Maarten, good day.
Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 04:21:18PM +0200, Maarten Litmaath wrote:
> there is nothing wrong with your mappings. Each mapping normally is
> _local_, i.e. every service can decide itself how to map you. Only in
> some cases must different services agree on the mapping. For example,
> when you have 2 CEs, they both must agree on which local account to
> use for which proxy, otherwise different users can interfere with each
> other via the batch system.
Or one can create two sets of accounts -- one for CE1 and another for
CE2. WNs should carry both, so it doesn't scale well, but to sync the
mapping via NFS or alike is a headache. Or there is another requirement
to have users to be mapped to the same set of accounts apart from the
traceability for the individual poolaccount at a given point of time?
I am not speaking about interference of two different mappings for one
WN, since it is properly accounted for in my case too.
BTW, this "traceability" looks like a pure fake is you're not tracking
the mapping changes (or all users are active and their mappings are
semi-persistent). Do anyone track the mapping state changes? Hmm...
--
Eygene Ryabinkin, Russian Research Centre "Kurchatov Institute"
|