[glue-wg] Updated thoughts...

[Maarten Litmaath]

Burke, S (Stephen) wrote:

>>If the storage system needs to keep more than one instance of 
>>a file to
>>ensure a certain storage quality of service then I don't feel this
>>should be published into the grid information system.
> 
> 
> Well, maybe - but for the standard LCG custodial/online (Disk1Tape1) we
> *are* publishing both copies, at least assuming we publish the tape
> sizes at all. Secondly there's an accounting issue, the VO is probably
> going to be asked to pay for multiple permananent copies. Also there

The cost is mostly determined by the RP being Custodial; 3 copies at one
site may be cheaper than 1 copy at another, so we would rather have to
publish the actual pricing.  Something for 2.1 maybe.

> could be an impact on the meaning of the free space - you may think you
> have 100 Tb free but it may only be 50Tb if all files are duplicated. At
> least I think we need a clear and consistent definition so people know
> what to publish in a given case, e.g. if file sizes are published only
> once as used space then the free space should be divided by any
> duplication factor.

One could argue that the info provider should do that division for you!