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:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:10 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Strange difference between Primary and Copypool

Hi Larry! 
Aparently...
We don't use collocation 

<snip>