5ewgP6p0nhcznywEWQr_aE1zvb_kgT9pW4ldt39RkTfGbH-O72Aa-sBxa9NilSUt8K-5wXh6KkXTvTln/http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.gpfsug.org%2Fpresentations%2F2018%2FUSA%2FSpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf>
>
>
>
> First I  would try is if maybe limiting which nodes are used for the
> processing helps. Maybe limit to the NSD-servers (-N nodenames) ?
>
>
>
> Also,  --choice-algorithm fast might help..?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   -jf
>
>
>
>
>
> tir. 3. aug. 2021 kl. 20:18 skrev Peeples, Heath <heathp at hpc.msstate.edu>:
>
> I am trying to use mmapplypolicy to determine what files are modified in a
> particular snapshop.  Below I have the policy and mmapplypolicy parameters
> I am using.  It is taking 3-4 hours to list these files. There are roughly
> 176M files.  This is running on a DDN Gridscaler 12K system.   Seems to me
> after seeing others posts we should be able to run this much quicker.  Any
> help would be appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
> mmapplypolicy fs2 -S 20210104 -I defer -A 175 -a 72 -B 10000  -N all -g
> /fs1/tmp/heath -P /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath.pol -f
> /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath/output/20210104
>
>
>
> RULE 'find_mods' list 'mods'
>
> DIRECTORIES_PLUS
>
> WEIGHT(0)
>
> SHOW( VARCHAR(USER_ID) || ' ' || varchar(FILE_SIZE) || ' ' ||
> varchar(MODIFICATION_SNAPID) )
>
>
>
>
>
> Heath
>
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/13y0L5a_-UdTp06HAY-SQnbTVm8HkHswo4iplosUAzEBhW3s6Y6LnTuCvikd3KQuk_YPuAuKhDLAzBjCcmelrVS146XsPHgLLLSbAb3bAKY9dZ10sV8_ErYKn0OqyE8gPgh4kjWnswfL7oomTnhYj4D1Q2mY83UI82dAJAX-2n8NaxlfloOFS23DgFMEULXJgy-wNH_cLemLqseter9-Rj2yO3jsruIBj3_DcY_Z87ffxo0SQcYazbJvThTeqb5C1o6hepHZkalgmUvQE6K2CAV_sX4cWrNs5GNqPy7xifM9tlbvhwJvwSvZGlTO_da4e/http%3A%2F%2Fspectrumscale.org>
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1joeovhVrYzawY9kLy658LHgv3dW6Ta7uZzGAlu08q1o21Rw4o615cnGStXQ0NQeAYE2jCpJAzC7DKAzkxD_cgeRLlQkKVRPFm8QFIMXwGcESXOwOmKXVVD5fq8H0gBD6VasiBdUmWrijLwK0QFvEduBRSXIqQ-sWoxrR1onYwyJEPV--XMh-r1O-92mnjtaUNVuSS2KXElVq8rc2O33St8Ga2qd5QSTT2pUQcbr2IJUM4a2gu0ZrtVQgRBRTZU1ZuoPnFZY8AL4tubpqa6vK_x_dt-W6bkV1XKSre2XQMxCaNb9Bm2_bKJgfhamPC-Rf/http%3A%2F%2Fgpfsug.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpfsug-discuss>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210803/8dfa3f5a/attachment-0001.htm>

From heathp at HPC.MsState.Edu  Tue Aug  3 20:11:06 2021
From: heathp at HPC.MsState.Edu (Peeples, Heath)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 19:11:06 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow
In-Reply-To: <CAHwPath2C=7PG_QNDNiFgs81haXfTSuTodtb7ZhooEoL+MenyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BN0PR01MB70564A2E9198B54D3F68460A9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
	<CAHwPatj7_wBXVaShd9m7sPzrHbBmf0zyOfXkxsKs99VRPxUSTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BN0PR01MB70566A92BFC96D56B171F6F19CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
	<CAHwPath2C=7PG_QNDNiFgs81haXfTSuTodtb7ZhooEoL+MenyA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BN0PR01MB7056BCBEC671D0B48D05CF8C9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>

Well we want to run it against the snapshot so I think we need the -S option.  When you run it against the FS filtering by SNAP_ID, you miss any files that have been deleted since the snapshot.

Heath


From: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org> On Behalf Of Jan-Frode Myklebust
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 2:09 PM
To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow


Just guessing, but maybe some ?where SNAP_ID('SnapshotName')? is better than -S 20210104?


?

tir. 3. aug. 2021 kl. 20:59 skrev Peeples, Heath <heathp at hpc.msstate.edu<mailto:heathp at hpc.msstate.edu>>:
Yes, that advertisement makes me smile ?

I have tried both of those, and they do not seem to make any difference.  I have also played with the -A and -a parameters with no combination that I can find making it any better.

Thanks for the feedback.

From: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org<mailto:gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org> <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org<mailto:gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org>> On Behalf Of Jan-Frode Myklebust
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 1:49 PM
To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<mailto:gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>>
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow

So?. the advertisement ssys we should be able to do 1M files/s?
http://files.gpfsug.org/presentations/2018/USA/SpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1qQpvD9F4NtOuzGs8G_8PtFl-CwL-8JNJO1mx5gEbI7QwDLGI58rp5A1Zj3Q1nQoonzr0pdbS8-5R4oc5DLLmaBS6PQJ0HXdquIC5cLIlmasuY6rJfZ_dnC7zPJmBySjicZ0rFC-nrhKEnu-_J-arj4xmzx2VxDYJlbreMnsJfs8xW-c4B_Hnf7N9sPPXQ2b6C8jORSfUogYE0Lue9d2OEn-ITxLZdDzB34linSMOE1kYikuG5ewgP6p0nhcznywEWQr_aE1zvb_kgT9pW4ldt39RkTfGbH-O72Aa-sBxa9NilSUt8K-5wXh6KkXTvTln/http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.gpfsug.org%2Fpresentations%2F2018%2FUSA%2FSpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf>

First I  would try is if maybe limiting which nodes are used for the processing helps. Maybe limit to the NSD-servers (-N nodenames) ?

Also,  --choice-algorithm fast might help..?



  -jf


tir. 3. aug. 2021 kl. 20:18 skrev Peeples, Heath <heathp at hpc.msstate.edu<mailto:heathp at hpc.msstate.edu>>:
I am trying to use mmapplypolicy to determine what files are modified in a particular snapshop.  Below I have the policy and mmapplypolicy parameters I am using.  It is taking 3-4 hours to list these files. There are roughly 176M files.  This is running on a DDN Gridscaler 12K system.   Seems to me after seeing others posts we should be able to run this much quicker.  Any help would be appreciated.


mmapplypolicy fs2 -S 20210104 -I defer -A 175 -a 72 -B 10000  -N all -g /fs1/tmp/heath -P /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath.pol -f /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath/output/20210104

RULE 'find_mods' list 'mods'
DIRECTORIES_PLUS
WEIGHT(0)
SHOW( VARCHAR(USER_ID) || ' ' || varchar(FILE_SIZE) || ' ' || varchar(MODIFICATION_SNAPID) )


Heath
_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<http://secure-web.cisco.com/13y0L5a_-UdTp06HAY-SQnbTVm8HkHswo4iplosUAzEBhW3s6Y6LnTuCvikd3KQuk_YPuAuKhDLAzBjCcmelrVS146XsPHgLLLSbAb3bAKY9dZ10sV8_ErYKn0OqyE8gPgh4kjWnswfL7oomTnhYj4D1Q2mY83UI82dAJAX-2n8NaxlfloOFS23DgFMEULXJgy-wNH_cLemLqseter9-Rj2yO3jsruIBj3_DcY_Z87ffxo0SQcYazbJvThTeqb5C1o6hepHZkalgmUvQE6K2CAV_sX4cWrNs5GNqPy7xifM9tlbvhwJvwSvZGlTO_da4e/http%3A%2F%2Fspectrumscale.org>
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1joeovhVrYzawY9kLy658LHgv3dW6Ta7uZzGAlu08q1o21Rw4o615cnGStXQ0NQeAYE2jCpJAzC7DKAzkxD_cgeRLlQkKVRPFm8QFIMXwGcESXOwOmKXVVD5fq8H0gBD6VasiBdUmWrijLwK0QFvEduBRSXIqQ-sWoxrR1onYwyJEPV--XMh-r1O-92mnjtaUNVuSS2KXElVq8rc2O33St8Ga2qd5QSTT2pUQcbr2IJUM4a2gu0ZrtVQgRBRTZU1ZuoPnFZY8AL4tubpqa6vK_x_dt-W6bkV1XKSre2XQMxCaNb9Bm2_bKJgfhamPC-Rf/http%3A%2F%2Fgpfsug.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpfsug-discuss>
_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1Jxk0mTZJfEGRuwDAfk6WETmP_z5AYx4ZEYSsRf6Iq7v69ncxGgt70_hIM13VkBESWG6_5J1sazT3n6tfxKKmStUZmOj9j2XvYb9AXirO0aU5Doiod8DV6Exzl1bAO3nro5-AzRdLy12lqtXiY2AecwMn57_JZN9eTrPPB73pyXJrf2Pb0i5PfDRq6o4o2kC5pZ-UgYlYJP2b4Z37vzHDHis8pAUPvc6mKIBdtd_IUbJdvxGfErw3WZIyIdCVNIOyuvVqLDnQcJI9O291mb6-qOXUPiAxrONdm5c0LsU_HkgGbwYXkSRdEUuUtB3n3uM2/http%3A%2F%2Fspectrumscale.org>
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1-tpllNriTqNKP656g4djWNutzuUwZnTeFHXINw7U_4ltbsDdb04bvj1gxe7NEW3YrW-ANqci01QM9ftyYnaBWrgiTCH3PZYu5n3jFwUhSYE8cZh88leH2VaqiXQtN2yH0KW4fHgiO16MYEz35tyoaWGxVcPSk0ExX4ZuXohXCmMt9RrUuBygXw4_v15mAoDPha-mBUTOMtnoWQG7Hq4jJ8CpD6DGaYMV_E23CbJN5fInLFGYJ9b9tP80C_CKMhts_TuB1Z8l6bEYnWj62NqAV-936iq_nLtLoZLKwjZD2-WzENisFTchV_InvVhRgwoL/http%3A%2F%2Fgpfsug.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpfsug-discuss>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210803/ba397df3/attachment-0001.htm>

