1 / 5

Baseline Services Group Status of SRM discussions

Baseline Services Group Status of SRM discussions. Storage Management Workshop 5 th April 2005 Ian Bird IT/GD. SRM. The need for SRM seems to be generally accepted by all Jean-Philippe Baud presented the current status of SRM “standard” versions

sheena
Download Presentation

Baseline Services Group Status of SRM discussions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Baseline Services GroupStatus of SRM discussions Storage Management Workshop 5th April 2005 Ian Bird IT/GD

  2. SRM • The need for SRM seems to be generally accepted by all • Jean-Philippe Baud presented the current status of SRM “standard” versions • Sub group formed (1 person per experiment + J-P) to look at defining a common sub set of functionality • ALICE: Latchezar Betev • ATLAS: Miguel Branco • CMS: Peter Elmer • LHCb: Philippe Charpentier • Expect to define an “LCG-required” SRM functionality set that must be implemented for all LCG sites • May in addition have a set of optional functions • Bring discussion to Storage Management workshop this week

  3. Status of SRM definition CMS input/comments not included yet • SRM v1.1 insufficient – mainly lack of pinning • SRM v3 not required – and timescale too late • Require Volatile, Permanent space; Durable not practical • Global space reservation: reserve, release, update (mandatory LHCb, useful ATLAS,ALICE). Compactspace NN • Permissions on directories mandatory • Prefer based on roles and not DN (SRM integrated with VOMS desirable but timescale?) • Directory functions (except mv) should be implemented asap • Pin/unpin high priority • srmGetProtocols useful but not mandatory • Abort, suspend, resume request : all low priority • Relative paths in SURL important for ATLAS, LHCb, not for ALICE

  4. SRM for LCG • Need to rapidly confirm the “LCG” required functional set • This is what the experiments need • SRM implementations for LCG sites must take this into account • Open issue: • Duplication between srmcopy and a fts ? • need 1 reliable mechanism – is it srmcopy or fts? • LCG should (has) a SRM test suite that encapsulates this functionality – • Should be the agreed verification mechanism that an SRM implementation fits the requirements

  5. Access control • clear statements that the storage systems must respect a single set of ACLs in identical ways no matter how the access is done (grid, local, Kerberos, …) • Users must always be mapped to the same storage user no matter how they address the service • ACLs should be based on roles rather than DN • DN not stable over long term • Integration of SRM with VOMS? • Currently no good solution to access control?

More Related