Hi Mario,
Have a look here:
http://goc.grid.sinica.edu.tw/gocwiki/How_to_publish_the_version_of_my_SRM
The only acceptable thing to publish for GlueServiceType is SRM (not
srm_v1 or srm_v2). This page does not talk about
GlueSEControlProtocolLocalID, however.
Cheers,
Greig
On 18/01/08 16:43, Mario David wrote:
> Hi Flavia
>
>
> On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 17:04 +0100, Flavia Donno wrote:
>> Mario,
>>
>> Mario David wrote:
>>> Hi Matias
>>>
>>> there seems to be a very quite misunderstanding here
>>>
>>> first off
>>>
>>> is dcache 1.7 supporting srm 2.2??
>>>
>>>
>> dCache 1.7 only supports SRM v1.1 and SRM v2.1.
>
> I know that,
>
>
>>> is it supporting srm 2.0 or 2.1, was this ever put into production, or
>>> activated somehow???
>>>
>> Only SRM v1.1 in dCache 1.7 is in production and is normally active.
>>> depending on what people say here I will demonstrate the big confusion.
>>>
>>> cheers
>
>
> so what does it mean site publishing
>
> ....8443/srm/managerv2....
>
> take for example Lyon, it publishes the previous, and also
>
> dn: GlueSEControlProtocolLocalID=srm_v2.2,GlueSEUniqueID=ccsrm.in2p3.fr
>
>
> on the other hand, for example
>
> # httpg://se01.athena.hellasgrid.gr:8443/srm/managerv2, HG-06-EKT
> dn:
> GlueSEControlProtocolLocalID=srm_v1,GlueSEUniqueID=se01.athena.hellasgrid
>
> anyway, what is the correct thing to publish??
>
> dn: GlueSEControlProtocolLocalID=srm_v1.1,
> dn: GlueSEControlProtocolLocalID=srm_v1@
> dn: GlueSEControlProtocolLocalID=srm_v1,
>
> and for the 2(.2) version
> dn: GlueSEControlProtocolLocalID=srm_v2.2,
> dn: GlueSEControlProtocolLocalID=srm_v2,
> dn: GlueSEControlProtocolLocalID=srm_v2@
>
> so it seams a clarification is needed, specially from the yaim functions
> and the glue schema.
>
> cheers
>
> Mario David
>
>>> Mario David
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 16:36 +0100, Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Gonçalo Borges wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Talking a little bit with other colleague (Mario David), he told me that SRM2
>>>>> is already available in the majority of SE but not activated by default
>>>>> in most of them....
>>>>>
>>>>> - Is this really the case?
>>>>> - When is the production testbed start to use srm_v2 massevely?
>>>>> - Is it easy to activate srm_v2 in present version of DPMs and dcache?
>>>>>
>>>> I think Mario perhaps confused the SRM2 protocol with one of the features
>>>> possible with the SRM2 protocol (space reservations, which is a major and
>>>> tricky reconfiguration of storage elements, which lots of side-effects).
>>>>
>>>> I would think that most places have srm protocol version 2 enabled, and
>>>> this is a good thing because it enables lots of good stuff, like for
>>>> example directory listings.
>>>>
>>>> /Mattias Wadenstein
>>>>
|