From cabrillo at ifca.unican.es  Wed Aug  4 09:39:54 2021
From: cabrillo at ifca.unican.es (Iban Cabrillo)
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 10:39:54 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] GUI does not work after upgrade from 4.X to 5.1.1
Message-ID: <188673789.12219696.1628066394522.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>

Dear, 
After the GPFS versi?n upgrade (from 4.3.9 to 5.1.1), I can not start the gpfs gui (FS works fine). Looking at logs I see these relevants lines: 
------------------------------------------- 
Aug 4 10:31:15 gpfsgui su: (to scalemgmt) root on none 
Aug 4 10:31:16 gpfsgui su: (to scalemgmt) root on none 
Aug 4 10:31:16 gpfsgui check4sudoers: Effective path: /sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/lpp/mmfs/bin:/usr/lpp/mmfs/gui/bin-sudo 
Aug 4 10:31:16 gpfsgui check4sudoers: env_keep configuration not found or wrong. Please check your sudoers configuration for scalemgmt user. 
--------------------------------- 

env_keep is set at /etc/sudoers.d/scalemgmt_sudoers file (of course scalemgmt user exits at the system): 

scalemgmt ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD: /usr/lpp/mmfs......./*,.... 
Defaults:scalemgmt env_keep += "PATH SUDO_USER REMOTE_USER GPFS_GUI_USER" 
Defaults:scalemgmt secure_path=/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/lpp/mmfs/bin:/usr/lpp/mmfs/gui/bin-sudo 
Defaults:scalemgmt !requiretty 

Is any thing wrong at env_keep line? 

Any advise is welcomed 
regards, I 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210804/a2b5fff6/attachment-0001.htm>

From cabrillo at ifca.unican.es  Wed Aug  4 12:34:12 2021
From: cabrillo at ifca.unican.es (Iban Cabrillo)
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 13:34:12 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] GUI does not work after upgrade from 4.X to
 5.1.1
In-Reply-To: <188673789.12219696.1628066394522.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>
References: <188673789.12219696.1628066394522.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>
Message-ID: <1015214365.12247735.1628076852775.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>

Hi

   Fixing the line from /usr/lpp/mmfs/gui/bin-sudo/check4sudoers:

   msg=$(echo "$ii" | egrep "env_keep=\"PATH SUDO_USER REMOTE_USER GPFS_GUI_USER ANSIBLE_\*\"")

   by

   msg=$(echo "$ii" | egrep "env_keep=\"PATH SUDO_USER REMOTE_USER GPFS_GUI_USER\"")

do the trick

Regards I



From Renar.Grunenberg at huk-coburg.de  Wed Aug  4 14:45:34 2021
From: Renar.Grunenberg at huk-coburg.de (Grunenberg, Renar)
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 13:45:34 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] GUI does not work after upgrade from 4.X to
	5.1.1
In-Reply-To: <1015214365.12247735.1628076852775.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>
References: <188673789.12219696.1628066394522.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>
	<1015214365.12247735.1628076852775.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>
Message-ID: <a2dfe458d0ac443e87d09b529f372430@huk-coburg.de>

Hallo Iban,
this is already fixed in 5.1.1.1.



Renar Grunenberg
Abteilung Informatik - Betrieb

HUK-COBURG
Bahnhofsplatz
96444 Coburg
Telefon:  09561 96-44110
Telefax:  09561 96-44104
E-Mail:   Renar.Grunenberg at huk-coburg.de
Internet: www.huk.de
=======================================================================
HUK-COBURG Haftpflicht-Unterst?tzungs-Kasse kraftfahrender Beamter Deutschlands a. G. in Coburg
Reg.-Gericht Coburg HRB 100; St.-Nr. 9212/101/00021
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bahnhofsplatz, 96444 Coburg
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. Heinrich R. Schradin.
Vorstand: Klaus-J?rgen Heitmann (Sprecher), Stefan Gronbach, Dr. Hans Olav Her?y, Dr. J?rg Rheinl?nder, Thomas Sehn, Daniel Thomas.
=======================================================================
Diese Nachricht enth?lt vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich gesch?tzte Informationen.
Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese Nachricht irrt?mlich erhalten haben,
informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese Nachricht.
Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Nachricht ist nicht gestattet.

This information may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this information in error) please notify the
sender immediately and destroy this information.
Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this information is strictly forbidden.
=======================================================================

-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org> Im Auftrag von Iban Cabrillo
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. August 2021 13:34
An: gpfsug-discuss <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
Betreff: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] GUI does not work after upgrade from 4.X to 5.1.1

Hi

   Fixing the line from /usr/lpp/mmfs/gui/bin-sudo/check4sudoers:

   msg=$(echo "$ii" | egrep "env_keep=\"PATH SUDO_USER REMOTE_USER GPFS_GUI_USER ANSIBLE_\*\"")

   by

   msg=$(echo "$ii" | egrep "env_keep=\"PATH SUDO_USER REMOTE_USER GPFS_GUI_USER\"")

do the trick

Regards I

_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss

From barryc at northwestern.edu  Fri Aug  6 18:04:51 2021
From: barryc at northwestern.edu (Barry Chiu)
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 17:04:51 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
Message-ID: <SN6PR05MB4960EF826D26133FC466848BBAF39@SN6PR05MB4960.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Hi,

So, it's been about two months since this security bulletin has been posted, and we haven't seen many replies on this listserv about it.

Just curious:  Has anyone mitigated the vulnerability by installing the patch or upgrading GPFS?  And how stable has it been for anyone who has?

Thanks,
Barry



Barry Chiu
Team Lead
CyberInfrastructure | Platform Services | RCI
Northwestern University | Information Technology
barryc at northwestern.edu
847.491.2803

---



Damir Krstic damir.krstic at gmail.com<mailto:gpfsug-discuss%40spectrumscale.org?Subject=Re:%20Re%3A%20%5Bgpfsug-discuss%5D%20CVE-2021-29740&In-Reply-To=%3CCAKV%2BWqf2mWH_y7K4djGdOwebm-8Ece_EYZ2bPMt3AB4thV2u7Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
Tue Jun 1 17:48:26 BST 2021

  *   Next message: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740<http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/2021-June/007752.html>
  *   Messages sorted by: [ date ]<http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/2021-June/date.html#7751> [ thread ]<http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/2021-June/thread.html#7751> [ subject ]<http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/2021-June/subject.html#7751> [ author ]<http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/2021-June/author.html#7751>

Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740

IBM posted a security bulletin for the spectrum scale (CVE-2021-29740). Not
a lot of detail provided in that bulletin. Has anyone installed this fix?
Does anyone have more information about it?

Thanks,
Damir


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210806/d128808c/attachment-0001.htm>

From knop at us.ibm.com  Fri Aug  6 19:13:16 2021
From: knop at us.ibm.com (Felipe Knop)
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 18:13:16 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR05MB4960EF826D26133FC466848BBAF39@SN6PR05MB4960.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <SN6PR05MB4960EF826D26133FC466848BBAF39@SN6PR05MB4960.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <OF0E31AD9F.F519635F-ON00258729.0063DF65-00258729.006417C8@ibm.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210806/c489213b/attachment-0001.htm>

From novosirj at rutgers.edu  Fri Aug  6 19:18:37 2021
From: novosirj at rutgers.edu (Ryan Novosielski)
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 18:18:37 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
In-Reply-To: <OF0E31AD9F.F519635F-ON00258729.0063DF65-00258729.006417C8@ibm.com>
References: <SN6PR05MB4960EF826D26133FC466848BBAF39@SN6PR05MB4960.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<OF0E31AD9F.F519635F-ON00258729.0063DF65-00258729.006417C8@ibm.com>
Message-ID: <A8A5CE6B-2ACE-4E14-98DD-298118C1828A@rutgers.edu>

Can you clarify which components are affected by this? Do I need to upgrade all clients to mitigate this CVE, or every system that has any portion of GPFS installed, or something different?

--
#BlackLivesMatter
____
|| \\UTGERS,  	 |---------------------------*O*---------------------------
||_// the State	 |         Ryan Novosielski - novosirj at rutgers.edu
|| \\ University | Sr. Technologist - 973/972.0922 (2x0922) ~*~ RBHS Campus
||  \\    of NJ	 | Office of Advanced Research Computing - MSB C630, Newark
     `'

> On Aug 6, 2021, at 2:13 PM, Felipe Knop <knop at us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> Barry,
>  
> At least from the development point of view, the fix should have very minimal impact. ("none",  based on the nature of the code change itself)
>  
>   Felipe
>  
> ----
> Felipe Knop knop at us.ibm.com
> GPFS Development and Security
> IBM Systems
> IBM Building 008
> 2455 South Rd, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
> (845) 433-9314 T/L 293-9314
>  
>  
>  
> ----- Original message -----
> From: "Barry Chiu" <barryc at northwestern.edu>
> Sent by: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org
> To: "gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org" <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
> Cc:
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
> Date: Fri, Aug 6, 2021 1:10 PM
>  
> Hi,
>  
> So, it's been about two months since this security bulletin has been posted, and we haven't seen many replies on this listserv about it.
>  
> Just curious:  Has anyone mitigated the vulnerability by installing the patch or upgrading GPFS?  And how stable has it been for anyone who has?
>  
> Thanks,
> Barry
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Barry Chiu
> Team Lead
> CyberInfrastructure | Platform Services | RCI
> Northwestern University | Information Technology
> barryc at northwestern.edu
> 847.491.2803
>  
> ---
>  
>  
> Damir Krstic damir.krstic at gmail.com
> Tue Jun 1 17:48:26 BST 2021
> 	? Next message: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
> 	? Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
> IBM posted a security bulletin for the spectrum scale (CVE-2021-29740). Not
> a lot of detail provided in that bulletin. Has anyone installed this fix?
> Does anyone have more information about it?
> 
> Thanks,
> Damir
>  
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss


From novosirj at rutgers.edu  Fri Aug  6 19:20:52 2021
From: novosirj at rutgers.edu (Ryan Novosielski)
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 18:20:52 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
In-Reply-To: <6aae1c6e-d46b-2fdc-daa6-be8d92882cb4@strath.ac.uk>
References: <CAKV+Wqf2mWH_y7K4djGdOwebm-8Ece_EYZ2bPMt3AB4thV2u7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<6aae1c6e-d46b-2fdc-daa6-be8d92882cb4@strath.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <2AC9CD6A-A594-405B-9373-450D58B747D4@rutgers.edu>

I contacted them about the GUI fix and they said that there would be no fix until the next DSS-G package, and that I could turn off the GUI if that wasn?t good enough.

Not exactly the same situation, but ?not fast? has been my experience. Maybe there?s someone here from Lenovo who could comment on the SLA situation.

--
#BlackLivesMatter
____
|| \\UTGERS,  	 |---------------------------*O*---------------------------
||_// the State	 |         Ryan Novosielski - novosirj at rutgers.edu
|| \\ University | Sr. Technologist - 973/972.0922 (2x0922) ~*~ RBHS Campus
||  \\    of NJ	 | Office of Advanced Research Computing - MSB C630, Newark
     `'

> On Jun 4, 2021, at 5:12 AM, Jonathan Buzzard <jonathan.buzzard at strath.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> On 01/06/2021 17:48, Damir Krstic wrote:
> 
>> IBM posted a security bulletin for the spectrum scale (CVE-2021-29740). Not a lot of detail provided in that bulletin. Has anyone installed this fix? Does anyone have more information about it?
> 
> Anyone know how quickly Lenovo are at putting up security fixes like this?
> 
> Two days in and there is still nothing to download, which in the current security threat environment we are all operating in is bordering on unacceptable.
> 
> 
> JAB.
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan A. Buzzard                         Tel: +44141-5483420
> HPC System Administrator, ARCHIE-WeSt.
> University of Strathclyde, John Anderson Building, Glasgow. G4 0NG
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss


From knop at us.ibm.com  Fri Aug  6 22:07:56 2021
From: knop at us.ibm.com (Felipe Knop)
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 21:07:56 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
In-Reply-To: <A8A5CE6B-2ACE-4E14-98DD-298118C1828A@rutgers.edu>
References: <A8A5CE6B-2ACE-4E14-98DD-298118C1828A@rutgers.edu>,
	<SN6PR05MB4960EF826D26133FC466848BBAF39@SN6PR05MB4960.namprd05.prod.outlook.com><OF0E31AD9F.F519635F-ON00258729.0063DF65-00258729.006417C8@ibm.com>
Message-ID: <OF124B605B.C81C6005-ON00258729.0072D52A-00258729.0074157D@ibm.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210806/2c243523/attachment-0001.htm>

From christian.vieser at 1und1.de  Wed Aug 18 14:07:50 2021
From: christian.vieser at 1und1.de (Christian Vieser)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 15:07:50 +0200
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] Future of Spectrum Scale support for Centos
In-Reply-To: <CAGedhdcML21fYjhr7SKvYUBq0dkaR4cWPmCAeiGiRFcicR7CtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGedhdcML21fYjhr7SKvYUBq0dkaR4cWPmCAeiGiRFcicR7CtA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <164f1e7d-1f64-cf10-56ff-b57206ee075f@1und1.de>

Hi out there.

Since CentOS 8 support ends end of this year (in favour of CentOS Stream
8), it's time to make decisions where to move.

There are two forks of CentOS, Alma and Rocky Linux, but nobody knows
whether they will survive the next years. Then there is Oracle Linux,
but there is always some threat that Oracle will turn it into a paid
product any time.

With CentOS Stream we probably will see more often new kernels that are
not supported by the actual Spectrum Scale version, as we have already
seen it from time to time with RHEL/CentOS. So this means more testing
and manual work with pinning kernel versions on our clusters.

We just successfully passed an evaluation of Oracle Linux and decided to
move there with several products running on CentOS. Only restraint with
Spectrum Scale was, that we had to fake the /etc/os-release when
configuring object service, since the mmobj command has some specific
code distinguishing between RHEL and CentOS and fails with other release
identifiers.

I would like to hear from other CentOS users here: Where are you moving
to? What are your reasons?

@IBM: What will happen to release specific code in Spectrum Scale, at
present differing between CentOS and RHEL? Will there be support for
Alma/Rocky/Oracle Linux? Do we have to raise RFEs for this?

Thank you very much,

Christian

On 09.12.20 Carl Zetie wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> With the announcement of Centos 8 moving to stream
> https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/future-is-centos-stream/
>
> Will Centos still be considered a clone OS?
> https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/STXKQY/gpfsclustersfaq.html#linuxclone
>
> What does this mean for the future for support for folk that are running Centos?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl.
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss

-- 
Christian Vieser

Senior Systemadministrator AIX & Storage
Portal Infrastructure - Storage Services

1&1 Mail & Media Development & Technology GmbH | Brauerstra?e 50 | 76135 Karlsruhe | Germany

Amtsgericht Montabaur, HRB 5452

Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Ludwig, Jan Oetjen, Sandra Vollmer

Member of United Internet



From jonathan.buzzard at strath.ac.uk  Wed Aug 18 20:09:00 2021
From: jonathan.buzzard at strath.ac.uk (Jonathan Buzzard)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 20:09:00 +0100
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] Future of Spectrum Scale support for Centos
In-Reply-To: <164f1e7d-1f64-cf10-56ff-b57206ee075f@1und1.de>
References: <CAGedhdcML21fYjhr7SKvYUBq0dkaR4cWPmCAeiGiRFcicR7CtA@mail.gmail.com>
	<164f1e7d-1f64-cf10-56ff-b57206ee075f@1und1.de>
Message-ID: <52c764e7-adae-7e27-26a4-d0e15578b21b@strath.ac.uk>

On 18/08/2021 14:07, Christian Vieser wrote:
> 
> Hi out there.
> 
> Since CentOS 8 support ends end of this year (in favour of CentOS Stream
> 8), it's time to make decisions where to move.
> 
> There are two forks of CentOS, Alma and Rocky Linux, but nobody knows
> whether they will survive the next years. Then there is Oracle Linux,
> but there is always some threat that Oracle will turn it into a paid
> product any time.

Oracle could charge, but given the length of time it has been available 
without charge I am not sure they will gain anything from a change.


> With CentOS Stream we probably will see more often new kernels that are
> not supported by the actual Spectrum Scale version, as we have already
> seen it from time to time with RHEL/CentOS. So this means more testing
> and manual work with pinning kernel versions on our clusters.
> 
> We just successfully passed an evaluation of Oracle Linux and decided to
> move there with several products running on CentOS. Only restraint with
> Spectrum Scale was, that we had to fake the /etc/os-release when
> configuring object service, since the mmobj command has some specific
> code distinguishing between RHEL and CentOS and fails with other release
> identifiers.
> 

You would likely need to have done more than that because by default 
Oracle Linux has it's own "unbreakable" kernel. You can go back to a 
stock RHEL kernel but it's a pain.

At least they are not being as devious as the Spectrum Protect lot that 
actively look for an RPM called redhat-release. Most pointless thing in 
the world as it is not like it takes any time to knock up an RPM to 
mimic it.

> I would like to hear from other CentOS users here: Where are you moving
> to? What are your reasons?
> 

Going to be Alma I think. Firstly CloudLinux have been rebuilding RHEL 
for a long time, so it is not a huge additional effort to package it up 
in ISO's etc.

Call me a cynic but my view is the $1m a year funding they are claiming 
to put into the Alma rebuild is mostly likely money already being spent 
on the CloudLinux rebuild. Lets say they where spending $900k already so 
it's an extra $100k which is a lot but for that amount of publicity and 
advertising it is a total bargain and throwing the towel in would be a 
PR disaster.

I also like the fact that they are neck and neck with Oracle for getting 
patches out. Way faster than CentOS has been historically which in the 
current threat environment is only a good thing.

Rocky to my mind seems the weakest of the lot.

However I don't think any of the three is a wrong choice as they all 
offer scripts now to migrate an install between them. For us it would be 
mirror a different repo, fiddle with some xCAT tables and redeploy for 
most of the machines.


JAB.

-- 
Jonathan A. Buzzard                         Tel: +44141-5483420
HPC System Administrator, ARCHIE-WeSt.
University of Strathclyde, John Anderson Building, Glasgow. G4 0NG


From p.ward at nhm.ac.uk  Tue Aug 24 11:03:54 2021
From: p.ward at nhm.ac.uk (Paul Ward)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:03:54 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] 'force user' samba parameter not implemented
Message-ID: <LO0P265MB521532E2A826B15D54BD0A73D3C59@LO0P265MB5215.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Hi,

We are moving from our v4 SCALE install to a 5.0.5 SCALE install.
We make extensive use of the 'force user' parameter in our cross protocol shares.
I have just been informed, that although we can set the parameter using 'net conf' it isn't implemented in the current version of Samba in v5.0.5 of SCALE.

Has anyone else faced this issue, and what has been your workaround.


