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.
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