perfsonar development work

[Roman Lapacz <>]

Nina, could you update your Java RRD MA from SVN and test it with that 
example request again?

Roman


Nina Jeliazkova wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We would like to make use of aggregated SetupDataRequests with keys in the
> next release of perfsonarUI. The motivation for this move is twofold:
>
> 1)      avoid stressing perfSONAR services as much as possible (make use of 
> keys);
> 2)      avoid the multiplication of network latency with number of (not 
> aggregated)
> consecutive requests sent to a given service;
>
> While playing with Java RRD MA (perfSONAR-1.0), we noticed that it is
> impossible to achieve the above goal, because the service returns a response
> in which there is no way to identify the correspondence between data and
> interfaces (see attached request and response). The same holds true for Python
> RRD MA as well.
>
> The questions are:
> 1)      Is this service behaviour intentional?
> 2)      What’s the recommended workaround?
>
> So far we’ve figured out that we could send aggregated SetupDataRequests
> *without* keys and make use of the metadata returned by the service for
> identifying the above mentioned correspondences. Another possibility would be
> to send many not aggregated requests simultaneously (in this case the network
> latency multiplication problem would be also avoided and the correspondence
> could be derived by comparing the request with the response). However, the
> later would most probably also stress the services too much (imagine 500
> simultaneous requests, each of them for one interface) and the former isn’t
> optimal either (doesn’t make use of the key mechanism). Which of those
> solutions should be preferred? Are there any plans for something better in the
> longer term on the service side?
>
> Kind regards,
> Nina
>