Kindest regards,
Paul

Paul Ward
TS Infrastructure Architect
Natural History Museum
T: 02079426450
E: p.ward at nhm.ac.uk<mailto:p.ward at nhm.ac.uk>
[A picture containing drawing  Description automatically generated]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210824/fe79ff35/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5356 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210824/fe79ff35/attachment-0001.jpg>

From christof.schmitt at us.ibm.com  Wed Aug 25 23:22:27 2021
From: christof.schmitt at us.ibm.com (Christof Schmitt)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 22:22:27 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] 'force user' samba parameter not implemented
In-Reply-To: <LO0P265MB521532E2A826B15D54BD0A73D3C59@LO0P265MB5215.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <LO0P265MB521532E2A826B15D54BD0A73D3C59@LO0P265MB5215.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <OF5BE44333.8A244F7D-ON0025873C.007AE3C7-0025873C.007AE7EA@ibm.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210825/462f1553/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Image.image001.jpg at 01D798D3.21E13E10.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5356 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210825/462f1553/attachment-0001.jpg>

From ragho.mahalingam+spectrumscaleug at pathai.com  Thu Aug 26 16:49:59 2021
From: ragho.mahalingam+spectrumscaleug at pathai.com (Ragho Mahalingam)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 11:49:59 -0400
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] mmsysmon exception with pmcollector socket being
	absent
Message-ID: <CAPGcQxjmFei3DsdftK4cxV0R4=fvpsptn6RLe4RyNot+k1QZyg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

We've been working on setting up mmperfmon; after creating a new
configuration with the new collector on the same manager node, mmsysmon
keeps throwing exceptions.

  File "/usr/lpp/mmfs/lib/mmsysmon/container/PerfmonController.py", line
123, in _getDataFromZimonSocket
    sock.connect(SOCKET_PATH)
FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory

Tracing this a bit, it appears that SOCKET_PATH is
 /var/run/perfmon/pmcollector.socket and this unix domain socket is absent,
even though pmcollector has started and is running successfully.

Under what scenarios is pmcollector supposed to create this socket?  I
don't see any configuration for this in /opt/IBM/zimon/ZIMonCollector.cfg,
so I'm assuming the socket is automatically created when pmcollector starts.

Any thoughts on how to debug and resolve this?

Thanks, Ragu

-- 
*Disclaimer: This email and any corresponding attachments may contain 
confidential information. If you're not the intended recipient, any 
copying, distribution, disclosure, or use of any information contained in 
the email or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you believe to have 
received this email in error, please email security at pathai.com 
<mailto:security at pathai.com> immediately, then destroy the email and any 
attachments without reading or saving.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210826/237c477e/attachment-0001.htm>

From scale at us.ibm.com  Thu Aug 26 19:15:30 2021
From: scale at us.ibm.com (IBM Spectrum Scale)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 13:15:30 -0500
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] Fw: Re: 'force user' samba parameter not
	implemented
Message-ID: <OF6CB89861.870DC5B7-ON8525873D.00641CCE-8625873D.00644BDE@ibm.com>


Forwarding for Christof.  Please see below.

Regards, The Spectrum Scale (GPFS) team

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/forums/html/forum?id=11111111-0000-0000-0000-000000000479.


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.

The forum is informally monitored as time permits and should not be used
for priority messages to the Spectrum Scale (GPFS) team.
----- Forwarded by Doug Ledden/Austin/IBM on 08/26/2021 01:13 PM -----

From:	Christof Schmitt/Tucson/IBM at IBM
To:	gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
Cc:	gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
Date:	08/25/2021 05:22 PM
Subject:	[EXTERNAL] Re: [gpfsug-discuss] 'force user' samba parameter
            not implemented
Sent by:	gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org



Hi Paul,

> We are moving from our v4 SCALE install to a 5.0.5 SCALE install.
> We make extensive use of the ?force user? parameter in our cross
> protocol shares.
> I have just been informed, that although we can set the parameter
> using ?net conf? it isn?t implemented in the current version of
> Samba in v5.0.5 of SCALE.

This config option is not tested and not supported as part of Spectrum
Scale. Only SMB/Samba config parameters that are accessible through
the GUI or mmsmb CLI are officially supported. If you have a usecase
requiring support for additional Samba parameters, the proper way to
request support is through a RFE.

That said, i do not see why the Samba behavior would change here from
v4 to v5. If you want to debug this, i would suggest to recreate the
problem with this parameter in place while capturing a SMB trace
(mmprotocoltrace start smb). The SMB trace should then have sufficient
information to determine why the owner of the file is not as expected.

Regards,

Christof Schmitt
Software Engineer
IBM Systems, Spectrum Scale Development
+1 520 799 2469
christof.schmitt at us.ibm.com
@chsc Twitter

IBM


 ----- Original message -----
 From: "Paul Ward" <p.ward at nhm.ac.uk>
 Sent by: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org
 To: "gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org" <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
 Cc:
 Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gpfsug-discuss] 'force user' samba parameter not
 implemented
 Date: Tue, Aug 24, 2021 3:04 AM

 Hi,

 We are moving from our v4 SCALE install to a 5.0.5 SCALE install.
 We make extensive use of the ?force user? parameter in our cross protocol
 shares.
 I have just been informed, that although we can set the parameter using
 ?net conf? it isn?t implemented in the current version of Samba in v5.0.5
 of SCALE.

 Has anyone else faced this issue, and what has been your workaround.


 Kindest regards,
 Paul

 Paul Ward
 TS Infrastructure Architect
 Natural History Museum
 T: 02079426450
 E: p.ward at nhm.ac.uk
 A picture containing drawingDescription automatically generated



 _______________________________________________
 gpfsug-discuss mailing list
 gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
 http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss


_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210826/466f391f/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1D367310.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5356 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210826/466f391f/attachment-0001.jpg>

From heathp at HPC.MsState.Edu  Tue Aug  3 19:11:16 2021
From: heathp at HPC.MsState.Edu (Peeples, Heath)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 18:11:16 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow
Message-ID: <BN0PR01MB70564A2E9198B54D3F68460A9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>

I am trying to use mmapplypolicy to determine what files are modified in a particular snapshop.  Below I have the policy and mmapplypolicy parameters I am using.  It is taking 3-4 hours to list these files. There are roughly 176M files.  This is running on a DDN Gridscaler 12K system.   Seems to me after seeing others posts we should be able to run this much quicker.  Any help would be appreciated.


mmapplypolicy fs2 -S 20210104 -I defer -A 175 -a 72 -B 10000  -N all -g /fs1/tmp/heath -P /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath.pol -f /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath/output/20210104

RULE 'find_mods' list 'mods'
DIRECTORIES_PLUS
WEIGHT(0)
SHOW( VARCHAR(USER_ID) || ' ' || varchar(FILE_SIZE) || ' ' || varchar(MODIFICATION_SNAPID) )


Heath
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210803/3d7ee2a4/attachment-0002.htm>

From janfrode at tanso.net  Tue Aug  3 19:49:21 2021
From: janfrode at tanso.net (Jan-Frode Myklebust)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 20:49:21 +0200
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow
In-Reply-To: <BN0PR01MB70564A2E9198B54D3F68460A9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
References: <BN0PR01MB70564A2E9198B54D3F68460A9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Message-ID: <CAHwPatj7_wBXVaShd9m7sPzrHbBmf0zyOfXkxsKs99VRPxUSTg@mail.gmail.com>

So?. the advertisement ssys we should be able to do 1M files/s?
http://files.gpfsug.org/presentations/2018/USA/SpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf

First I  would try is if maybe limiting which nodes are used for the
processing helps. Maybe limit to the NSD-servers (-N nodenames) ?

Also,  --choice-algorithm fast might help..?



  -jf


tir. 3. aug. 2021 kl. 20:18 skrev Peeples, Heath <heathp at hpc.msstate.edu>:

> I am trying to use mmapplypolicy to determine what files are modified in a
> particular snapshop.  Below I have the policy and mmapplypolicy parameters
> I am using.  It is taking 3-4 hours to list these files. There are roughly
> 176M files.  This is running on a DDN Gridscaler 12K system.   Seems to me
> after seeing others posts we should be able to run this much quicker.  Any
> help would be appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
> mmapplypolicy fs2 -S 20210104 -I defer -A 175 -a 72 -B 10000  -N all -g
> /fs1/tmp/heath -P /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath.pol -f
> /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath/output/20210104
>
>
>
> RULE 'find_mods' list 'mods'
>
> DIRECTORIES_PLUS
>
> WEIGHT(0)
>
> SHOW( VARCHAR(USER_ID) || ' ' || varchar(FILE_SIZE) || ' ' ||
> varchar(MODIFICATION_SNAPID) )
>
>
>
>
>
> Heath
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210803/72631f54/attachment-0002.htm>

From heathp at HPC.MsState.Edu  Tue Aug  3 19:52:39 2021
From: heathp at HPC.MsState.Edu (Peeples, Heath)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 18:52:39 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow
In-Reply-To: <CAHwPatj7_wBXVaShd9m7sPzrHbBmf0zyOfXkxsKs99VRPxUSTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BN0PR01MB70564A2E9198B54D3F68460A9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
	<CAHwPatj7_wBXVaShd9m7sPzrHbBmf0zyOfXkxsKs99VRPxUSTg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BN0PR01MB70566A92BFC96D56B171F6F19CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>

Yes, that advertisement makes me smile ?

I have tried both of those, and they do not seem to make any difference.  I have also played with the -A and -a parameters with no combination that I can find making it any better.

Thanks for the feedback.

From: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org> On Behalf Of Jan-Frode Myklebust
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 1:49 PM
To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow

So?. the advertisement ssys we should be able to do 1M files/s?
http://files.gpfsug.org/presentations/2018/USA/SpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1qQpvD9F4NtOuzGs8G_8PtFl-CwL-8JNJO1mx5gEbI7QwDLGI58rp5A1Zj3Q1nQoonzr0pdbS8-5R4oc5DLLmaBS6PQJ0HXdquIC5cLIlmasuY6rJfZ_dnC7zPJmBySjicZ0rFC-nrhKEnu-_J-arj4xmzx2VxDYJlbreMnsJfs8xW-c4B_Hnf7N9sPPXQ2b6C8jORSfUogYE0Lue9d2OEn-ITxLZdDzB34linSMOE1kYikuG5ewgP6p0nhcznywEWQr_aE1zvb_kgT9pW4ldt39RkTfGbH-O72Aa-sBxa9NilSUt8K-5wXh6KkXTvTln/http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.gpfsug.org%2Fpresentations%2F2018%2FUSA%2FSpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf>

First I  would try is if maybe limiting which nodes are used for the processing helps. Maybe limit to the NSD-servers (-N nodenames) ?

