 |
 |
Hi Fabrizio, Yes, that's what the protocol says. That is, there can be two opaque segments. As were're just starting to use opaque information in "real life" I'm sure we'll learn a thing or two on how to use it. Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fabrizio Furano" <[log in to unmask]> To: "Andrew Hanushevsky" <[log in to unmask]> Cc: "Andreas Joachim Peters" <[log in to unmask]>; "Derek Feichtinger" <[log in to unmask]>; "Fons Rademakers" <[log in to unmask]>; "xrootd mailing list" <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 4:08 AM Subject: Re: olbd fails to learn when a file disappears from a leaf node, but another copy still exists > Hi Andy, > > Ok, this in my mind means that appending (or not) an opaque info to the > arguments of a mv is left to the application. > > Anyway, the recovery protocol states that some opaque info has to be > appended after an unsuccessful open. The code as it is now appends this > info after the opaque info which is considered part of the file name. Is > it ok for you? > > Fabrizio > > Andrew Hanushevsky wrote: >> Hi Fabrizio, >> >> There is nothing in the protocol that prevents this. Since opaque >> information is opaque and is always passed as part of a filename, xrootd >> simply forwards that information without interpretation. They could be >> the >> same or different, depends on the application. >> >> Andy >> >> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Fabrizio Furano wrote: >> >> >>>Hi, >>> >>> uhm. I see and don't see. Will it have two opaque parameters or the >>>same parameter appended to each filename? >>> >>>Fabrizio >>> >>>Andy Hanushevsky wrote: >>> >>>>Hi Fabrizio, >>>> >>>>I think we all agree on that. The only "nit" is that rename will have >>>>two opaque parameters that someone will need to make sense of. >>>> >>>>Andy >>>> >>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Fabrizio Furano" >>>><[log in to unmask]> >>>>To: "Andrew Hanushevsky" <[log in to unmask]> >>>>Cc: "Andreas Joachim Peters" <[log in to unmask]>; "Derek Feichtinger" >>>><[log in to unmask]>; "Fons Rademakers" >>>><[log in to unmask]>; "xrootd mailing list" >>>><[log in to unmask]> >>>>Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:24 AM >>>>Subject: Re: olbd fails to learn when a file disappears from a leaf >>>>node, but another copy still exists >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I argue from this that the opaque info passed e.g. through xrdcp must >>>>>be passed for any request containing a filename, like Stat or Dirlist. >>>>>Am I right? >>>>> >>>>>Fabrizio >>>>> >>>>>Andrew Hanushevsky wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Hi Andreas, >>>>>> >>>>>>OK, so it would appear that we will need to extract out the >>>>>>information >>>>>>after the "?" and pass that as a separate parameter. I do that, >>>>>>instead of >>>>>>passing the complete url, so as to not re-implement searching for the >>>>>>opaque information in every function. The called function, hoewver, is >>>>>>responsible for making sense of the opaque information. >>>>>> >>>>>>That does mean changing most file system calls to include the opaque >>>>>>parameter. That also solves the olbd issue in a unified way. >>>>>> >>>>>>Do we all agree to go that route? >>>>>> >>>>>>Andy >>>>>> >>>>>>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Andreas Joachim Peters wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>As it is, it is absolutely fine for me. I would prefer, that the >>>>>>>complete >>>>>>>URL is always passed to any function and the function has to extract >>>>>>>the part >>>>>>>it needs. But as it is, it works perfectly for us. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I use the following syntax: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>root://server.domain:port/<lfn>?&authz=<authorization block> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Because even for a stat command it can be useful, that you can >>>>>>>specify >>>>>>>some environment variable like the stagepool the file is on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Cheers Andreas. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >