I'm working without the benefit of a set of doc PDFs at the moment, but I have a fairly specific recollection that when Group Collocation was introduced in 5.3, the default behavior for collocation on an new storage group changed. I could be wrong, but if Eric has any new storage pools, they might default to "collocation by group" -- and as I recall, nodes that aren't defined to be in a specific group are treated as if they're in they're own group.
The consequence is that for new storage pools, the default starts to act like "collocation by node" unless you specifically put nodes into collocation groups. I hope I'm wrong, because this seemed really, really weird when I was studying collocation by group, and like I said, I'm working from memory at the moment, but *if* Eric has new (defined under 5.3 or later) storage pools, he might be using collocation without realizing it. I really, really hope the family memory problems aren't kicking in today.... :) (If I'm all wrong about this, please be gentle.) Nick -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:10 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool Hi Larry! Aparently... We don't use collocation <snip>
