Gordon, John (STFC,RAL,ESC) wrote:
> I can confirm Dug’s comments from the wider GDB perspective. CREAM seems
> to work well but no WMS job submission yet so stay with lcg-CE.
>
Do you expect that CREAM will be used when data taking starts?
Or to put it another way, do I build an lcg-CE on older hardware for
testing the SL5 worker nodes - with the expectation that I'll use CREAM
on a newer machine in the end, or should I put the lcg-CE on the newer
machine.
Chris
>
>
> More volunteers to try CREAM welcome though.
>
>
>
> JOhn
>
>
>
> *From:* Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Douglas McNab
> *Sent:* 13 August 2009 11:09
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: WLCG migration of WNs to SL5
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> In the UK, RAL & Glasgow have CREAM CE's in 'production', well in the
> GOCDB anyway.
>
> From Glasgow perspective it is used for a set of local users with
> direct submission as the WMS ICE component required for submission is
> still broken. We use it for our local optics VO as CREAM has a much
> easier way of adding functionality to the job manager via a plugin
> mechanism consisting of bash scripts. We use it for adding a consumable
> resource when arbitarty JDL is specified. Something that on an lcg-CE
> would require 'tweaking' the job manager itself.
>
> Observations on cream: Direct Submission is fast and JDL based, the
> same WMS JDL should work with direct submission to CREAM. Output has to
> be returned via gridftp automatically. So no need for users to retrieve
> output or forget to retrieve it but the requirement for a gridftp
> server. Easy to tweak job manager. Not really subjected it to heavy
> load so do not know how it would handle large numbers of jobs.
>
> Atlas cannot submit via CREAM as there are issues with condor_g although
> a patch for this does exist I believe.
> ALICE are using CREAM now, not so sure about LHCb or CMS.
>
> However, as Jeremy stated it has still not met the criteria to replace
> the lcg-CE. So I would use another lcg-CE for now.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dug
>
> 2009/8/13 Coles, Jeremy (STFC,RAL,ESC) <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>
> Hi Winnie
>
> I am replying on TB-SUPPORT not the GridPP-USERS list as I think this is
> a question more relevant to other sysadmins than UK users.
>
> The CREAM CE has still not met the criteria put in place to indicate
> when it is accepted
> (https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LCG/LCGCEtoCREAMCETransition ) to
> replace the LCG CE. Therefore it is not recommended.
>
> A couple UK sites have played with the basic CREAM CE - perhaps those
> involved could respond to the list with their observations?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for GridPP Users
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Winnie Lacesso
> Sent: 13 August 2009 09:26
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: WLCG migration of WNs to SL5
>
> Dear Doctor,
>
> Bristol's got some new SL5 WN not yet in production - got to build a
> new CE to drive them, question is should it be CREAM-CE or lcg-CE?
> A while back the concensus seemed to be CREAM-CE was problematic or
> just didn't work. Has it improved?
> Any UK sites had experience with or using CREAM-CE?
> Is it stable/fine or still not yet ready for prime time?
>
> ldapsearch AFAICS shows only 2 sites using it:
> GlueForeignKey: GlueClusterUniqueID=cream-ce01.marie.hellasgrid.gr
> <http://cream-ce01.marie.hellasgrid.gr>
> GlueForeignKey: GlueClusterUniqueID=cream-ce.pdc.kth.se
> <http://cream-ce.pdc.kth.se>
>
> wl / got -5 min to waste time if CREAM-CE is borken
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
>
>
>
>
> --
> ScotGrid, Room 481, Kelvin Building, University of Glasgow
> tel: +44(0)141 330 6439
>
>
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
>
>
|