You can't expect Jeremy to stand up and say 'the UK objects to GLEXEC
running on WNs to change the identity of a user job' without giving him
the ammunition to defend this view. I know that some other
countries/sites take the opposite view - that they will definitely NOT
allow pilot jobs to run payloads for other users without explicitly
changing the identity of the job so that they know for sure who every
running job belongs to. We need to be explicit in what we are objecting
to and what might mitigate our objections.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Coles, J (Jeremy)
Sent: 03 July 2007 16:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: UK input to tomorrow's WLCG GDB
Dear All
Tomorrow there is a GDB (happens monthly as I hope you know!) at CERN
with the following agenda:
http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=8485
If you have any important issues that you would like raised/discussed in
relation to any of these items (or others) please let me know. Current
items to be take up from the UK include:
1) Confirmation of experiment readiness to move to SL4
2) Confirmation that a well defined list of rpms required by the
experiments but not in the standard SL4 installation is available
(either as a list in the VO ID card for the experiment or as an
experiment meta-package).
3) To re-state that UK sites are generally opposed to running glexec on
worker nodes (see this for background
http://www.sysadmin.hep.ac.uk/wiki/Glexec). I have requested more
information about specific objections via the T2 coordinators.
4) Clarification on how vulnerabilities in experiment/VO code should be
handled.
Kind regards,
Jeremy
|