Greig A Cowan wrote on 13 June 2006 13:35:
[..]
>> The situation at the moment is really bad we can not really support
>> more than a few VOs without quotas. We can get away with it at the
>> moment because not many VOs really use a SE.
>
> So what you are saying is that IC-HEP will not be able to guarantee that
> you can meet your MoU targets (or monthly VO allocations) for VO storage
> unless you have quotas. Without quotas and in the case where you have
> multiple VOs sharing pools (in dCache) then a single VO can still use up
> all of the space.
>
> I think it is tru to say that all Tier-2s have VOs sharing pools because
> it is not efficient for them to have VO specific pools. They do not have
> the same level of resources as Tier-1s to simply add in extra pools as
> required.
>
I think we need to make users/experiments/VOs aware that smaller sites
will not guarantee space for smaller VOs. LCG only really cares about
guaranteeing space for the large LCG VOs, and I think it's reasonable
only to guarantee the space for the site's major LCG VO (by
giving them a physical allocation).
Everyone else has to share, for now, and live with it. I think LCG
can live with that, too, we just need to make sure they are aware of
it.
So IMHO we should be able to live without quotas till we have full space
reservations, but I am happy to be informed that I am wrong on this point
:-)
Cheers,
--jens
|