[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Handle-info] Overriding HandleStorage



You need to open both UDP 2642 and TCP 2642.  Currently TCP 2642 is open, but not UDP 2642.

Robert

> On 2016-04-01, at 13:08, Bartos, Christopher <bartos.25@osu.edu> wrote:
> 
> I opened up 2642 and it seems to be the same speed as before.
> 
>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Bartos, Christopher <bartos.25@osu.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> My plan is to open udp and tcp on port 2642. Thanks for all your help. Sorry, Jane, for not seeing your email last week.
>> 
>> Thanks everyone!
>> 
>> Forgive the typo... your 1811.1 prefix advertises service on UDP 2642 (not 2641).
>> 
>> Robert
>> 
>>> On 2016-03-30, at 13:36, Robert Tupelo-Schneck <schneck@cnri.reston.va.us> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Chris, your 1811 server is open to public resolution at UDP 2641, TCP 2641, and HTTP 8000.
>>> 
>>> Your 1811.1 server is only open on HTTP 8002, but your prefix does advertise service on UDP 2641 and TCP 2642.  As Scott suggested, this is why resolution is slow.
>>> 
>>> Best is to open UDP 2642 and TCP 2642 at your firewall.  If strictly necessary, CNRI can change your prefix information to advertise only TCP 8002.
>>> 
>>> On a separate note, the resolution behavior at 1811.1 is unusual.  So 1811.1/1112 resolves to the same value at 1811/1112.  I'm curious to hear more about the value of that to you.  Do you want 1811/1112 to be the public handle of record, as it were, or 1811.1/1112?
>>> 
>>> Also, you should check your spam filter, as Jane Euler at CNRI emailed you about the matter of the ports being closed last week.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Robert
>>> 
>>>> On 2016-03-30, at 12:46, Scott Prater <scott.prater@wisc.edu> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, that would most definitely be a cause for a delay.  Can you temporarily open the handle server TCP and UDP ports to the world, as see if the resolution is faster?
>>>> 
>>>> -- Scott
>>>> 
>>>> On 03/30/2016 11:40 AM, Bartos, Christopher wrote:
>>>>> The only ones we have open to the world is our HTTP protocols opened on
>>>>> 8002 where the handle server is running on.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We have 2 handle servers 1) DSpace instance and 2) Regular Handle Server
>>>>> 
>>>>> They are running on HTTP 8000 and HTTP 8002 respectively. Neither of the
>>>>> UDP / TCP ports are open to the world. Would that be cause of slowness?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Chris
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 12:24 PM, Scott Prater <scott.prater@wisc.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:scott.prater@wisc.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What ports do you have open to the world on your handle server, to
>>>>>> which protocols?  In my experience, slowness in resolution is usually
>>>>>> because the udp handle port is closed to the world, causing the client
>>>>>> to fall back to tcp, and maybe even http, to resolve.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Looking at the output of the handle client as it attempts to resolve
>>>>>> will give you a hint as to where the delay is.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- Scott
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 03/30/2016 10:46 AM, Bartos, Christopher wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I've overridden the HandleStorage class in Handle Server so that it will
>>>>>>> attempt to resolve a specific prefix internally, and if it doesn’t
>>>>>>> resolve, it will attempt to resolve itself, meaning, it runs the normal
>>>>>>> BDJBEHandleStorage class to resolve it’s own handle.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Here is my new class:
>>>>>>> https://github.com/lupulin/MultiServerHandleStorage/blob/master/MultiServerHandleStorage.java
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My question: it’s pretty quick locally. You can check it:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://140.254.87.133:8002/1811.1/OSU123 will resolve itself.
>>>>>>> http://140.254.87.133:8002/1811.1/1112 will resolve a different handle
>>>>>>> server.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> However, going through hdl.handle.net <http://hdl.handle.net>:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://hdl.handle.net/1811.1/OSU123andhttp://hdl.handle.net/1811.1/1112
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Is very, very slow.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My question, is that I’m wondering if there is a way that we can speed
>>>>>>> up the HandleStorage implementation on our side or if there is nothing
>>>>>>> we can do. Also, if there is a better way to do what we are attempting.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Our goal is to have 2 handle servers, both with the same prefix, but the
>>>>>>> one that is publicly available will use our custom HandleStorage class.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Handle-Info mailing list
>>>>>>> Handle-Info@cnri.reston.va.us <mailto:Handle-Info@cnri.reston.va.us>
>>>>>>> http://www.handle.net/mailman/listinfo/handle-info
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Scott Prater
>>>>>> Shared Development Group
>>>>>> General Library System
>>>>>> University of Wisconsin - Madison
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Scott Prater
>>>> Shared Development Group
>>>> General Library System
>>>> University of Wisconsin - Madison
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Handle-Info mailing list
>>>> Handle-Info@cnri.reston.va.us
>>>> http://www.handle.net/mailman/listinfo/handle-info
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Handle-Info mailing list
>> Handle-Info@cnri.reston.va.us
>> http://www.handle.net/mailman/listinfo/handle-info
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Handle-Info mailing list
> Handle-Info@cnri.reston.va.us
> http://www.handle.net/mailman/listinfo/handle-info

_______________________________________________
Handle-Info mailing list
Handle-Info@cnri.reston.va.us
http://www.handle.net/mailman/listinfo/handle-info