Also,  --choice-algorithm fast might help..?



  -jf


tir. 3. aug. 2021 kl. 20:18 skrev Peeples, Heath <heathp at hpc.msstate.edu<mailto:heathp at hpc.msstate.edu>>:
I am trying to use mmapplypolicy to determine what files are modified in a particular snapshop.  Below I have the policy and mmapplypolicy parameters I am using.  It is taking 3-4 hours to list these files. There are roughly 176M files.  This is running on a DDN Gridscaler 12K system.   Seems to me after seeing others posts we should be able to run this much quicker.  Any help would be appreciated.


mmapplypolicy fs2 -S 20210104 -I defer -A 175 -a 72 -B 10000  -N all -g /fs1/tmp/heath -P /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath.pol -f /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath/output/20210104

RULE 'find_mods' list 'mods'
DIRECTORIES_PLUS
WEIGHT(0)
SHOW( VARCHAR(USER_ID) || ' ' || varchar(FILE_SIZE) || ' ' || varchar(MODIFICATION_SNAPID) )


Heath
_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<http://secure-web.cisco.com/13y0L5a_-UdTp06HAY-SQnbTVm8HkHswo4iplosUAzEBhW3s6Y6LnTuCvikd3KQuk_YPuAuKhDLAzBjCcmelrVS146XsPHgLLLSbAb3bAKY9dZ10sV8_ErYKn0OqyE8gPgh4kjWnswfL7oomTnhYj4D1Q2mY83UI82dAJAX-2n8NaxlfloOFS23DgFMEULXJgy-wNH_cLemLqseter9-Rj2yO3jsruIBj3_DcY_Z87ffxo0SQcYazbJvThTeqb5C1o6hepHZkalgmUvQE6K2CAV_sX4cWrNs5GNqPy7xifM9tlbvhwJvwSvZGlTO_da4e/http%3A%2F%2Fspectrumscale.org>
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1joeovhVrYzawY9kLy658LHgv3dW6Ta7uZzGAlu08q1o21Rw4o615cnGStXQ0NQeAYE2jCpJAzC7DKAzkxD_cgeRLlQkKVRPFm8QFIMXwGcESXOwOmKXVVD5fq8H0gBD6VasiBdUmWrijLwK0QFvEduBRSXIqQ-sWoxrR1onYwyJEPV--XMh-r1O-92mnjtaUNVuSS2KXElVq8rc2O33St8Ga2qd5QSTT2pUQcbr2IJUM4a2gu0ZrtVQgRBRTZU1ZuoPnFZY8AL4tubpqa6vK_x_dt-W6bkV1XKSre2XQMxCaNb9Bm2_bKJgfhamPC-Rf/http%3A%2F%2Fgpfsug.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpfsug-discuss>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210803/90209a26/attachment-0002.htm>

From janfrode at tanso.net  Tue Aug  3 20:09:04 2021
From: janfrode at tanso.net (Jan-Frode Myklebust)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 21:09:04 +0200
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow
In-Reply-To: <BN0PR01MB70566A92BFC96D56B171F6F19CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
References: <BN0PR01MB70564A2E9198B54D3F68460A9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
	<CAHwPatj7_wBXVaShd9m7sPzrHbBmf0zyOfXkxsKs99VRPxUSTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BN0PR01MB70566A92BFC96D56B171F6F19CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Message-ID: <CAHwPath2C=7PG_QNDNiFgs81haXfTSuTodtb7ZhooEoL+MenyA@mail.gmail.com>

Just guessing, but maybe some ?where SNAP_ID('SnapshotName')? is better
than -S 20210104?


?

tir. 3. aug. 2021 kl. 20:59 skrev Peeples, Heath <heathp at hpc.msstate.edu>:

> Yes, that advertisement makes me smile ?
>
>
>
> I have tried both of those, and they do not seem to make any difference.
> I have also played with the -A and -a parameters with no combination that I
> can find making it any better.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
>
>
> *From:* gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org <
> gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org> *On Behalf Of *Jan-Frode
> Myklebust
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 3, 2021 1:49 PM
> *To:* gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow
>
>
>
> So?. the advertisement ssys we should be able to do 1M files/s?
>
> http://files.gpfsug.org/presentations/2018/USA/SpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf
> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1qQpvD9F4NtOuzGs8G_8PtFl-CwL-8JNJO1mx5gEbI7QwDLGI58rp5A1Zj3Q1nQoonzr0pdbS8-5R4oc5DLLmaBS6PQJ0HXdquIC5cLIlmasuY6rJfZ_dnC7zPJmBySjicZ0rFC-nrhKEnu-_J-arj4xmzx2VxDYJlbreMnsJfs8xW-c4B_Hnf7N9sPPXQ2b6C8jORSfUogYE0Lue9d2OEn-ITxLZdDzB34linSMOE1kYikuG5ewgP6p0nhcznywEWQr_aE1zvb_kgT9pW4ldt39RkTfGbH-O72Aa-sBxa9NilSUt8K-5wXh6KkXTvTln/http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.gpfsug.org%2Fpresentations%2F2018%2FUSA%2FSpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf>
>
>
>
> First I  would try is if maybe limiting which nodes are used for the
> processing helps. Maybe limit to the NSD-servers (-N nodenames) ?
>
>
>
> Also,  --choice-algorithm fast might help..?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   -jf
>
>
>
>
>
> tir. 3. aug. 2021 kl. 20:18 skrev Peeples, Heath <heathp at hpc.msstate.edu>:
>
> I am trying to use mmapplypolicy to determine what files are modified in a
> particular snapshop.  Below I have the policy and mmapplypolicy parameters
> I am using.  It is taking 3-4 hours to list these files. There are roughly
> 176M files.  This is running on a DDN Gridscaler 12K system.   Seems to me
> after seeing others posts we should be able to run this much quicker.  Any
> help would be appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
> mmapplypolicy fs2 -S 20210104 -I defer -A 175 -a 72 -B 10000  -N all -g
> /fs1/tmp/heath -P /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath.pol -f
> /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath/output/20210104
>
>
>
> RULE 'find_mods' list 'mods'
>
> DIRECTORIES_PLUS
>
> WEIGHT(0)
>
> SHOW( VARCHAR(USER_ID) || ' ' || varchar(FILE_SIZE) || ' ' ||
> varchar(MODIFICATION_SNAPID) )
>
>
>
>
>
> Heath
>
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/13y0L5a_-UdTp06HAY-SQnbTVm8HkHswo4iplosUAzEBhW3s6Y6LnTuCvikd3KQuk_YPuAuKhDLAzBjCcmelrVS146XsPHgLLLSbAb3bAKY9dZ10sV8_ErYKn0OqyE8gPgh4kjWnswfL7oomTnhYj4D1Q2mY83UI82dAJAX-2n8NaxlfloOFS23DgFMEULXJgy-wNH_cLemLqseter9-Rj2yO3jsruIBj3_DcY_Z87ffxo0SQcYazbJvThTeqb5C1o6hepHZkalgmUvQE6K2CAV_sX4cWrNs5GNqPy7xifM9tlbvhwJvwSvZGlTO_da4e/http%3A%2F%2Fspectrumscale.org>
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1joeovhVrYzawY9kLy658LHgv3dW6Ta7uZzGAlu08q1o21Rw4o615cnGStXQ0NQeAYE2jCpJAzC7DKAzkxD_cgeRLlQkKVRPFm8QFIMXwGcESXOwOmKXVVD5fq8H0gBD6VasiBdUmWrijLwK0QFvEduBRSXIqQ-sWoxrR1onYwyJEPV--XMh-r1O-92mnjtaUNVuSS2KXElVq8rc2O33St8Ga2qd5QSTT2pUQcbr2IJUM4a2gu0ZrtVQgRBRTZU1ZuoPnFZY8AL4tubpqa6vK_x_dt-W6bkV1XKSre2XQMxCaNb9Bm2_bKJgfhamPC-Rf/http%3A%2F%2Fgpfsug.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpfsug-discuss>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210803/8dfa3f5a/attachment-0002.htm>

From heathp at HPC.MsState.Edu  Tue Aug  3 20:11:06 2021
From: heathp at HPC.MsState.Edu (Peeples, Heath)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 19:11:06 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow
In-Reply-To: <CAHwPath2C=7PG_QNDNiFgs81haXfTSuTodtb7ZhooEoL+MenyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BN0PR01MB70564A2E9198B54D3F68460A9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
	<CAHwPatj7_wBXVaShd9m7sPzrHbBmf0zyOfXkxsKs99VRPxUSTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BN0PR01MB70566A92BFC96D56B171F6F19CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>
	<CAHwPath2C=7PG_QNDNiFgs81haXfTSuTodtb7ZhooEoL+MenyA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BN0PR01MB7056BCBEC671D0B48D05CF8C9CF09@BN0PR01MB7056.prod.exchangelabs.com>

Well we want to run it against the snapshot so I think we need the -S option.  When you run it against the FS filtering by SNAP_ID, you miss any files that have been deleted since the snapshot.

Heath


From: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org> On Behalf Of Jan-Frode Myklebust
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 2:09 PM
To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow


Just guessing, but maybe some ?where SNAP_ID('SnapshotName')? is better than -S 20210104?


?

tir. 3. aug. 2021 kl. 20:59 skrev Peeples, Heath <heathp at hpc.msstate.edu<mailto:heathp at hpc.msstate.edu>>:
Yes, that advertisement makes me smile ?

I have tried both of those, and they do not seem to make any difference.  I have also played with the -A and -a parameters with no combination that I can find making it any better.

Thanks for the feedback.

From: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org<mailto:gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org> <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org<mailto:gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org>> On Behalf Of Jan-Frode Myklebust
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 1:49 PM
To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<mailto:gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>>
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] mmapplypolicy slow

So?. the advertisement ssys we should be able to do 1M files/s?
http://files.gpfsug.org/presentations/2018/USA/SpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1qQpvD9F4NtOuzGs8G_8PtFl-CwL-8JNJO1mx5gEbI7QwDLGI58rp5A1Zj3Q1nQoonzr0pdbS8-5R4oc5DLLmaBS6PQJ0HXdquIC5cLIlmasuY6rJfZ_dnC7zPJmBySjicZ0rFC-nrhKEnu-_J-arj4xmzx2VxDYJlbreMnsJfs8xW-c4B_Hnf7N9sPPXQ2b6C8jORSfUogYE0Lue9d2OEn-ITxLZdDzB34linSMOE1kYikuG5ewgP6p0nhcznywEWQr_aE1zvb_kgT9pW4ldt39RkTfGbH-O72Aa-sBxa9NilSUt8K-5wXh6KkXTvTln/http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.gpfsug.org%2Fpresentations%2F2018%2FUSA%2FSpectrumScalePolicyBP.pdf>

First I  would try is if maybe limiting which nodes are used for the processing helps. Maybe limit to the NSD-servers (-N nodenames) ?

Also,  --choice-algorithm fast might help..?



  -jf


tir. 3. aug. 2021 kl. 20:18 skrev Peeples, Heath <heathp at hpc.msstate.edu<mailto:heathp at hpc.msstate.edu>>:
I am trying to use mmapplypolicy to determine what files are modified in a particular snapshop.  Below I have the policy and mmapplypolicy parameters I am using.  It is taking 3-4 hours to list these files. There are roughly 176M files.  This is running on a DDN Gridscaler 12K system.   Seems to me after seeing others posts we should be able to run this much quicker.  Any help would be appreciated.


mmapplypolicy fs2 -S 20210104 -I defer -A 175 -a 72 -B 10000  -N all -g /fs1/tmp/heath -P /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath.pol -f /fs2/tmp/snaps/heath/output/20210104

RULE 'find_mods' list 'mods'
DIRECTORIES_PLUS
WEIGHT(0)
SHOW( VARCHAR(USER_ID) || ' ' || varchar(FILE_SIZE) || ' ' || varchar(MODIFICATION_SNAPID) )


Heath
_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<http://secure-web.cisco.com/13y0L5a_-UdTp06HAY-SQnbTVm8HkHswo4iplosUAzEBhW3s6Y6LnTuCvikd3KQuk_YPuAuKhDLAzBjCcmelrVS146XsPHgLLLSbAb3bAKY9dZ10sV8_ErYKn0OqyE8gPgh4kjWnswfL7oomTnhYj4D1Q2mY83UI82dAJAX-2n8NaxlfloOFS23DgFMEULXJgy-wNH_cLemLqseter9-Rj2yO3jsruIBj3_DcY_Z87ffxo0SQcYazbJvThTeqb5C1o6hepHZkalgmUvQE6K2CAV_sX4cWrNs5GNqPy7xifM9tlbvhwJvwSvZGlTO_da4e/http%3A%2F%2Fspectrumscale.org>
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1joeovhVrYzawY9kLy658LHgv3dW6Ta7uZzGAlu08q1o21Rw4o615cnGStXQ0NQeAYE2jCpJAzC7DKAzkxD_cgeRLlQkKVRPFm8QFIMXwGcESXOwOmKXVVD5fq8H0gBD6VasiBdUmWrijLwK0QFvEduBRSXIqQ-sWoxrR1onYwyJEPV--XMh-r1O-92mnjtaUNVuSS2KXElVq8rc2O33St8Ga2qd5QSTT2pUQcbr2IJUM4a2gu0ZrtVQgRBRTZU1ZuoPnFZY8AL4tubpqa6vK_x_dt-W6bkV1XKSre2XQMxCaNb9Bm2_bKJgfhamPC-Rf/http%3A%2F%2Fgpfsug.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpfsug-discuss>
_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1Jxk0mTZJfEGRuwDAfk6WETmP_z5AYx4ZEYSsRf6Iq7v69ncxGgt70_hIM13VkBESWG6_5J1sazT3n6tfxKKmStUZmOj9j2XvYb9AXirO0aU5Doiod8DV6Exzl1bAO3nro5-AzRdLy12lqtXiY2AecwMn57_JZN9eTrPPB73pyXJrf2Pb0i5PfDRq6o4o2kC5pZ-UgYlYJP2b4Z37vzHDHis8pAUPvc6mKIBdtd_IUbJdvxGfErw3WZIyIdCVNIOyuvVqLDnQcJI9O291mb6-qOXUPiAxrONdm5c0LsU_HkgGbwYXkSRdEUuUtB3n3uM2/http%3A%2F%2Fspectrumscale.org>
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1-tpllNriTqNKP656g4djWNutzuUwZnTeFHXINw7U_4ltbsDdb04bvj1gxe7NEW3YrW-ANqci01QM9ftyYnaBWrgiTCH3PZYu5n3jFwUhSYE8cZh88leH2VaqiXQtN2yH0KW4fHgiO16MYEz35tyoaWGxVcPSk0ExX4ZuXohXCmMt9RrUuBygXw4_v15mAoDPha-mBUTOMtnoWQG7Hq4jJ8CpD6DGaYMV_E23CbJN5fInLFGYJ9b9tP80C_CKMhts_TuB1Z8l6bEYnWj62NqAV-936iq_nLtLoZLKwjZD2-WzENisFTchV_InvVhRgwoL/http%3A%2F%2Fgpfsug.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpfsug-discuss>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210803/ba397df3/attachment-0002.htm>

From cabrillo at ifca.unican.es  Wed Aug  4 09:39:54 2021
From: cabrillo at ifca.unican.es (Iban Cabrillo)
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 10:39:54 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] GUI does not work after upgrade from 4.X to 5.1.1
Message-ID: <188673789.12219696.1628066394522.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>

Dear, 
After the GPFS versi?n upgrade (from 4.3.9 to 5.1.1), I can not start the gpfs gui (FS works fine). Looking at logs I see these relevants lines: 
------------------------------------------- 
Aug 4 10:31:15 gpfsgui su: (to scalemgmt) root on none 
Aug 4 10:31:16 gpfsgui su: (to scalemgmt) root on none 
Aug 4 10:31:16 gpfsgui check4sudoers: Effective path: /sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/lpp/mmfs/bin:/usr/lpp/mmfs/gui/bin-sudo 
Aug 4 10:31:16 gpfsgui check4sudoers: env_keep configuration not found or wrong. Please check your sudoers configuration for scalemgmt user. 
--------------------------------- 

env_keep is set at /etc/sudoers.d/scalemgmt_sudoers file (of course scalemgmt user exits at the system): 

scalemgmt ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD: /usr/lpp/mmfs......./*,.... 
Defaults:scalemgmt env_keep += "PATH SUDO_USER REMOTE_USER GPFS_GUI_USER" 
Defaults:scalemgmt secure_path=/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/lpp/mmfs/bin:/usr/lpp/mmfs/gui/bin-sudo 
Defaults:scalemgmt !requiretty 

Is any thing wrong at env_keep line? 

Any advise is welcomed 
regards, I 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210804/a2b5fff6/attachment-0002.htm>

From cabrillo at ifca.unican.es  Wed Aug  4 12:34:12 2021
From: cabrillo at ifca.unican.es (Iban Cabrillo)
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 13:34:12 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] GUI does not work after upgrade from 4.X to
 5.1.1
In-Reply-To: <188673789.12219696.1628066394522.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>
References: <188673789.12219696.1628066394522.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>
Message-ID: <1015214365.12247735.1628076852775.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>

Hi

   Fixing the line from /usr/lpp/mmfs/gui/bin-sudo/check4sudoers:

   msg=$(echo "$ii" | egrep "env_keep=\"PATH SUDO_USER REMOTE_USER GPFS_GUI_USER ANSIBLE_\*\"")

   by

   msg=$(echo "$ii" | egrep "env_keep=\"PATH SUDO_USER REMOTE_USER GPFS_GUI_USER\"")

do the trick

Regards I



From Renar.Grunenberg at huk-coburg.de  Wed Aug  4 14:45:34 2021
From: Renar.Grunenberg at huk-coburg.de (Grunenberg, Renar)
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 13:45:34 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] GUI does not work after upgrade from 4.X to
	5.1.1
In-Reply-To: <1015214365.12247735.1628076852775.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>
References: <188673789.12219696.1628066394522.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>
	<1015214365.12247735.1628076852775.JavaMail.zimbra@ifca.unican.es>
Message-ID: <a2dfe458d0ac443e87d09b529f372430@huk-coburg.de>

Hallo Iban,
this is already fixed in 5.1.1.1.



Renar Grunenberg
Abteilung Informatik - Betrieb

HUK-COBURG
Bahnhofsplatz
96444 Coburg
Telefon:  09561 96-44110
Telefax:  09561 96-44104
E-Mail:   Renar.Grunenberg at huk-coburg.de
Internet: www.huk.de
=======================================================================
HUK-COBURG Haftpflicht-Unterst?tzungs-Kasse kraftfahrender Beamter Deutschlands a. G. in Coburg
Reg.-Gericht Coburg HRB 100; St.-Nr. 9212/101/00021
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bahnhofsplatz, 96444 Coburg
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. Heinrich R. Schradin.
Vorstand: Klaus-J?rgen Heitmann (Sprecher), Stefan Gronbach, Dr. Hans Olav Her?y, Dr. J?rg Rheinl?nder, Thomas Sehn, Daniel Thomas.
=======================================================================
Diese Nachricht enth?lt vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich gesch?tzte Informationen.
Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese Nachricht irrt?mlich erhalten haben,
informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese Nachricht.
Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Nachricht ist nicht gestattet.

