Wait a minute - port 113 is the ident service? Are the xinetd entries for your GridFTP servers setup to request IDENT? You should just turn that off in the GridFTP xinetd.d entry rather than firewalling it. It's not particularly useful, and many places will drop you into a firewall black hole, causing it to timeout, which adds the kind of latencies you're seeing to GridFTP operations.

Which is not to say you will get down to gsissh levels of speed, but it's probably an easier solution to propagate to other sites than asking them to change their firewall settings.


Charles

On Jul 22, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Arthur Carlson wrote:

Sorry, Steve, I got some messages crossed up due to my mail filter setup. I now executed the iptables command you give here, in addition to the one I mentioned before, and redid my tests. It didn't change anything substantially.

--Art

Steve White wrote:

Art,

As I understand it, your application runs a single process in the "fork" job manager. So you are referring to the latency in running a single simple process, rather than to that in submission to a batch system.

I now remember that last September, Thomas Brüsemeister pointed out to us a work-around for a similar problem, at least regarding file transfers.
It was to add the following 'iptables' rule:

iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp --syn --dport 113 -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset

We implemented this on many of our systems at AIP, and observed a big improvement in some kinds of latencey. Now I see that on some of them
the setting has been lost (after system upgrades, etc.)

Would this improve things for your application?

Cheers!


On 20.07.08, Arthur Carlson wrote:

In the thread "Globus not for real-time application?", a number of users discuss whether it is realistic or not to get latencies below 1 second. Sounds like paradise. I am seeing latencies of up to a minute!

My workstation, gavosrv1.mpe.mpg.de, not the newest anymore, has GTK 4.0.5 installed. When I use globusrun-ws to go from this machine back to itself, ... but just look:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ time globusrun-ws -submit -s -F gavosrv1 -c / bin/true
 Delegating user credentials...Done.
 Submitting job...Done.
 Job ID: uuid:52f0f962-54e1-11dd-a56f-0007e914d571
 Termination time: 07/19/2008 15:51 GMT
 Current job state: Active
 Current job state: CleanUp-Hold
 Current job state: CleanUp
 Current job state: Done
 Destroying job...Done.
 Cleaning up any delegated credentials...Done.

 real    0m24.327s
 user    0m1.242s
 sys     0m0.113s

Note that "user" and "sys" times are reasonable. Almost all of this time passes between "CleanUp" and "Done". It can't just be checking credentials because gsissh is done in a jiffy:

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ time gsissh -p 2222 gavosrv1
 /bin/true
 real    0m0.649s
 user    0m0.134s
 sys     0m0.020s

Maybe that is already enough for someone to see where the problem lies. I can also point out that all (at least many) of the machines in our grid (AstroGrid-D) seem to be affected, but to varying degrees. Here is a little matrix of tests:

from gavosrv1.mpe.mpg.de to gavosrv1.mpe.mpg.de: 0m27.235s
from gavosrv1.mpe.mpg.de to titan.ari.uni-heidelberg.de: 0m14.324s
from gavosrv1.mpe.mpg.de to udo-gt03.grid.tu-dortmund.de: 0m8.823s

from titan to gavosrv1.mpe.mpg.de: 0m57.208s
from titan to titan.ari.uni-heidelberg.de: 0m16.875s
from titan to udo-gt03.grid.tu-dortmund.de: 0m27.225s

from udo-gt03 to gavosrv1.mpe.mpg.de: 1m5.221s
from udo-gt03 to titan.ari.uni-heidelberg.de: 0m12.905s
from udo-gt03 to udo-gt03.grid.tu-dortmund.de: 0m6.952s

Please tell me I am doing something really stupid. For production of my application even a minute of latency is not a big deal, but it's a pain during development and debugging. Right now I am using gsissh instead of globusrun-ws just to work around this.

Thank for the lift,
Art Carlson
AstroGrid-D Project
Max-Planck-Institute für extraterrestrische Physik, Garching, Germany





--
Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max-Planck-Institut fuer extraterrestrische Physik
Giessenbachstrasse, 85748 Garching, Germany
Phone: (+49 89) 30000-3357
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Reply via email to