 |
 |
Yes, this shouldn't affect Grid users as they should all be using GFAL/lcg_util (well, in theory anyway). The developers have been informed, but I will chase it up on Friday. Greig On 31/01/08 16:27, [log in to unmask] wrote: > Yep, we had just got ourselves back together after the morning's > network rejiggy. Then I had the bright idea of upgrading us whilst we > were still in downtime. > > With luck this won't impact users and jobs too much, as they use the > lcg-tools, although it is annoying. Have the developers been informed? > If not I can mail them. > > cheers, > Matt > > On 31/01/2008, Greig Alan Cowan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> Matt, I need to leave now, so can't really look into this anymore. Was >> this all working prior to your upgrade? >> >> Greig >> >> On 31/01/08 16:09, Matt Doidge wrote: >>> Hello, >>> I'm having fun and games with an upgrade to 1.8.0-12p4 too. Seems >>> naked srmcp fails in exactly the same way as Greig sees. Lcg-cp and >>> srmcp with explicitly set port ranges work. I didn't change the >>> dcachesetup file with the upgrade, and only upgraded the >>> srm/poolmanager node- not the gridftp door nodes- although all nodes >>> got a restart after the upgrade. >>> >>> cheers, >>> Matt >>> >>> On 31/01/2008, Greig Alan Cowan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I've upgraded the Edinburgh dCache to 1.8.0-12p4. Everything seemed to >>>> go fine, apart from the fact that I now can't use srmcp to copy files >>>> out. g-u-c and lcg-cp are fine. In the srmcp case it is becasue the pool >>>> is trying to connect to a port on the client machine that is outside of >>>> the defined GLOBUS_TCP_PORT_RANGE. In the guc and lcg-cp cases, it is >>>> the client that is connecting to the pool or door, which is fine. Anyone >>>> else seen this? >>>> >>>> If I run the client with the port range defined explicitely, it works: >>>> >>>> srmcp -1 -debug -globus_tcp_port_range=50000,52000 >>>> srm://srm.epcc.ed.ac.uk:8443/pnfs/epcc.ed.ac.uk/data/lhcb/1201621959 >>>> file:////tmp/test4 >>>> >>>> Has there been a change in how the port range should be defined >>>> (50000,52000 or 50000:52000 or 50000 52000)? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Greig >>>>