 |
 |
Hi Julia, On 7/21/12 2:25 AM, Julia Andreeva wrote: > Hi Matevz, > Thank you very much for the detailed answres. > > See my comments/answers inline > ________________________________________ > From: [log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Matevz Tadel [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 20 July 2012 20:20 > To: Julia Andreeva > Cc: Daniel Dieguez Arias; [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Getting data from USCMS XRootD Federation Monitoring in machine-readable format > > Hi Julia, > > On 07/20/12 02:00, Julia Andreeva wrote: >> >> >> Hi Matevz, >> >> I asked Daniel, to use next time the xrootd mailing list. I think I did not get >> confirmation that my subscribtion was approved, let's see whether it works. >> >> I have couple of questions: >> 1) >> What is shown on the Monalisa display: > > ML shows the summary monitoring information -- this is what xrootd servers > report themselves about their status and activity. > > I also sent to Daniel a link to the CHEP paper (being reviewed) that desribes > what we do: > http://uaf-2.t2.ucsd.edu/~matevz/CHEP2012-S-12-00218.pdf > >> Only remote access? >> Mixture of remote and local? > > This is a bit tricky :) as the summary monitoring information is completely > oblivious about individual connections ... it just tells how much data any given > server sent out ... and then we aggregate this by site to make dashboard plots. > This is a complementary view to what is provided by detailed monitoring and > file-access reports -- we see it more like a server/site performance/monitoring > database we can use to drill down into in case of trouble. Also, our alarm > system is based on that ... for almost a year now, the only thing that still > happens every now and then is authentication problems (servers with bad certs, > LDAP or GUMS issues). But since the new client knows how to reconnect in case of > auth trouble, these errors do not show in failing jobs. > > We have a couple of sites that also use xrootd for internal access, University > of Wisconsin being the major one (they have several clusters at the uni and they > use HEP cluster to serve the data). UW then configured their internal access to > go via different redirector/servers (easy as they use hadoop) and so we can > separate internal and external access also in the summary monitoring. > > Another site like this is MIT ... I'd say practically all of their traffic is > internal but we don't / can't separate this in the summary monitoring. > > Now, a very special case is the Omaha cluster which connects to Nebraska servers > via a private sub-net (not exactly sure how network is configured). This access > looks like it is local to UNL but in fact it travels about 100km north. So, I'd > say, in this case the summary monitoring is more correct. > > > ------- > OK, now I understand. > ------- >> 2) >> In order to decouple local access from the remote one, as a first approximation, >> would it be enough to consider transfers which have the same domain for client >> and server to be local , and all other cases to be remote? > > Yes, from detailed monitoring one can do that ... with the caveat for Omaha above. > > --------- > Is there any other way to decouple Omaha access (certain pattern in the hostname for Omaha nodes for example?) > --------- At the moment, it is: client_host=128.111.134.10 client_domain=unl.edu As I said, I'm not exactly sure how the network is configured ... and I do find it a tad strange that all hosts report exactly the same ip address. >> 3) >> According to my knowledge, Monalisa repository provides a way to subscribe to >> any information which is in the repository, we were thinking to use this >> possibility in order to retrive data in the machine-readable format and to make >> consistency checks with data we get from ActiveMQ (when file is closed) and >> aggregate on our side. But for this purpose we really need to understand what is >> shown as a throughput on the ML display. > > If you know how do that, that makes the most sense, sure. We can also ask ML > people for help. > > About consistency ... we produce daily reports from file-access reports (from > OSG Gratia, same thing that also gets sent to CERN ActiveMQ) and the results are > consistent with what is shown in ML. In fact, the inconsistency of these two > lead us to extend/improve xrootd detailed monitoring about a year back (major > thing was that vector-reads requests were not reported in the detailed monitoring). > > Actually ... why do you want to repeat these cross-checks? > > -------- > Crosschecks is for our system. We need to make sure that what we show on the Dashboard UI is correct. > Daniel made a good progress in integrating of the xrootd transfer in the Global WLCG Transfer Dashboard. > This is ou usual practice , before making system available for pilot users, to run consitency checks with some > relevant information source. The only possibility we were thinking of is UCSD ML repository. > May be we can also use Gratia reports, is there any documentation of how we can get them? I know about this page from Gratia: http://rcf-gratia.unl.edu/gratia/xml/facility_transfer_volume?exclude-vo=NONE&protocol=xrootd There is the "download as csv" option at this page. I can investigate how to extract other data (the schema is rather arcane). I'll send you an example of our (uscms) auto-generated daily mail report (it contains user information so it's not entirely public). A nice weekend, to you, too ... well ... at least what's left of it :) Cheers, Matevz > > Have a nice weekend > > Cheers > > Julia > > > Cheers, > Matevz > >> >> Thank you >> >> Cheers >> >> Julia >> >> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012, daniel dieguez arias wrote: >> >>> Hi Matevz, >>> >>> Thanks for the information. I add Julia to the cc. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Daniel. >>> >>> On 07/20/2012 01:04 AM, Matevz Tadel wrote: >>>> Hi Daniel, >>>> >>>> On 07/19/12 06:48, daniel dieguez arias wrote: >>>>> Dear Matevz, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am Daniel Dieguez. Currently I am working in WLCG Tarsnsfers Dashboard. In >>>>> order to make consistency checks between WLCG and USCMS XRootD Federation >>>>> Monitoring, it would be nice to get data from USCMS in machine-readable format. >>>> >>>> I suspect you get the data from UCSD monitoring via popularity, the thing >>>> we're doing with Domenico, right? >>>> >>>> Are you aware of the differences between XRootD summary monitoring (what is >>>> shown in MonALISA) and the XRootD detailed monitoring that sends out the >>>> file-access reports at file close-time? I mean ... are you aware that you >>>> will not get comparable results as in MonALISA we separate internal transfers >>>> within Univ. of Wisconsin, which can be more than 1 GByte/s. We are trying to >>>> get other sites (MIT, most importantly) to do the same, but this isn't >>>> entirely trivial to setup so T2 admins tend to avoid this topic. >>>> >>>>> Currently I am looking at the plots shown on >>>>> http://xrootd.t2.ucsd.edu/dashboard/ >>>>> >>>>> Could you, please, guide me, how could I get output in csv , xmk or json? >>>> >>>> Hmmh, this comes from a Postgres DB of MonALISA ... I could give you a DB >>>> dump, I think it was ~10GB the last time I checked if backups are being made :) >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Matevz >>>> . >>>> >>> >>> > > ######################################################################## > Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list > > To unsubscribe from the XROOTD-L list, click the following link: > https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=XROOTD-L&A=1 > ######################################################################## Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list To unsubscribe from the XROOTD-L list, click the following link: https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=XROOTD-L&A=1