thanks Andy for prompt response (as usual!). I think I need to think a bit about the possibilities, in conjunction with CMS experts. We could go as you say (a new service, also to be made redundant? probably on the same hardware?), or - do as I said while not balanced - (twist arms) - go with the RR-DNS manager if we can make the transient period small... news asap! tom On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 9:16 AM, xrootd-dev <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Tommaso, > > Indeed that is what you can do. The reason not to do that is that you are > involving the world in a particularly local problem -- the unbalanced > redirectors that are regionally specific. I suppose this is akin to > starting a world war over events in the balkans. Of course, we know this > has happened. Do we want to do it again? So, I would suggest solving your > particular problem by having a regional "meta" redirector that tries to > sort out the peculiar setup that you have. > > Andy > > On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, Tommaso Boccali wrote: > > > Uhm, I see your point. Indeed now if I search for a not existing file > with > > > > xrdcp -d 3 root:// > xrootd-redic.pi.infn.it//store/test/xrootd/T2_ES_IFCA/store/mc/SAM/GenericTTbar/GEN-SIM-RECO/CMSSW_5_3_1_START53_V5-v1/0013/CE4D66EB-5AAE-E111-96D6-003048D37524.rootf > . > > > > > > I get redirected to cern (global redir) via > > > > 140709 07:49:38 6036 Xrd: HandleServerError: Received redirection to [ > cms-xrd-global.cern.ch:1094]. Token=[]]. Opaque=[tried=+ > 1213xrootd.ba1213xrootd-redic.pi.infn.it]. > > > > so opaque seems a mangled version of BOTH cmsd. > > > > BUT: > > > > If I go back to the old way (connecting each redirector to ITS OWN cmsd, > not to the DNS, I mean going back to > > > > all.manager xrootd-redic.pi.infn.it 1213 > > > > instead of > > > > all.manager xrootd-cms.infn.it+ 1213 > > ) > > > > I get > > > > 140709 07:52:44 6635 Xrd: HandleServerError: Received redirection to [ > cms-xrd-global.cern.ch:1094]. Token=[]]. Opaque=[tried=+ > 1213xrootd-redic.pi.infn.it]. > > > > So in this case going up and down would work, right? because when coming > down it will try xrootd.ba.infn.it:1213 since it is not in the opaque > > > > it would be like having 2 EU redirectors which do not speak to each > other, and connect to the global one. In this case, an unbalance in their > servers (even transient) would be cured by the global redirector. > > Exactly why this is not supposed to be ok? Looking at the first email, > for a really non existing file, it can try once per redirector, but I would > prefer to pay this price here ... > > > > ciao ciao > > > > tom > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: > > https://github.com/xrootd/xrootd/issues/124#issuecomment-48432831 > > > > ######################################################################## > > 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 > > — > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/xrootd/xrootd/issues/124#issuecomment-48437316>. > -- Tommaso Boccali INFN Pisa --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/xrootd/xrootd/issues/124#issuecomment-48441345 ######################################################################## 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