Checksum errors filling up consumer server that does not host the resource

Francisco Morales

unread,

Jul 2, 2024, 10:44:45 AM (5 days ago) Jul 2

to iRODS-Chat

Hi,

We have a situation where a checksum failed operation in the provider is filling the logs of a consumer that does not host the resource from which the checksum computation is failing.

Is there a way to disable such kind of logging behavior?, ie, disable the logs that are not related/generated in a consumer that is not directly participating in the failing operation.

Best regards,

Francisco

Alan King

unread,

Jul 2, 2024, 11:21:21 AM (5 days ago) Jul 2

to irod...@googlegroups.com

Hi Francisco,

I'm a little confused as to how/why the logs are appearing in the consumer if it is not at all involved.

Do you know what is triggering the checksums? Is there a client connecting to the consumer in question to carry out operations which may be triggering the checksums?

Alan

--
--
The Integrated Rule-Oriented Data System (iRODS) - https://irods.org

iROD-Chat: http://groups.google.com/group/iROD-Chat
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iRODS-Chat" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to irod-chat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/irod-chat/be30370a-7497-47da-8be6-8e97a2bbdda5n%40googlegroups.com.

--

Alan King

Senior Software Developer | iRODS Consortium

Francisco Morales

unread,

Jul 5, 2024, 8:26:13 AM (2 days ago) Jul 5

to iRODS-Chat

Hi Alan,

I guess I found the issue. There are several consumers/resource servers connected to the provider server. We executed an irods rule requesting the computation of all the missing checksums from one particular consumer server, expecting that only the operations related to this consumer

and the data it hosts were logged. Some other consumer server is not able to read the data from the resource it has attached to it, and instead of logging the errors locally it seems to be sending the checksum computation errors to the consumer server that launched the checksum computation rule. Does this sound like expected behavior? If so, how could we avoid this beahvior?