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
>
|