 |
 |
Great, thanks Lukasz! Matevz On 8/26/13 2:55 PM, Lukasz Janyst wrote: > I am actually also away. It looks like something in XrdPosix is forcing new > connections. I will have a closer look once I am back on Wednesday. > > Lukasz > > On 8/26/13 11:46 PM, Lukasz Janyst wrote: >> 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