[glue-wg] RetentionPolicy definitions

[Maarten Litmaath]

Burke, S (Stephen) wrote:

>>I see that more as a negotiation between the VO and the SE admin:
>>if the SE remains unusable, the VO will just blacklist it.
> 
> 
> That's possibly a rather LCG-centric view of the world where VOs can
> dictate what sites do, it may well not be true for the majority of VOs!
> In general I would say that static blacklists are a symptom of a failure
> of the GLUE schema, if service discovery worked properly they shouldn't
> be needed.

We may be talking about different things.  Some LCG VOs may be able to
dictate what some sites have to do, but that is not true in general.

My point is that any site can claim they offer a service to a VO;
if that service turns out to remain unusable after negotiation, the VO
will _have_ to blacklist it somehow, to avoid that it keeps getting
discovered and tried!

>>Well, the Classic SE does not support it, and it may have a 
>>part of its name space going to tape.  But do we care?
> 
> 
> No, because you know a priori that classic SEs can't support pinning,
> but for SRMs it may be variable.
> 
> 
>>Furthermore, in SRM v2.2 a
>>pin may be taken as advisory: when CASTOR needs room for other files,
>>it will remove pinned files that are unused, while dCache 
>>currently will honor the pins instead.
> 
> 
> The way I remember it is that the SRM spec does not allow pins to be
> advisory (and the users don't want it to), but the castor developers
> have so far refused to implement pinning according to the spec! Anyway,
> this could also be taken as something that should be advertised, unless
> you are just supposed to "know" that castor behaves differently.

Agreed, this ought to be advertized, but I do not think it is important
enough for consideration at this stage, given the deadlines...