This information may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this information in error) please notify the
sender immediately and destroy this information.
Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this information is strictly forbidden.
=======================================================================

-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org> Im Auftrag von Iban Cabrillo
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. August 2021 13:34
An: gpfsug-discuss <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
Betreff: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] GUI does not work after upgrade from 4.X to 5.1.1

Hi

   Fixing the line from /usr/lpp/mmfs/gui/bin-sudo/check4sudoers:

   msg=$(echo "$ii" | egrep "env_keep=\"PATH SUDO_USER REMOTE_USER GPFS_GUI_USER ANSIBLE_\*\"")

   by

   msg=$(echo "$ii" | egrep "env_keep=\"PATH SUDO_USER REMOTE_USER GPFS_GUI_USER\"")

do the trick

Regards I

_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss

From barryc at northwestern.edu  Fri Aug  6 18:04:51 2021
From: barryc at northwestern.edu (Barry Chiu)
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 17:04:51 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
Message-ID: <SN6PR05MB4960EF826D26133FC466848BBAF39@SN6PR05MB4960.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Hi,

So, it's been about two months since this security bulletin has been posted, and we haven't seen many replies on this listserv about it.

Just curious:  Has anyone mitigated the vulnerability by installing the patch or upgrading GPFS?  And how stable has it been for anyone who has?

Thanks,
Barry



Barry Chiu
Team Lead
CyberInfrastructure | Platform Services | RCI
Northwestern University | Information Technology
barryc at northwestern.edu
847.491.2803

---



Damir Krstic damir.krstic at gmail.com<mailto:gpfsug-discuss%40spectrumscale.org?Subject=Re:%20Re%3A%20%5Bgpfsug-discuss%5D%20CVE-2021-29740&In-Reply-To=%3CCAKV%2BWqf2mWH_y7K4djGdOwebm-8Ece_EYZ2bPMt3AB4thV2u7Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
Tue Jun 1 17:48:26 BST 2021

  *   Next message: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740<http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/2021-June/007752.html>
  *   Messages sorted by: [ date ]<http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/2021-June/date.html#7751> [ thread ]<http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/2021-June/thread.html#7751> [ subject ]<http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/2021-June/subject.html#7751> [ author ]<http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss/2021-June/author.html#7751>

Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740

IBM posted a security bulletin for the spectrum scale (CVE-2021-29740). Not
a lot of detail provided in that bulletin. Has anyone installed this fix?
Does anyone have more information about it?

Thanks,
Damir


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210806/d128808c/attachment-0002.htm>

From knop at us.ibm.com  Fri Aug  6 19:13:16 2021
From: knop at us.ibm.com (Felipe Knop)
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 18:13:16 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR05MB4960EF826D26133FC466848BBAF39@SN6PR05MB4960.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <SN6PR05MB4960EF826D26133FC466848BBAF39@SN6PR05MB4960.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <OF0E31AD9F.F519635F-ON00258729.0063DF65-00258729.006417C8@ibm.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210806/c489213b/attachment-0002.htm>

From novosirj at rutgers.edu  Fri Aug  6 19:18:37 2021
From: novosirj at rutgers.edu (Ryan Novosielski)
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 18:18:37 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
In-Reply-To: <OF0E31AD9F.F519635F-ON00258729.0063DF65-00258729.006417C8@ibm.com>
References: <SN6PR05MB4960EF826D26133FC466848BBAF39@SN6PR05MB4960.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<OF0E31AD9F.F519635F-ON00258729.0063DF65-00258729.006417C8@ibm.com>
Message-ID: <A8A5CE6B-2ACE-4E14-98DD-298118C1828A@rutgers.edu>

Can you clarify which components are affected by this? Do I need to upgrade all clients to mitigate this CVE, or every system that has any portion of GPFS installed, or something different?

--
#BlackLivesMatter
____
|| \\UTGERS,  	 |---------------------------*O*---------------------------
||_// the State	 |         Ryan Novosielski - novosirj at rutgers.edu
|| \\ University | Sr. Technologist - 973/972.0922 (2x0922) ~*~ RBHS Campus
||  \\    of NJ	 | Office of Advanced Research Computing - MSB C630, Newark
     `'

> On Aug 6, 2021, at 2:13 PM, Felipe Knop <knop at us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> Barry,
>  
> At least from the development point of view, the fix should have very minimal impact. ("none",  based on the nature of the code change itself)
>  
>   Felipe
>  
> ----
> Felipe Knop knop at us.ibm.com
> GPFS Development and Security
> IBM Systems
> IBM Building 008
> 2455 South Rd, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
> (845) 433-9314 T/L 293-9314
>  
>  
>  
> ----- Original message -----
> From: "Barry Chiu" <barryc at northwestern.edu>
> Sent by: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org
> To: "gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org" <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
> Cc:
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
> Date: Fri, Aug 6, 2021 1:10 PM
>  
> Hi,
>  
> So, it's been about two months since this security bulletin has been posted, and we haven't seen many replies on this listserv about it.
>  
> Just curious:  Has anyone mitigated the vulnerability by installing the patch or upgrading GPFS?  And how stable has it been for anyone who has?
>  
> Thanks,
> Barry
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Barry Chiu
> Team Lead
> CyberInfrastructure | Platform Services | RCI
> Northwestern University | Information Technology
> barryc at northwestern.edu
> 847.491.2803
>  
> ---
>  
>  
> Damir Krstic damir.krstic at gmail.com
> Tue Jun 1 17:48:26 BST 2021
> 	? Next message: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
> 	? Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
> IBM posted a security bulletin for the spectrum scale (CVE-2021-29740). Not
> a lot of detail provided in that bulletin. Has anyone installed this fix?
> Does anyone have more information about it?
> 
> Thanks,
> Damir
>  
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss


From novosirj at rutgers.edu  Fri Aug  6 19:20:52 2021
From: novosirj at rutgers.edu (Ryan Novosielski)
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 18:20:52 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
In-Reply-To: <6aae1c6e-d46b-2fdc-daa6-be8d92882cb4@strath.ac.uk>
References: <CAKV+Wqf2mWH_y7K4djGdOwebm-8Ece_EYZ2bPMt3AB4thV2u7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<6aae1c6e-d46b-2fdc-daa6-be8d92882cb4@strath.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <2AC9CD6A-A594-405B-9373-450D58B747D4@rutgers.edu>

I contacted them about the GUI fix and they said that there would be no fix until the next DSS-G package, and that I could turn off the GUI if that wasn?t good enough.

Not exactly the same situation, but ?not fast? has been my experience. Maybe there?s someone here from Lenovo who could comment on the SLA situation.

--
#BlackLivesMatter
____
|| \\UTGERS,  	 |---------------------------*O*---------------------------
||_// the State	 |         Ryan Novosielski - novosirj at rutgers.edu
|| \\ University | Sr. Technologist - 973/972.0922 (2x0922) ~*~ RBHS Campus
||  \\    of NJ	 | Office of Advanced Research Computing - MSB C630, Newark
     `'

> On Jun 4, 2021, at 5:12 AM, Jonathan Buzzard <jonathan.buzzard at strath.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> On 01/06/2021 17:48, Damir Krstic wrote:
> 
>> IBM posted a security bulletin for the spectrum scale (CVE-2021-29740). Not a lot of detail provided in that bulletin. Has anyone installed this fix? Does anyone have more information about it?
> 
> Anyone know how quickly Lenovo are at putting up security fixes like this?
> 
> Two days in and there is still nothing to download, which in the current security threat environment we are all operating in is bordering on unacceptable.
> 
> 
> JAB.
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan A. Buzzard                         Tel: +44141-5483420
> HPC System Administrator, ARCHIE-WeSt.
> University of Strathclyde, John Anderson Building, Glasgow. G4 0NG
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss


From knop at us.ibm.com  Fri Aug  6 22:07:56 2021
From: knop at us.ibm.com (Felipe Knop)
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 21:07:56 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] CVE-2021-29740
In-Reply-To: <A8A5CE6B-2ACE-4E14-98DD-298118C1828A@rutgers.edu>
References: <A8A5CE6B-2ACE-4E14-98DD-298118C1828A@rutgers.edu>,
	<SN6PR05MB4960EF826D26133FC466848BBAF39@SN6PR05MB4960.namprd05.prod.outlook.com><OF0E31AD9F.F519635F-ON00258729.0063DF65-00258729.006417C8@ibm.com>
Message-ID: <OF124B605B.C81C6005-ON00258729.0072D52A-00258729.0074157D@ibm.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210806/2c243523/attachment-0002.htm>

From christian.vieser at 1und1.de  Wed Aug 18 14:07:50 2021
From: christian.vieser at 1und1.de (Christian Vieser)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 15:07:50 +0200
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] Future of Spectrum Scale support for Centos
In-Reply-To: <CAGedhdcML21fYjhr7SKvYUBq0dkaR4cWPmCAeiGiRFcicR7CtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGedhdcML21fYjhr7SKvYUBq0dkaR4cWPmCAeiGiRFcicR7CtA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <164f1e7d-1f64-cf10-56ff-b57206ee075f@1und1.de>

Hi out there.

Since CentOS 8 support ends end of this year (in favour of CentOS Stream
8), it's time to make decisions where to move.

There are two forks of CentOS, Alma and Rocky Linux, but nobody knows
whether they will survive the next years. Then there is Oracle Linux,
but there is always some threat that Oracle will turn it into a paid
product any time.

With CentOS Stream we probably will see more often new kernels that are
not supported by the actual Spectrum Scale version, as we have already
seen it from time to time with RHEL/CentOS. So this means more testing
and manual work with pinning kernel versions on our clusters.

We just successfully passed an evaluation of Oracle Linux and decided to
move there with several products running on CentOS. Only restraint with
Spectrum Scale was, that we had to fake the /etc/os-release when
configuring object service, since the mmobj command has some specific
code distinguishing between RHEL and CentOS and fails with other release
identifiers.

I would like to hear from other CentOS users here: Where are you moving
to? What are your reasons?

@IBM: What will happen to release specific code in Spectrum Scale, at
present differing between CentOS and RHEL? Will there be support for
Alma/Rocky/Oracle Linux? Do we have to raise RFEs for this?

