 |
 |
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