> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jules Wolfrat said:
> That's true, but you must make a distinction between the database that
> RLS is and the physical file itself. The file itself can be destroyed
> while the RLS itself still thinks that the file is present. What you
> need is some mechanism to check the integrity of the RLS,
> e.g. run every night a consistency check on the RLS!
I certainly agree that we should be checking consistency, but you can't
recreate the catalogues just from what's on disk, you don't know the guid or
LFN, or indeed which files are replicas of each other without doing
something fairly elaborate with checksums. If the catalogues are corrupted
and the experiment doesn't keep its own record the files are effectively
lost even if they still exist.
Stephen
|