[gpfsug-discuss] AFM Licensing

Thu Nov 10 15:17:13 GMT 2016

The gateway nodes will be mounting an external NFS server as a *client*.
There will be NO NFS exports from these two AFM nodes.

AFM Local Update filesets will cache the remote NFS exported file systems
(pretend they are ReiserFS not GPFS to make things easier).

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 at 15:07 Glen Corneau <gcorneau at us.ibm.com> wrote:

> The FAQ item does list "sharing data via NFS" as a Server license function
> (which is what the gateway node does):
>
> The IBM Spectrum Scale Server license permits the licensed virtual server
> to perform IBM Spectrum Scale management functions such as cluster
> configuration manager, quorum node, manager node, and Network Shared Disk
> (NSD) server. In addition, the IBM Spectrum Scale Server license permits
> the licensed virtual server to *share IBM Spectrum Scale data*directly
> through any application, service protocol or method s*uch as Network File
> System (NFS)*, Common Internet File System (CIFS), File Transfer Protocol
> (FTP), Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), or OpenStack Swift.
>
>
> http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSFKCN/com.ibm.cluster.gpfs.doc/gpfs_faqs/gpfsclustersfaq.html?view=kc#lic41
>
> ------------------
> Glen Corneau
> Washington Systems Center - Power Systems
> gcorneau at us.ibm.com
>
>
>
>
>
> From:        Luke Raimbach <luke.raimbach at googlemail.com>
> To:        gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
> Date:        11/10/2016 08:37 AM
> Subject:        Re: [gpfsug-discuss] AFM Licensing
> Sent by:        gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Thanks for the response, but that page is still not helpful.
>
> We will not be exporting any data from the GPFS cluster through the AFM
> gateways. Data will be coming from external NFS data sources, through the
> gateway nodes INTO the GPFS file systems.
>
> Reading that licensing page suggests a client license is acceptable in
> this situation. There is no mention of AFM explicitly as a function of the
> server license.
>
> Cheers,
> Luke.
>
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 at 14:20 Kevin D Johnson <*kevindjo at us.ibm.com*
> <kevindjo at us.ibm.com>> wrote:
> An AFM gateway node would definitely be a server licensed node.  Here are
> the working definitions, and yes, this would be true for the various
> editions of IBM Spectrum Scale:
>
>
> *http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/STXKQY_4.2.0/com.ibm.spectrum.scale.v4r2.ins.doc/bl1ins_gpfslicensedesignation.htm*
> <http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/STXKQY_4.2.0/com.ibm.spectrum.scale.v4r2.ins.doc/bl1ins_gpfslicensedesignation.htm>
>
> *Kevin D. Johnson, MBA, MAFM*
>
> *Spectrum Computing, Senior Managing Consultant*
>
> *IBM Certified Deployment Professional - Spectrum Scale V4.1.1IBM
> Certified Deployment Professional - Cloud Object Storage V3.8*
> *IBM Certified Solution Advisor - Spectrum Computing V1*
>
> *720.349.6199 - **kevindjo at us.ibm.com* <kevindjo at us.ibm.com>
>
>
>
> ----- Original message -----
> From: Luke Raimbach <*luke.raimbach at googlemail.com*
> <luke.raimbach at googlemail.com>>
> Sent by: *gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org*
> <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org>
> To: gpfsug main discussion list <*gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org*
> <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>>
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] AFM Licensing
> Date: Thu, Nov 10, 2016 9:12 AM
>
> Thanks for the feature matrix, but it doesn't really say anything about
> client / server licenses. Surely you can have clients and servers in all
> three flavours - Express, Standard and Advanced.
>
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 at 12:07 Andrew Beattie <*abeattie at au1.ibm.com*
> <abeattie at au1.ibm.com>> wrote:
> I think you will find that AFM in any flavor is a function of the Server
> license, not a client license.
>
> i've always found this to be a pretty good guide, although you now need to
> add Transparent Cloud Tiering into the bottom column
>
>
>
>
>
> *Andrew Beattie*
> *Software Defined Storage  - IT Specialist*
> *Phone: *614-2133-7927
> *E-mail: **abeattie at au1.ibm.com* <abeattie at au1.ibm.com>
>
>
>
> ----- Original message -----
> From: Luke Raimbach <*luke.raimbach at googlemail.com*
> <luke.raimbach at googlemail.com>>
> Sent by: *gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org*
> <gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org>
> To: gpfsug main discussion list <*gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org*
> <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>>
> Cc:
> Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] AFM Licensing
> Date: Thu, Nov 10, 2016 8:22 PM
>
> HI All,
>
> I have a tantalisingly interesting question about licensing...
>
> When installing a couple of AFM gateway nodes into a cluster for data
> migration, where the AFM filesets will only ever be local-updates, those
> nodes should just require a client license, right? No GPFS data will leave
> through those nodes, so I can't see any valid argument for them being
> server licensed.
>
> Anyone want to disagree?
>
> Cheers,
> Luke.
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at *spectrumscale.org* <http://spectrumscale.org/>
> *http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss*
> <http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at *spectrumscale.org* <http://spectrumscale.org/>
> *http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss*
> <http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at *spectrumscale.org* <http://spectrumscale.org/>
> *http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss*
> <http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at *spectrumscale.org* <http://spectrumscale.org/>
> *http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss*
> <http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss>*[attachment
> "Image.14787856423282.png" deleted by Glen Corneau/Austin/IBM] [attachment
> "Image.14787856423283.png" deleted by Glen Corneau/Austin/IBM] [attachment
> "Image.14787856423283.png" deleted by Glen Corneau/Austin/IBM] *
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161110/d480b774/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 26117 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20161110/d480b774/attachment.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 26117 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20161110/d480b774/attachment-0001.jpe>