JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for TB-SUPPORT Archives


TB-SUPPORT Archives

TB-SUPPORT Archives


TB-SUPPORT@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TB-SUPPORT Home

TB-SUPPORT Home

TB-SUPPORT  June 2010

TB-SUPPORT June 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Advice on procuring worker nodes

From:

Peter Gronbech <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:48:23 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (145 lines)

I think with the small scale restricted tenders the rules are defined at university level.
We were 'not allowed to talk to the suppliers' too, but if a query comes up you can send a clarification via central purchasing to all who responded to the tender.
The idea being not to show any favour to a particular supplier.

We specified a minimum number of cores and a HEPSPEC value, but like Glasgow specified dual 15Krpm SAS disks to be raid stripped for performance on the WNs.
We specified 3GB RAM /core (although strictly speaking Atlas still only require 2.
The best responses offered many options based on Intel or AMD cpu's, this allowed us to opt for the best Bang for Buck to meet our requirements.
One thing to note is that the new AMD multi core cpu's do give you a lot of cores (8 or 12) but each individual core is a little slower that previous Intels we have had.
So for a one off job turn round will be longer, but overall throughput on a cluster would be higher.

Cheers Pete

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Gronbech  Senior 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 Mike Kenyon
Sent: 28 June 2010 11:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Advice on procuring worker nodes

Hi Ben,

On 28 June 2010 10:48, Ben Waugh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks Mike and John for your feedback. My understanding is that this "mini
> tender" is actually still a tender in the sense that we have to provide a
> clear specification of what we need, and the suppliers have to meet these
> requirements. Once we have put out the tender we can no longer discuss our
> requirements and iterate possible solutions with the suppliers.

Is that true? I thought those European tendering rules only kicked in
if the spend was above a certain value. Your procurement officer at
UCL can probably help you here, but this page looks like a good
starting place
http://www.ogc.gov.uk/procurement_policy_and_application_of_eu_rules_eu_procurement_thresholds_.asp


>
> The advantage, as John says, is to shift some responsibility and risk to the
> supplier. The downside is that we have to come up with a rigorously
> specified figure of merit that we can use to select the winning bid. I think
> this rules out using our own "best guess", but from Mike's comments it
> sounds as if HEPSPEC figures might be available from more suppliers than I
> imagined.

I should have been a little clearer. By "best guess", I meant that you
could infer HEPSPEC scores for those suppliers that didn't quote them
by comparing/interpolating benchmarks derived elsewhere. For example,
one supplier was unable to provide a score for CPUs offered to us
recently, so they guesstimated a figure. By comparing this with what
other suppliers were quoting, we could see that they were in fact
under-estimating the performance of their kit, and so offering us even
better value for money!

That said, I agree with John regarding the shift of responsibility.
Also, you could build your tender so that HEPSPEC performance figures
are a mandatory requirement.

Cheers,
Mike.


>
> Best regards,
> Ben
>
> On 28/06/10 10:33, John Gordon wrote:
>>
>> I am sure Martin can give more detailed advice on the details you ask
>> about but on the general issue of framework agreements we, at RAL, have been
>> hesitant over going that route for T1 purchases. Although there are obvious
>> benefits in reducing the overhead of tenders and in delivery, we worried
>> about the balance of risk. In our EJ tenders we ask the supplier to meet
>> certain requirements in benchmarking, and level of support for SL. They
>> tender equipment that will meet our spec so they are taking some risk of us
>> rejecting it if it doesn't. With a framework agreement we are buying from a
>> shopping list and we make the decision on what is suitable. Our risk of
>> getting it wrong.
>> That said there is less risk with WN so we may get kit from our framework
>> suppliers next year and benchmark ourselves. Disk servers are more difficult
>> though so we are unlikely to go the framework route unless we can set up
>> framework agreements with our trusted suppliers.
>> John
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB-
>>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ben Waugh
>>> Sent: 26 June 2010 10:06
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Advice on procuring worker nodes
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> This is an appeal for guidance from both those who have put out
>>> tenders for CPU nodes, and those with knowledge of what makes a good
>>> worker node for ATLAS in particular.
>>>
>>> I know procedures vary between institutions, but I have been advised
>>> by our Procurement department to do a "mini tender" involving the five
>>> suppliers who have framework agreements to supply servers to UCL,
>>> asking for the greatest possible CPU power for a fixed price.
>>>
>>> The HEPSPEC rating is the obvious measure to maximise, but not all
>>> suppliers have the means or inclination to run a specialised benchmark
>>> for a relatively small order, about £40k. How have others done this?
>>> Do you restrict yourselves to the suppliers who already have
>>> experience in dealing with GridPP and can run HEPSPEC themselves, or
>>> do you use other benchmarks or some less direct way of comparing the
>>> CPU rating of the products on offer?
>>>
>>> There are of course other factors affecting job throughput, including
>>> hard disks and RAM. Is there some way of measuring the effect of
>>> these, or would you just set a minimum requirement on both and then
>>> maximise the HEPSPEC? If you would take the latter approach, what is a
>>> sensible trade-off between disk performance and price? Presumably
>>> 10kRPM SAS disks will be better than 7.5kRPM SATA, but maybe a striped
>>> pair of slow disks would be an alternative? And how much disk space do
>>> you allow per CPU core?
>>>
>>> If there is anything else I haven't asked but you think I should
>>> consider, please tell me that too!
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Ben
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr Ben Waugh                                   Tel. +44 (0)20 7679 7223
>>> Dept of Physics and Astronomy                  Internal: 37223
>>> University College London
>>> London WC1E 6BT
>
> --
> Dr Ben Waugh                                   Tel. +44 (0)20 7679 7223
> Dept of Physics and Astronomy                  Internal: 37223
> University College London
> London WC1E 6BT
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager