- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - OpenVMS
- >
- MSCP_SERVE_ALL versus set device/served
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-12-2007 02:15 PM
тАО06-12-2007 02:15 PM
MSCP_SERVE_ALL versus set device/served
A question, is there any benefit in not setting MSCP_SERVE_ALL to 1, instead leaving it as 0 & doing a set device/served for each of the devices requiring serving? This is presuming not all disks in the servers need to be shadowed.
Cheers
Mark
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-12-2007 03:31 PM
тАО06-12-2007 03:31 PM
Re: MSCP_SERVE_ALL versus set device/served
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-12-2007 03:48 PM
тАО06-12-2007 03:48 PM
Re: MSCP_SERVE_ALL versus set device/served
to change it to 4, because having the CD-ROM
drive served was causing some problems. I
normally serve all the real (hard) disks, so
automatically serving the system disk was ok
with me.
As with many things, there's more than one
way to get the desired effect.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-12-2007 08:49 PM
тАО06-12-2007 08:49 PM
Re: MSCP_SERVE_ALL versus set device/served
The reason was primarily because I am not shadowing the system disks over the cluster (I may shadow them locally). Plus there are other disks users want to keep for isolated usage on individual nodes (application licensing etc).
I was wondering if it saves on resources and/or has "issues". Steven indicates issues with CD-ROMS.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-13-2007 09:19 AM
тАО06-13-2007 09:19 AM
Re: MSCP_SERVE_ALL versus set device/served
>to keep for isolated usage on individual nodes (application licensing etc)
a system management issue, tell the users
not to use certain area/drives.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-13-2007 11:44 AM
тАО06-13-2007 11:44 AM
Re: MSCP_SERVE_ALL versus set device/served
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-13-2007 12:47 PM
тАО06-13-2007 12:47 PM
Re: MSCP_SERVE_ALL versus set device/served
I had mine set to 1, but I eventually decided
to change it to 4, because having the CD-ROM
drive served was causing some problems.
--
What problems?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-13-2007 01:23 PM
тАО06-13-2007 01:23 PM
Re: MSCP_SERVE_ALL versus set device/served
It's been a long time, but as I recall, I'd
do something like mount a CD-ROM somewhere
(without saying /CLUSTER), and then I'd try
to mount a duplicate CD on a different
cluster member and get a complaint about
already having a disk with that label
somewhere. That sort of thing. I wasn't
bumping into OS defects, I just found that
not having the CD-ROM drives served made for
fewer problems in my day-to-day operations.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-13-2007 09:49 PM
тАО06-13-2007 09:49 PM
Re: MSCP_SERVE_ALL versus set device/served
Purely Personal Opinion
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-14-2007 12:51 AM
тАО06-14-2007 12:51 AM
Re: MSCP_SERVE_ALL versus set device/served
> on each system e.g DKA400.
Eh? Mine have names like node$DKAxxx, where
the "node" part is different on different
nodes. What does one need to do to make this
not happen? I also tend to define a logical
name or two (CD1 for the obvious drive, CDR
for the CR-writing drive (which is usually
external)), so I seldom use the real
(node-specific) device name.
I'll admit to being annoyed occasionally when
I do a "SHOW DEVICE DKsomething" and get
results from boxes all around the room, but
that happens less this time of year, and the
annoyance is more with myself than with the
OS.