[gpfsug-discuss] CES, Ganesha, and Filesystem_id

[Leonardo Sala]

Hi Ed,

thanks! In our case we do have unique export ids, but the same fsid, and 
this seems to create issues. Also, reading Ganesha docs, I can see [*]:


      FileSystem_ID EXPORT Option

There is an EXPORT config option, FileSystem_ID. This really should not 
be used, all it does it designate an fsid to be used with the attributes 
of all objects in the export. It will be folded to fit into NFSv3. 
Because it applies to the entire export, it prevents exporting multiple 
file systems since there will likely be issues with collision of inode 
numbers on the client.

so before touching the defaults in GPFS CES configuration I would like 
some guidance or experiences from this mlist :)

cheers

leo

[*] 
https://github.com/nfs-ganesha/nfs-ganesha/wiki/File-Systems#FileSystem_ID_EXPORT_Option


Paul Scherrer Institut
Dr. Leonardo Sala
Group Leader Data Analysis and Research Infrastructure
Deputy Department Head a.i Science IT Infrastructure and Services department
Science IT Infrastructure and Services department (AWI)
WHGA/036
Forschungstrasse 111
5232 Villigen PSI
Switzerland

Phone: +41 56 310 3369
leonardo.sala at psi.ch
www.psi.ch

On 6/27/23 19:41, Wahl, Edward wrote:
>
> I vaguely recall seeing this and testing it.  My notes to myself say: 
> ‘As long as the export_id is unique, you are fine.’   See the manuals, 
> ganesha loves Camel Case so it’s more than likely actually “Export_Id” 
> or some such.
>
> Ed Wahl
>
> Ohio Supercomputer Center
>
> *From:*gpfsug-discuss <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at gpfsug.org> *On Behalf 
> Of *Leonardo Sala
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 27, 2023 10:18 AM
> *To:* gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> *Subject:* [gpfsug-discuss] CES, Ganesha, and Filesystem_id
>
> Hallo, we are checking our current CES configuration, and we noticed 
> that by default GPFS puts always Filesystem_Id=666. 666 [*], no matter 
> which Export_Id value the export has. To my understanding (which is 
> poor!), this means that all clients
>
> Hallo,
>
> we are checking our current CES configuration, and we noticed that by 
> default GPFS puts always Filesystem_Id=666.666 [*], no matter which 
> Export_Id value the export has. To my understanding (which is poor!), 
> this means that all clients will see all our exports (~20) with the 
> same device number, creating various possible issues (e.g. file state 
> handles). Questions:
>
> * is there a reason for such default value? If we change it, are there 
> unpleasant effects we could see?
>
> * what would be a reasonable value? Looking around I saw that 
> Filesystem_Id = Export_Id.Export_Id is quite common, with the possible 
> issue of using the forbidden 152.152 [**]
>
> * what happens if we actually remove the Filesytem_Id parameter from 
> gpfs.ganesha.exports.conf?
>
> * is there a way to modify Filesystem_Id in gpfs.ganesha.exports.conf 
> without editing the file, eg using mmnfs commands (seems not, but I 
> might be mistaken)?
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> cheers
>
> leo
>
> [*] 
> https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/storage-scale/5.0.4?topic=exports-making-bulk-changes-nfs 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ibm.com/docs/en/storage-scale/5.0.4?topic=exports-making-bulk-changes-nfs__;!!KGKeukY!2ZoLSJiACv5XMmk6G9XTy958E9yslS6wIGqy1RaI3D0d_6hraQHFRLCEBCWh73texj92o7WDULi105hTHXqh$>
>
> [**] https://github.com/nfs-ganesha/nfs-ganesha/issues/615 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/nfs-ganesha/nfs-ganesha/issues/615__;!!KGKeukY!2ZoLSJiACv5XMmk6G9XTy958E9yslS6wIGqy1RaI3D0d_6hraQHFRLCEBCWh73texj92o7WDULi10-6QZN1l$>
>
> -- 
> Paul Scherrer Institut
> Dr. Leonardo Sala
> Group Leader Data Analysis and Research Infrastructure
> Deputy Department Head a.i Science IT Infrastructure and Services department
> Science IT Infrastructure and Services department (AWI)
> WHGA/036
> Forschungstrasse 111
> 5232 Villigen PSI
> Switzerland
>   
> Phone: +41 56 310 3369
> leonardo.sala at psi.ch
> www.psi.ch  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.psi.ch__;!!KGKeukY!2ZoLSJiACv5XMmk6G9XTy958E9yslS6wIGqy1RaI3D0d_6hraQHFRLCEBCWh73texj92o7WDULi105e6ItOo$>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at gpfsug.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20230628/3bdc8975/attachment-0001.htm>