On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Kyriakos G. Ginis wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Maarten Litmaath, CERN wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Rod Walker wrote:
> >
> > > The situation is that SFU has significant disk and tape storage, running
> > > dcache, and very good network to TRIUMF and WestGrid cpu. Previously it
> > > was published via the TRIUMF-GC-LCG2 site giis, but this was for
> > > convenience, and in order to isolate it from maintenance and problems at
> > > TRIUMF it would make sense to have a seperate site(giis).
> >
> > OK. Any site that is "close" to SFU can publish the SE as a close SE.
>
> Hello,
>
> Regarding this 'close SE' issue: If a site 'A' publishes a SE 'B' as a
> close SE, are the WNs of site 'A' expected to have rfio access to the SE
> 'B'?
You raise an interesting point. First of all, not all SEs support RFIO:
a dCache SE has "gsidcap" instead. A user application may be able to deal
with both protocols, though, e.g. by using GFAL. If the SE advertizes any
such POSIX-like access protocol, one would indeed expect to be able to use
the protocol from any CE (WN) that is "close" to the SE, but I do not know
if such is required according to some official document at this time.
In the case of SFU there need not be a problem, as it simply could abstain
from publishing "gsidcap", but when an SE is accessible from the local CE
through a POSIX-like protocol, a remote site should no longer declare it
as a close SE, even when it is physically close and preferred...
The remote site could still declare it to be the default SE, though.
Comments?
|