Thank you very much,

Christian

On 09.12.20 Carl Zetie wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> With the announcement of Centos 8 moving to stream
> https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/future-is-centos-stream/
>
> Will Centos still be considered a clone OS?
> https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/STXKQY/gpfsclustersfaq.html#linuxclone
>
> What does this mean for the future for support for folk that are running Centos?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl.
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss

-- 
Christian Vieser

Senior Systemadministrator AIX & Storage
Portal Infrastructure - Storage Services

1&1 Mail & Media Development & Technology GmbH | Brauerstra?e 50 | 76135 Karlsruhe | Germany

Amtsgericht Montabaur, HRB 5452

Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Ludwig, Jan Oetjen, Sandra Vollmer

Member of United Internet



From jonathan.buzzard at strath.ac.uk  Wed Aug 18 20:09:00 2021
From: jonathan.buzzard at strath.ac.uk (Jonathan Buzzard)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 20:09:00 +0100
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] Future of Spectrum Scale support for Centos
In-Reply-To: <164f1e7d-1f64-cf10-56ff-b57206ee075f@1und1.de>
References: <CAGedhdcML21fYjhr7SKvYUBq0dkaR4cWPmCAeiGiRFcicR7CtA@mail.gmail.com>
	<164f1e7d-1f64-cf10-56ff-b57206ee075f@1und1.de>
Message-ID: <52c764e7-adae-7e27-26a4-d0e15578b21b@strath.ac.uk>

On 18/08/2021 14:07, Christian Vieser wrote:
> 
> Hi out there.
> 
> Since CentOS 8 support ends end of this year (in favour of CentOS Stream
> 8), it's time to make decisions where to move.
> 
> There are two forks of CentOS, Alma and Rocky Linux, but nobody knows
> whether they will survive the next years. Then there is Oracle Linux,
> but there is always some threat that Oracle will turn it into a paid
> product any time.

Oracle could charge, but given the length of time it has been available 
without charge I am not sure they will gain anything from a change.


> With CentOS Stream we probably will see more often new kernels that are
> not supported by the actual Spectrum Scale version, as we have already
> seen it from time to time with RHEL/CentOS. So this means more testing
> and manual work with pinning kernel versions on our clusters.
> 
> We just successfully passed an evaluation of Oracle Linux and decided to
> move there with several products running on CentOS. Only restraint with
> Spectrum Scale was, that we had to fake the /etc/os-release when
> configuring object service, since the mmobj command has some specific
> code distinguishing between RHEL and CentOS and fails with other release
> identifiers.
> 

You would likely need to have done more than that because by default 
Oracle Linux has it's own "unbreakable" kernel. You can go back to a 
stock RHEL kernel but it's a pain.

At least they are not being as devious as the Spectrum Protect lot that 
actively look for an RPM called redhat-release. Most pointless thing in 
the world as it is not like it takes any time to knock up an RPM to 
mimic it.

> I would like to hear from other CentOS users here: Where are you moving
> to? What are your reasons?
> 

Going to be Alma I think. Firstly CloudLinux have been rebuilding RHEL 
for a long time, so it is not a huge additional effort to package it up 
in ISO's etc.

Call me a cynic but my view is the $1m a year funding they are claiming 
to put into the Alma rebuild is mostly likely money already being spent 
on the CloudLinux rebuild. Lets say they where spending $900k already so 
it's an extra $100k which is a lot but for that amount of publicity and 
advertising it is a total bargain and throwing the towel in would be a 
PR disaster.

I also like the fact that they are neck and neck with Oracle for getting 
patches out. Way faster than CentOS has been historically which in the 
current threat environment is only a good thing.

Rocky to my mind seems the weakest of the lot.

However I don't think any of the three is a wrong choice as they all 
offer scripts now to migrate an install between them. For us it would be 
mirror a different repo, fiddle with some xCAT tables and redeploy for 
most of the machines.


JAB.

-- 
Jonathan A. Buzzard                         Tel: +44141-5483420
HPC System Administrator, ARCHIE-WeSt.
University of Strathclyde, John Anderson Building, Glasgow. G4 0NG


From p.ward at nhm.ac.uk  Tue Aug 24 11:03:54 2021
From: p.ward at nhm.ac.uk (Paul Ward)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:03:54 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] 'force user' samba parameter not implemented
Message-ID: <LO0P265MB521532E2A826B15D54BD0A73D3C59@LO0P265MB5215.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Hi,

We are moving from our v4 SCALE install to a 5.0.5 SCALE install.
We make extensive use of the 'force user' parameter in our cross protocol shares.
I have just been informed, that although we can set the parameter using 'net conf' it isn't implemented in the current version of Samba in v5.0.5 of SCALE.

Has anyone else faced this issue, and what has been your workaround.


Kindest regards,
Paul

Paul Ward
TS Infrastructure Architect
Natural History Museum
T: 02079426450
E: p.ward at nhm.ac.uk<mailto:p.ward at nhm.ac.uk>
[A picture containing drawing  Description automatically generated]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210824/fe79ff35/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5356 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210824/fe79ff35/attachment-0002.jpg>

From christof.schmitt at us.ibm.com  Wed Aug 25 23:22:27 2021
From: christof.schmitt at us.ibm.com (Christof Schmitt)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 22:22:27 +0000
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] 'force user' samba parameter not implemented
In-Reply-To: <LO0P265MB521532E2A826B15D54BD0A73D3C59@LO0P265MB5215.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <LO0P265MB521532E2A826B15D54BD0A73D3C59@LO0P265MB5215.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <OF5BE44333.8A244F7D-ON0025873C.007AE3C7-0025873C.007AE7EA@ibm.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210825/462f1553/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Image.image001.jpg at 01D798D3.21E13E10.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5356 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210825/462f1553/attachment-0002.jpg>

From ragho.mahalingam+spectrumscaleug at pathai.com  Thu Aug 26 16:49:59 2021
From: ragho.mahalingam+spectrumscaleug at pathai.com (Ragho Mahalingam)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 11:49:59 -0400
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] mmsysmon exception with pmcollector socket being
	absent
Message-ID: <CAPGcQxjmFei3DsdftK4cxV0R4=fvpsptn6RLe4RyNot+k1QZyg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

We've been working on setting up mmperfmon; after creating a new
configuration with the new collector on the same manager node, mmsysmon
keeps throwing exceptions.

  File "/usr/lpp/mmfs/lib/mmsysmon/container/PerfmonController.py", line
123, in _getDataFromZimonSocket
    sock.connect(SOCKET_PATH)
FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory

Tracing this a bit, it appears that SOCKET_PATH is
 /var/run/perfmon/pmcollector.socket and this unix domain socket is absent,
even though pmcollector has started and is running successfully.

Under what scenarios is pmcollector supposed to create this socket?  I
don't see any configuration for this in /opt/IBM/zimon/ZIMonCollector.cfg,
so I'm assuming the socket is automatically created when pmcollector starts.

Any thoughts on how to debug and resolve this?

Thanks, Ragu

-- 
*Disclaimer: This email and any corresponding attachments may contain 
confidential information. If you're not the intended recipient, any 
copying, distribution, disclosure, or use of any information contained in 
the email or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you believe to have 
received this email in error, please email security at pathai.com 
<mailto:security at pathai.com> immediately, then destroy the email and any 
attachments without reading or saving.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210826/237c477e/attachment-0002.htm>

From scale at us.ibm.com  Thu Aug 26 19:15:30 2021
From: scale at us.ibm.com (IBM Spectrum Scale)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 13:15:30 -0500
Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] Fw: Re: 'force user' samba parameter not
	implemented
Message-ID: <OF6CB89861.870DC5B7-ON8525873D.00641CCE-8625873D.00644BDE@ibm.com>


Forwarding for Christof.  Please see below.

Regards, The Spectrum Scale (GPFS) team

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/forums/html/forum?id=11111111-0000-0000-0000-000000000479.


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.

The forum is informally monitored as time permits and should not be used
for priority messages to the Spectrum Scale (GPFS) team.
----- Forwarded by Doug Ledden/Austin/IBM on 08/26/2021 01:13 PM -----

From:	Christof Schmitt/Tucson/IBM at IBM
To:	gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
Cc:	gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
Date:	08/25/2021 05:22 PM
Subject:	[EXTERNAL] Re: [gpfsug-discuss] 'force user' samba parameter
            not implemented
Sent by:	gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org



Hi Paul,

> We are moving from our v4 SCALE install to a 5.0.5 SCALE install.
> We make extensive use of the ?force user? parameter in our cross
> protocol shares.
> I have just been informed, that although we can set the parameter
> using ?net conf? it isn?t implemented in the current version of
> Samba in v5.0.5 of SCALE.

This config option is not tested and not supported as part of Spectrum
Scale. Only SMB/Samba config parameters that are accessible through
the GUI or mmsmb CLI are officially supported. If you have a usecase
requiring support for additional Samba parameters, the proper way to
request support is through a RFE.

That said, i do not see why the Samba behavior would change here from
v4 to v5. If you want to debug this, i would suggest to recreate the
problem with this parameter in place while capturing a SMB trace
(mmprotocoltrace start smb). The SMB trace should then have sufficient
information to determine why the owner of the file is not as expected.

Regards,

Christof Schmitt
Software Engineer
IBM Systems, Spectrum Scale Development
+1 520 799 2469
christof.schmitt at us.ibm.com
@chsc Twitter

IBM


 ----- Original message -----
 From: "Paul Ward" <p.ward at nhm.ac.uk>
 Sent by: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org
 To: "gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org" <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
 Cc:
 Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gpfsug-discuss] 'force user' samba parameter not
 implemented
 Date: Tue, Aug 24, 2021 3:04 AM

 Hi,

 We are moving from our v4 SCALE install to a 5.0.5 SCALE install.
 We make extensive use of the ?force user? parameter in our cross protocol
 shares.
 I have just been informed, that although we can set the parameter using
 ?net conf? it isn?t implemented in the current version of Samba in v5.0.5
 of SCALE.

 Has anyone else faced this issue, and what has been your workaround.


 Kindest regards,
 Paul

 Paul Ward
 TS Infrastructure Architect
 Natural History Museum
 T: 02079426450
 E: p.ward at nhm.ac.uk
 A picture containing drawingDescription automatically generated



 _______________________________________________
 gpfsug-discuss mailing list
 gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
 http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss


_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210826/466f391f/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1D367310.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5356 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20210826/466f391f/attachment-0002.jpg>