On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 05:28:46PM +0200, Jeff Templon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think you could state it even more strongly: there has yet to be a
> stable R-GMA service on LCG which works! [ note i left out 'remains' here ]
>
> R-GMA has been one of the more frequent topics of cries for help on
> LCG-ROLLOUT. Aside from that I know that as recently as January, teams
> within CERN/LCG were having to create 'workarounds for basic problems'.
>
> I think making R-GMA functionality a critical test is indeed a very good
> thing, but it should not be the site that is removed if the test fails
> ... it should be R-GMA. I love the information model, the python
> interface, the sql queries, etc but it's time to stop producing new code
> bases and concentrate on making the system work.
Jeff,
This is not really a rollout issue, however I must correct the
suggestion that the R-GMA version in LCG2_4_0 is a new code base - it
is a bug fix and we are continuing to work on the other reported
bugs. It looks different because of the wrappers - but these are
rather small and simple.
Steve
>
> J "time to catch a train otherwise i'd continue ranting" T
>
> David Groep wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > I have just heard from Marcin Radecki that R-GMA service is going to be
> > > considered as critical test in SFT quite soon.
> > > ...
> > > I personally think that making the service, which fails on 31 sites,
> > > which are healthy when not counting R-GMA as not a very lucky step.
> >
> >I'd like to concur, since it has been virtually impossible to get a
> >stable R-GMA service which remains working for more than one release.
> >And indeed, while the changeover to the new-but-not-yet-the-latest R-GMA
> >version 4.0 may have solved some of the old problems, it did introduce
> >a lot of new failure modes...
> >
> >Can we wait in making R-GMA a critical component till the product has
> >shown to be stable (only minor changes, and no radical new code bases
> >please) for at least one release and deployment at a large scale?
> >It would lighten the stress of several admins and give the R-GMA
> >people time to stabilise the (deployment of) the current release.
> >
> >And please, no migrations to version 5+ in the mean time :-)
> >
> >
> >>
> >>This, among other things, means (when looking at the latest report),
> >>that 31 sites, if I count correctly, would be marked 'CT', even if
> >>everything else, apart from R-GMA, was tested as OK.
> >>
> >>I have posted many times questions regarding non-working R-GMA setup
> >>(I am using YAIM on RH 7.3 on both farms I manage, and I _never_ got
> >>R-GMA working, neither did I receive any helpful advice) (for example
> >>here:
> >>http://www.listserv.rl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0502&L=LCG-ROLLOUT&P=R14255&I=-3
> >>- with no reply, and more can be found).
> >>
> >>I personally think that making the service, which fails on 31 sites,
> >>which are healthy when not counting R-GMA as not a very lucky step.
> >>
> >>Thanks for any comment,
> >>
> >
> >
|