[glue-wg] Some thoughts on storage objects

[Felix Nikolaus Ehm]

Hi Jens,

Since this is a quite specific use case, you might want to consider 
putting this characteristic into 'OtherInfo' of the 
StorageAccessProtocol. (I still need to add this field.)
Would this be sufficient?

Cheers,
	Felix


---
Felix Ehm
IT-GD               tel : +41 22 7674580
CERN, Switzerland
-----------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf
Of Maarten Litmaath
Sent: Donnerstag, 3. April 2008 14:10
To: Jens Gunner Jensen
Cc: glue-wg at ogf.org; Flavia Donno
Subject: Re: [glue-wg] Some thoughts on storage objects

Hi Jens,

> Where did the network description go?  We used to have one.
> 
> The idea is that certain protocols can be used only locally, or on 
> certain networks.
> 
> For example, a single StorageElement can have a range of GridFTP data 
> movers on the WAN, a LAN protocol internally, and an OPN link which 
> accepts UDP-based high speed data transfer like the astronomers use.
> 
> If you are a local job you can ask it "do you support gridftp" and it 
> would say yes, but you cannot necessarily access the GridFTP data 
> movers from the worker nodes - and it would be less efficient than the

> LAN protocol.
> 
> I think we need to put it back, and StorageAccessProtocol seems to me 
> the more obvious location.

We discussed it a few meetings ago and felt that it overly complicated
the schema for the amount of gain in the short/medium term.
For example, insecure RFIO and DCAP are published without restrictions,
and in practice this is not a real problem today.
Since we want to converge on 2.0 ASAP, we felt such enhancements were
better considered for 2.1.  Would that be OK for you?
Thanks,
	Maarten
_______________________________________________
glue-wg mailing list
glue-wg at ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg