I call it a trick because the only context I have seen it used in is
forcing new physical connections instead of reusing existing ones.
Lukasz
On 8/26/13 11:45 PM, Lukasz Janyst wrote:
> Hi Matevz,
>
> Andy's on vacation until 2nd Sep.
>
> Lukasz
>
> On 8/26/13 11:28 PM, Matevz Tadel wrote:
>> Hi Lukasz, Everybody,
>>
>> On 8/24/13 5:55 AM, Lukasz Janyst wrote:
>>> Yes, in fact the username "trick" to trigger the new connections
>>> would still
>>> work with the new client and that's likely what is happening here.
>>
>> Hmmh ... why do you call it a trick? And where are the usernames
>> coming from? This is all running within a single xrootd-proxy process
>> ... so it is always the same user, I don't see how this could change
>> in any way. (On server side and in monitoring, this is obviously a
>> different user, as port number is also combined into it.)
>>
>> Anyway ... this seems a really bad idea for the proxy :)
>>
>> Here is a dump of server/monitoring-side usernames for a bunch of
>> consecutive file-close events. You can see some of them get reused
>> ... but 105 of such connections stayed for 3 days+ (after reading
>> ~300 files with 300 XrdCls in a single process).
>>
>> * 413974 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 415017 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 416011 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 416476 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 417680 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 419305 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 419376 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 419520 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 419599 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 419942 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 420628 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 421065 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 422202 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 422688 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 423059 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 423080 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 424121 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 424264 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 431576 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 488603 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 489027 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 489340 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 494316 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 494699 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>> * 496100 * alja.2636:[log in to unmask] *
>>
>>> In fact you can see what is exactly happening if you set the
>>> XRD_LOGLEVEL and
>>> XRD_LOGFILE envvars as described in the xrdcopy man page.
>>
>> Alja will run our test with this on ... but whatever the outcome,
>> these connections should still be closed at some point.
>>
>> Andy, can you please comment on this? [Does anybody know, is Andy
>> away ... or I should kick his chair in a separate email?]
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Matevz
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Lukasz
>>>
>>> On 23.08.2013 21:58, Fabrizio Furano wrote:
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>> you are reminding to me a historical thing with this thread. You may
>>>> want to doublecheck these two points, and see if the defaults or the
>>>> behavior is appropriate to the behavior of your proxy:
>>>>
>>>> - by choice the connections to the redirectors had a very long TTL,
>>>> one day if I remember correctly
>>>> - at some point, due to some interaction with the sec (don't
>>>> remember
>>>> exactly what by now) the behavior was changed to having one physical
>>>> connection per process per user. Maybe Gerri remembers the
>>>> rationale of
>>>> this better than me. My point is to raise that if one sees many
>>>> phyconns
>>>> from the same process, they could be linked to different user ids.
>>>> Worth
>>>> checking IMHO.
>>>>
>>>> Hope that helps.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Fabrizio
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8/23/13 9:42 PM, Brian Bockelman wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 23, 2013, at 2:05 PM, Alja Mrak Tadel <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> normally XrdCl would open one connection per server it
>>>>>>>> contacts.
>>>>>>>> Not per file.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, how do we get 105 connections from a single process to the
>>>>>>> meta-manager then? :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FYI:: The connections listed with netstat are to the origin
>>>>>> xrootd.unl.edu.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> So - we see duplicate connections to the redirector, but no duplicate
>>>>> connections to the data server?
>>>>>
>>>>> Could be a client bug, of course!
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian
>>>>> ########################################################################
>>>>>
>>>>> Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
>>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe from the XROOTD-DEV list, click the following link:
>>>>> https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=XROOTD-DEV&A=1
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
To unsubscribe from the XROOTD-DEV list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=XROOTD-DEV&A=1
|