On 18 May 2007, at 11:16, Peter Gronbech wrote:
> Yves is of the opinion that CERN are no longer doing testing of the
> updates and are relying on the PPS to do the testing.
Isn't this what SA3 are supposed to do? (Not that I dispute Yves'
assertion.) If PPS is supposed to be a _service_ then it has to
basically work, but offer new features.
> If the PPS sites
> are busy and do not manage to test properly (or at all) then the
> release
> comes out anyway. The pressure seems to be to release every week,
> which
> in my opinion is too often.
Especially given the problems that sites find in PPS which often take
a long time to resolve.
> Given the rate at which new bugs are apearing in the releases it seems
> its better to have one site be a test site.
> I think we have been here before!
>
> The new changes to YAIM mean that if you actually read the
> documentation
> and run YAIM in the new way it fails to complete and requires a CTRL c
> to finish it. If you continue to run yaim in the way we always have
> done
> that particular bug does not show its self.
>
> Other problems seem to be that when yaim is run on every worker
> node it
> tries to do a recursive chown on the software directory (which is
> usually on the ce). This take a lot of time and is repeated by every
> worker node!
So are we of the opinion that no one should update beyond gLite r20
right now?
At Glasgow we stopped here (remember r21 was when all of the new prd
and sgm pool accounts were introduced), but I thought it was probably
time now to play catch-up and get to r24... at least I was of that
opinion until they broke DPM.
Has anyone in the UK updated, apart from Yves? Is anyone volunteering
to go next?
g
>
> Pete
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Peter Gronbech Unix Systems Manager and Tel No. : 01865 273389
> SouthGrid Technical Co-ordinator Fax No. : 01865 273418
>
> Department of Particle Physics,
> University of Oxford,
> Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3RH, UK E-mail : [log in to unmask]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Coles, J (Jeremy)
> Sent: 18 May 2007 10:27
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: SAME tests run in job wrapper
>
> Hi Stephen
>
> Graeme's response gives most of the details. (Note that the "E" of
> SAME
> was dropped some time ago so we are talking about wrapping the SAM
> tests
> with each job. I know there are some on this list who think doing this
> is madness).
>
> The one thing missing in the response is whether there was input from
> sites and I'm a little uncertain where it was first discussed. I do
> not
> remember gathering any feedback. I could not find much in the ops
> meeting lists but it apparently came up in the 19th December ROC
> manager's meeting via a talk by Piotr:
> https://edms.cern.ch/document/808821. As Steve Fisher has pointed out
> though, the PPS testing did not reveal any problem which is why it
> went
> into production.
>
> The need to deploy new releases on only a subset of production sites
> before widely adopting them is becoming increasingly apparent (as some
> of you will know if you've followed Yves's recent ticket
> https://gus.fzk.de/pages/ticket_details.php?ticket=21815)
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB-
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Graeme Stewart
>> Sent: 18 May 2007 09:54
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: SAME tests run in job wrapper
>>
>> On 18 May 2007, at 09:40, Stephen Childs wrote:
>>
>>> Graeme Stewart wrote:
>>>> Yes, I've noticed this at Glasgow - and in particular R-GMA is
>>>> adding 5-15 minutes of wallclock time to every job, which is a
>>>> terrible waste of resources (particularly for our GRAM GT2 user
>>>> groups, who run some pretty short jobs).
>>>> Something I really need to look into...
>>>
>>> I've just remembered about this (as I'm trying to do simple tests
>>> using globus-job-run which aren't simple any more). Graeme, did you
>>> ever find out where this was being done in order to disable it?
>>
>> Yes. Have a look at Alessandra's GGUS ticket:
>>
>> https://gus.fzk.de/ws/ticket_info.php?ticket=20364&from=search
>>
>> and
>>
>> http://scotgrid.blogspot.com/2007/04/disabling-samer-gma-in-job-
>> wrapper.html
>>
>> Should be a cinch to do in Quattor as well.
>>
>>>
>>> Jeremy, could you comment on when this was introduced and whether
>>> there was input from sites on it?
>>
>> There was some discussion and feedback involving Steve Fisher in PMB
>> Minutes 254 (16th April 2007):
>>
>> http://www.gridpp.ac.uk/pmb/minutes/070416.txt
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>> --
>> Dr Graeme Stewart - http://wiki.gridpp.ac.uk/wiki/User:Graeme_stewart
>> ScotGrid - http://www.scotgrid.ac.uk/ http://scotgrid.blogspot.com/
--
Dr Graeme Stewart - http://wiki.gridpp.ac.uk/wiki/User:Graeme_stewart
ScotGrid - http://www.scotgrid.ac.uk/ http://scotgrid.blogspot.com/
|