Hi Jeremy,
I think I'm gonna stop supporting biomed - not because of the recent
controversy but for the reason that there are always some jobs (with
higher memory requirement) are wrongly assigned to our site. The problem
could be at our site but we don't see this for other VOs very often.
Does any one know it's because of the misconfigured job, RB or site?
So, until we figure out, we will stop supporting biomed.
Cheers,
Santanu
Coles, J (Jeremy) wrote:
> Dear All
>
> A number of things have and are happening as a result of the biomed
> usage issue discussed a lot on this list last week. You may wish to read
> the content of GGUS ticket 28530 for the general summary from the UK
> side. With regards to the action taken by biomed (the nature of the work
> was not known to the VO managers) here is a reply from Johan. It is up
> to sites to individually decide how they wish to respond (i.e. banning
> the user or if they feel especially strongly the VO), but if there is
> further considerable reaction I will of course make that known to EGEE.
>
> Regards,
> Jeremy
>
>
>
> Message from Johan Montagnat 6th November 11:37:
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> Our emails probably crossed each other: Heinz has announced that he was
> stopping this activity under the biomed VO. Please inform the UK sites.
>
> Given the misunderstanding there has been about this (the project
> management was informed and agreed about this, the biomed VO had even
> been mentionned), it seems to me that excluding the user is over
> reactive. However we have the guarantee from Heinz that he will not use
> the biomed
> VO for that activity again and he already stopped submitting these jobs
> last week. Of course a new such event would be considered as a AUP
> violation and sanctionned.
>
> Regards,
> Johan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB-
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Stokes-Rees
>> Sent: 03 November 2007 10:05
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Heinz' Challenge
>>
>>
>>
>> Graeme Stewart wrote:
>>
>>>>> 1. Job visibility: this suggests a scenario where users are not
>>>>>
>> allowed
>>
>>>>> to run their own executables, but instead are only allowed to
>>>>>
> manage
>
>>>>> parameters/configuration, and input/output data. Executable
>>>>>
> software
>
>> is
>>
>>>>> all deployed by sites or through the VO-specific software manager.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid that this model won't work for VOs like pheno, where
>>>>
> each
>
>>>> one of our 20 odd users runs their own software. I would have to
>>>>
> make
>
>>>> them all SW managers. Alternatively, we would need to give up on
>>>>
> the
>
>>>> idea of a common theory VO, and splinter into project-specific VOs
>>>> (most of which would have 1 or 2 members).
>>>>
>>> Let me echo David's point. We're now working with several research
>>> groups at Glasgow for whom the standard EGEE software deployment
>>>
> model
>
>>> dose not work at all.
>>>
>>> For the moment we support shell access to our own cluster to get
>>>
> around
>
>>> this issue (including for the Durham pheno people) - but clearly
>>>
> this
>
>>> does not scale at all.
>>>
>> As I see it, the "bigger" issue for a general purpose computational
>>
> grid
>
>> is that I can imagine many sites which would be happy to allow
>>
> VOs/users
>
>> to run jobs on their system provided there was tight control over the
>> executables, but not allowing "just anyone" to run "just anything" on
>> their systems. *Some* model which allowed sites this kind of control
>> would surely be valuable, with the flexibility that for "trusted" VOs
>> and users it would be possible to run arbitrary user-installed
>>
> software.
>
>> Ian
>>
>> --
>> Ian Stokes-Rees [log in to unmask]
>> Particle Physics, Oxford http://grid.physics.ox.ac.uk/~stokes
>>
|