Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Graeme A Stewart said:
> > Surely the SURLS will have to change regardless of whether
> the SRM has a
> > DPM or dCache backend? A file registered in an srm must
> have a SURL like:
> > srm://<srm.host.name>:8443/<some/srm/path>
> > while a file on a classic SE will have SURLS like:
> > sfn://<gsiftp.host.name>:2811/<some/gsiftp/path>
> Yes, but DPM and dCache both support gsiftp so I _think_
> (caveat, I haven't
> tried it) that an sfn:// SURL should also be valid for an SRM
> which supports gridftp access.
That isn't obvious, the code may well require that you publish it as a
classic SE as well as an SRM and then it would open it to writes as a
classic SE too. It would definitely be safer to convert SURLS to the
> Anyway, regardless of this, I think that migrating to a
> different SE and
> forcing registration of srm:// SURLs into the catalogs will
> be better for us and the VOs in the long run.
I would agree with that.