All, The SMAP issue has been addressed in GPFS in 4.2.1.1. See http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/STXKQY/gpfsclustersfaq.html Q2.4. 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 From: Aaron Knister <aaron.knister at gmail.com> To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org> Date: 12/07/2016 09:25 AM Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Any experience running native GPFS 4.2.1 on Xeon Phi node booted with Centos 7.3? Sent by: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org I don't know if this applies her but I seem to recall an issue with CentOS 7 (newer 3.X and on kernels), Broadwell processors and GPFS where GPFS upset SMAP and would eventually get the node expelled. I think this may be fixed in newer GPFS releases but the fix is to boot the kernel with the nosmap parameter. Might be worth a try. I'm not clear on whether SMAP is supported by the Xeon Phi's. -Aaron On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:34 AM <david_johnson at brown.edu> wrote: IBM says it should work ok, we are not so sure. We had node expels that stopped when we turned off gpfs on that node. Has anyone had better luck? -- ddj Dave Johnson _______________________________________________ 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/20161207/48aa0319/attachment.html>