[glue-wg] Suggestion for splitting the StorageShare.

[Burke, S (Stephen)]

glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org 
> [mailto:glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Maarten Litmaath said:
> Note the asymmetry!  The ACLs for the name space need not be equal to
> those of the SRM v2.2 space.  Putting both kinds of ACLs into a single
> StorageShare object implies they _must_ have different schemes.

If I've understood what you're saying I don't think the namespace ACLs
should be in GLUE at all, the granularity is too fine - for example the
ACLs could be different for every directory in the tree. In theory we
are always told that paths don't matter for SRM, so the client should
just negotiate with the server once it finds a space it can use. For VOs
(or sites) which insist on having a fixed path mapping I think they need
to ensure that the ACLs are set appropriately without needing to have
them published explicitly.

> StorageShare * --> 1 StorageEnvironment
> 
> Capacity can just stay with StorageShare for simplicity.
> It will then keep reporting the numbers as experienced by the
> FQANs mentioned in the ACL entries.

Well, if we do it properly I think we'd need to split the Capacity into
pieces - the Used space would be per VO (or FQAN), but the Total and
Free space are by definition shared and hence should be in the Share
(Reserved may need more thought). For me the main reason to go this way
is to reduce the duplication of information, so keeping
many-times-duplicated values for the sizes doesn't seem that good.

Stephen