[gpfsug-discuss] [External] DSS-G sharing IPMI network

[Jonathan Buzzard]

On 19/06/2026 18:23, Nicolas CALIMET wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The recommendation is likely originating from environments where
> switch ports and cabling may be too constrained if using the
> dedicated LOM/OCP port. There is also a correlation with setting up
> the Confluent environment.
> 

I just don't get what that correlation might be. Noting I having setup 
the servers with dedicated connections for the XCC using confluent 
without issue. I guess that is my fault for presuming that because they 
came configured in dedicated mode that is what I should be using.

Are we an outlier having a dedicated management network? I would have 
thought that was the norm/best practice?

> So to answer your question - I'm assuming you're dealing with a V3
> server (SR655 V3), which indeed may have the dedicated port enabled
> by default:
> 
> $ nodeconfig dss45 -c IMM.SharedNicMode dss45: IMM.SharedNicMode:
> Dedicated (Default: Dedicated)
> 
> $ nodeconfig dss45 IMM.SharedNicMode=jnk dss45: jnk is not a valid
> value for IMM.SharedNicMode
> (Shared:nic0,Shared,Dedicated,Shared:nic3,Shared:nic4,Shared:nic5,Shared:nic6,Shared:nic7,Shared:nic8)
> 
> 
> So if you want to stick to the recommendation, "nodeconfig <nodes>
> IMM.SharedNicMode=Shared" should be what you're looking for if you
> pick up the correct physical OCP port as documented.
> 

Is there a support issue with just staying with the dedicated NIC for 
the XCC connection?

I was about to start the migration off our old DSS-G but if I need to 
rejig this then now is the time.


JAB.

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