Listing files in a QoS Policy Group


I'm in the process of testing QoS and one scenario I'm looking at is a policy group with a file from an NFS share.  What I'm not sure of is how to list out the files in a given policy group.  Although page 258 of the CDOT Sys Admin Guide says to use the "volume file show" command with the -qos-policy-group parameter, that does not appear to exist:

1) Add the file to the group

::> volume file modify -vserver cdotvserver -volume cdotQoSNFSshare01 -file filename01.out -qos-policy-group qosFILE-cdotQoSNFSshare01

2) List the files in the group

::> volume file show -vserver cdotvserver -path /vol/cdotQoSNFSshare01/filename01.out ?

  [ -h | -instance | -k | -m | -u | -uh | -uk | -um | -fields <fieldname>, ... ]

  [ -range|-r <<start offset>:<end offset>> ]  Block Range

::> volume file show -vserver cdotvserver -path /vol/cdotQoSNFSshare01/filename01.out

Vserver          Total                  Path

--------         ------                 -----

cdotvserver      642524KB               /vol/cdotQoSNFSshare01/filename01.out

I've run SIO testing against this file and it the QoS limits do work but there does not appear to be this option with the command set.  How would I go about determining which files belong to a given QoS Policy Group?  Thanks.


Re: Listing files in a QoS Policy Group

I figured out how to do this, although it's not ideal.  It requires systemshell diagnostic privileges first and then running the qos workload show command.

Please tell me there is a simpler way of doing this - specifically I'm looking for the ability to list the workloads (i.e., objects such as Vserver, volumes, files, luns) that are currently members of a given QoS Policy Group.  A command like this "qos policy-group <name> listcontents" and that would then spit out 2 columns, one with the object type and then the object itself would be great.

Re: Listing files in a QoS Policy Group

Here it is:

qos workload show -policy-group <name>

That more or less does what I'm after.  Although I still don't understand why it's buried behind diagnostic privilege...