Hi Andy,
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 06:29:45PM -0700, Andrew Hanushevsky wrote:
> > In this case "client" = xcp (or xrdcp, you ducked the naming question), is
> > that correct?
> Yes, I ducked it. I would vote for xrdcp to avoid name clashes.
Ok, done. We'll call it 'xrdcp'.
> > (a) Simply stops with an error message if one tries to do such a wildcarded
> > copy via a load balancer instead of an actual dataserver. Can the
> > client application determine this?
> Yes, but that leads to non-determinsitic behaviour. One could shoose a
> compromise and allow directory copies but not full wildcard copies. This
> keeps the client somewhat simple because doing full wildcard copies is not
> trivial.
Could you clarify what you mean by "directory copies"? (Including example
syntax for the xrdcp command.)
> > (b) Gives me what is actually there on disk instead of what might be
> > out there in tertiary storage someplace.
> True, but again not completely satisfying unless you are quite aware of
> what you're doing.
But there is no way to avoid "not being completely satisfying", is there?
> > Since I may be going via the load-balancer to write the file, how do I
> > create the "/some/path"? I have no idea in advance to which server I will be
> > redirected. ("I" in this case being xcp/xrdcp.)
> Writes are problematic. Generally, you don't need to know ahead of time.
> You create the path once you get there.
So the server doesn't take care of this itself, but 'xrdcp' _could_ be
setup to create the paths automatically. Is that the proposal?
Pete
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Elmer E-mail: [log in to unmask] Phone: +41 (22) 767-4644
Address: CERN Division PPE, Bat. 32 2C-14, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
