The last time Xrdadler32.cc was changed was three years ago...
I just tried with 4.11.1 on both client and server side, and I don't see it outputing three tokens. It is still two. I will try 4.11.2 and let you know.
--
Wei Yang | [log in to unmask] | 650-926-3338 (O)
On 2/19/20, 5:32 AM, "Andrew Hanushevsky" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi Patrick,
Aha! Something chnaged with xrdadler and it is now returning three tokens
instead of two. The server sends enverything but the client expectes only
two tokens and complains if it receives less or more. Hence the error.
Wei, what changed?
Andy
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, Patrick McGuigan wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> From the host storing the file:
>
> [root@storage-5-18 ~]# xrdadler32 root://localhost//xrd/srm-test/mover-test.1
> 063301c4 /xrd/srm-test/mover-test.1
> root://localhost//xrd/srm-test/mover-test.1
>
> Patrick
>
> On 2/19/20 7:12 AM, Andrew Hanushevsky wrote:
>> Hi Patrick,
>>
>> Uhmmm, how about the output of the xrdadler command run on the server
>> against the same file the query checksum is beig targeted?
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, Patrick McGuigan wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andy,
>>>
>>> [root@admin ~]# xrdcp -np -f --cksum adler32:print test-transfer
>>> root://storage-5-18:1094//xrd/srm-test/mover-test.1
>>> Run: [ERROR] Invalid response
>>> [root@admin ~]# echo $?
>>> 53
>>>
>>> Attached is the output of the same command with the -d3 switch (the
>>> transferred file is 4 bytes).
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/19/20 5:58 AM, Andrew Hanushevsky wrote:
>>>> Hi Patrick,
>>>>
>>>> Coud run that command by hand on a failing file and post the output as
>>>> well as what the return code was.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, Patrick McGuigan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Andy,
>>>>>
>>>>> It is the command from the xrootd-client rpm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/19/20 5:45 AM, Andrew Hanushevsky wrote:
>>>>>> Goo question Rob. We provide the xrdadler command but not a script.
>>>>>> So,t he first question should have been is this a script or the actual
>>>>>> command.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, Robert Gardner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who provides said external script?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 19, 2020, at 5:34 AM, Andrew Hanushevsky
>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Patrick,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the first case, the config says hat an external script is supposed
>>>>>>>> to computed the checksum. If the external script produces an
>>>>>>>> incorrect response, the client will get it and complain. The second
>>>>>>>> case says that the checksum is to be computed using the internal
>>>>>>>> native mechanism. In this case, a corect response will always be
>>>>>>>> sent. Hence, it will work. We reccomend that the internal mechanism
>>>>>>>> be used when it is possible to do so. That said, ot would be
>>>>>>>> interestin to know what the hiccup is in the external script.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, Patrick McGuigan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I noticed something odd recently and I am curios if the issue is a
>>>>>>>>> known feature, or something that needs to be worked on?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A client process was moving files with xrdcp using:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> xrdcp -f -np --cksum adler32:print test-transfer
>>>>>>>>> root://some-server//some-path
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and the command fails with:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Run: [ERROR] Invalid response
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tracking this down leads me to the problem in the data server's
>>>>>>>>> configuration:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> xrootd.chksum adler32 /usr/bin/xrdadler32
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, if the checksum is configured as:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> xrootd.chksum max 4 adler32
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The xrdcp will work correctly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Before anyone asks, yes, checksums work correctly outside of xrdcp:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> xrdadler32 root://some-server//some-path
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as well as:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> xrdfs some-server query checksum /some-path
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have seen this occur with versions 4.9.1 and 4.10.0.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ########################################################################
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ########################################################################
>>>>> 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
>>>
>
########################################################################
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
