LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for XROOTD-L Archives


XROOTD-L Archives

XROOTD-L Archives


XROOTD-L@LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

XROOTD-L Home

XROOTD-L Home

XROOTD-L  November 2004

XROOTD-L November 2004

Subject:

Re: GetChecksum perl interface

From:

"Andrew Hanushevsky" <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

18 Nov 2004 17:48:45 -0800Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:48:45 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (129 lines)

Hi Fabrizio,

There really is very little that xrootd can do for you here. Returning a
kXR_wait does not help because all you will do is to re-issue the request
which would mean I would have to keep complex information around to prevent
re-executing the cksum just because it hasn't finished. Not very good.

I would suggest that you temporarily increase the timeout for query cksum.
Alternatively, I can make query cksum asynchronous. That would allow you to
issue a ping request after the timeout period to see if the server is really
still alive and you simply haven't gotten the response back within the
timeout period.

I suppose we can even make it more complex by allowing you to query about
things in progress. But I'd rather stick with simple solutions if at all
possible. That leaves (1) as the simplest, and (2) as the less simple one
but still not overly complex.

What do you think?

Andy

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fabrizio Furano" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Wilko Kroeger" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: "Andrew Hanushevsky" <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: GetChecksum perl interface


> Hi Wilko,
>
>   the chksumming seems ok now to me. You can try it by running
> tinytestXTNetAdmin.pl.
>
>   A little consideration: I noted that the checksumming takes a long
> amount of time (about 10 secs in this small test). If the time needed
> for computing the checksum is greater than the XrdClient timeout (30 or
> 60 secs), the client will initiate its retry operations because it will
> think that the server is dead. The checksum will be asked to the
> redirector or to another server, which eventually will timeout too... a
> loop which will fail after a number of retries.
>
>   If this problem will one day show up, I believe that the correct way
> to fix it could be to use the kxr_wait mechanism. No changes at the
> client side would be needed at all.
>
>   However, please let me know if it works for you. I'll read the mail
> tomorrow, then I'll be out for a few days.
>
>   Fabrizio
>
> Wilko Kroeger wrote:
> > Hello Fabrizio
> >
> > Checksumming on bbrprod01 should work. What is the file name you pass to
> > GetChecksum ? It should be
> > /prod/store/PRskims/R14/16.0.1a/AllEvents/23/AllEvents_2301.01.root
> >
> > Cheers,
> >    Wilko
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Fabrizio Furano wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hi Wilko,
> >>
> >>  I changed that function in order to handle any checksum size.
> >>Unfortunately I am not able to find a server/file giving me any
checksum.
> >>
> >>This is what I get from bbrprod01:
> >>
> >>  041118 06:15:44 001 Xrd: SendGenCommand Server declared error
> >>3010:Check summing path
>
>>'/kanga/prod/store/PRskims/R14/16.0.1a/AllEvents/23/AllEvents_2301.01.root
'
> >>is disallowed.
> >>
> >>Please, can you tell me something I can checksum somewhere?
> >>
> >>I will commit the change when I am able to test it at least once.
> >>Differently from the former version, which I committed without any
> >>available server doing checksums at the time...
> >>
> >>Fabrizio
> >>
> >>
> >>Wilko Kroeger wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hello Fabrizio
> >>>
> >>>I tried the GetChecksum perl interface (on linux) with the
> >>>latest version. It kind of works but produces a core after
> >>>calling.
> >>>The problem is in the usage of the shared buffer (char *sharedbuf)
> >>>in XrdClientAdmin_c.cc.
> >>>
> >>>XrdGetChecksum() uses this buffer to hold the checksum returned from
the
> >>>server (AFAIK). I think the core is produced if the buffer is to small.
> >>>I changed in XrdGetChecksum()
> >>>
> >>>from:
> >>>memset(sharedbuf, 0, sizeof(sharedbuf));
> >>>adminst->GetChecksum((kXR_char *)path, (kXR_char *)sharedbuf);
> >>>
> >>>to:
> >>>SharedBufRealloc(30);
> >>>memset(sharedbuf, 0, 30);
> >>>adminst->GetChecksum((kXR_char *)path, (kXR_char *)sharedbuf);
> >>>
> >>>and then it works fine. Is there a better way to allocate the buffer?
> >>>I just choose a size (=30) that is safe for our purpose but it isn't
> >>>guaranteed that it will work if a different checksum algorithm is used
> >>>(Also not only the checksum but also a string is returned e.g.:
> >>>crc32 3140090365)
> >>>
> >>>Cheers,
> >>>   Wilko
> >>>
> >>
>



Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
January 2009
December 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager

Privacy Notice, Security Notice and Terms of Use