SLAC is very interested in participating this test. There is a few hurdles right now:
1) SLAC's external network is still 1GB. This limited the bandwide we can contribute. However, I still hope we can at least contribute 50MByte/s. We are planning to upgrade to 10GB in January.
2) For 50MB/s, a single GridFTP server is enough. But I hope we can use SRM frontend. I am still waiting for a FTS channel to be setup between BNL and SLAC SRM v2.2. There is no technical difficulty here. The BNL-STAR channel already works with a testing SRM v2.2 deployed on SLAC's gatekeeper (However, we shouldn't run a production SRM on a production gatekeeper).
3) We are looking for additional machines as GridFTP servers. Before that will happen, I have borrowed two machines to run GridFTP. When the lab reopens, we can have them setup.
I hope we can get all these work before the middle of January.
--
Wei Yang | [log in to unmask] | 650-926-3338(O)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ernst, Michael [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 1:29 PM
> To: Hironori Ito
> Cc: Jay Packard; Katramatos, Dimitrios; Joe Urbanski; Rob
> Gardner; Dantong Yu; Yang, Wei; McKee, Shawn; Charles G
> Waldman; RACF-STORAGE
> Subject: RE: [Racf-storagemgmt-l] Throughput update
>
> Thanks, Hiro.
>
> Yes, I kept watching the ganglia graphs while you were
> running the tests and the results are quite encouraging.
> Though we could argue the goal of having 3 sites is fulfilled
> ('guess you did transfers to UM and MSU apart from UC?) I am
> still eager to demonstrate we can do these transfers to 3
> Tier-2s. Also, it would be desirable to not only show the
> aggregate rate out of BNL but also the rates at the receiving
> end. Last point is, we managed to achieve this rate for only
> 20 minutes (or, you presumably stopped the test after ~20
> minutes). This is not convincing, I'm afraid, we need to show
> at least 12 hours, 24 hours would even be better.
>
> Again, I appreciate the effort spent by everybody helping to
> achieve this. Please take a look whether we can take a step
> further to raise the level of confidence regarding our
> capabilities on our end, and to please our funding agencies ...
>
> --
> Michael
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hironori Ito [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 4:14 PM
> To: Ernst, Michael
> Cc: Jay Packard; Katramatos, Dimitrios; Joe Urbanski; Rob
> Gardner; Dantong Yu; Wei Yang; McKee, Shawn; Charles G
> Waldman; RACF-STORAGE
> Subject: Re: [Racf-storagemgmt-l] Throughput update
>
> Hello.
>
> I wanted to get 600MB/s. But, since I don't get it, here is
> what I got today. I got about 500MB/s by transferring to UM
> (two different places) and UC. Although, it shows the entire
> transfer to/from BNL, they are almost entirely from BNL to
> other sites since the dCache write pools at BNL shows not
> much activity.
>
> Is this good enough?
>
> Hiro
>
> Ernst, Michael wrote:
> >
> > Yes, 500 MB/s combined at whatever distribution.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >
> > *From:* Jay Packard [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:42 PM
> > *To:* Ernst, Michael
> > *Cc:* Hironori Ito; McKee, Shawn; Katramatos, Dimitrios;
> Joe Urbanski;
> > Rob Gardner; Dantong Yu; Charles G Waldman; RACF-STORAGE; Wei Yang
> > *Subject:* Re: [Racf-storagemgmt-l] Throughput update
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > Just to verify, you would like a total of 500 MB/s to these 3 sites
> > combined (rather than 500 MB/s to each for a total of 1500 MB/s)?
> >
> > Jay
> >
> > Ernst, Michael wrote:
> >
> > This looks good, indeed.
> >
> > Now I need you to plan for a transfer exercise to show that
> this can
> > be sustained
> >
> > over an extended period of time (let's say for 24hours)
> >
> > to 3 Tier-2 sites at the same time (possible candidates:
> AGLT2, MWT2,
> WT2)
> >
> > at a level of 500 MB/s out of BNL to these sites (at whatever
> > distribution)
> >
> > We should make an effort getting this done before the
> DOE/NSF Review
> > in early February. I know this may be difficult at MWT2 and
> SLAC but
> > it's worth the effort, because the agencies are really
> concerned about
> > this point.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >
> > *From:* Jay Packard [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 27, 2007 4:40 PM
> > *To:* Hironori Ito
> > *Cc:* McKee, Shawn; Katramatos, Dimitrios; Rob Gardner; Joe
> Urbanski;
> > Rob Gardner; Dantong Yu; Ernst, Michael; Charles G Waldman;
> RACF-STORAGE
> > *Subject:* Re: [Racf-storagemgmt-l] Throughput update
> >
> > Oops, I sent the wrong graph - this is the correct one.
> >
> > Hironori Ito wrote:
> >
> > Hello.
> >
> > Your cacti is not showing the values I am expecting.
> >
> > Look at the attached plot from ganglia about between 13:20
> and 13:40.
> > You see about 200-250MB/s increase in the traffic. This is the
> correct
> > value since I know how much I sent.
> >
> > 70 (files)* 3600 (MB per files) / (20 minutes * 60
> sec/minutes) = 210
> > MB/sec
> >
> > By the way, what was the 1st target value (200 or 250?)
> >
> > Hiro
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Racf-storagemgmt-l mailing list
> > [log in to unmask]
> > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/racf-storagemgmt-l
> >
>
>
|
