Alastair Dewhurst wrote:
> Hi
>
> Thank you to everybody who has replied so far and thank you to the site
> who have upgraded. To remind people we have a monitoring page at the
> Tier 1:
> http://ganglia.gridpp.rl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ganglia-squid/squid-page.pl?r=day&s=normal&.submit=Submit+Query
>
> as long as you see some green activity then your squid is working (Red
> means we have got some direct connections from WN nodes rather than the
> squid). There are also the SAM tests:
> https://lcg-sam.cern.ch:8443/sam/sam.py?CE_atlas_disp_tests=CE-ATLAS-sft-Frontier-Squid&order=SiteName&funct=ShowSensorTests&disp_status=na&disp_status=ok&disp_status=info&disp_status=note&disp_status=warn&disp_status=error&disp_status=crit&disp_status=maint
>
> which show if the failover is working. Although no matter what I do
> some tests seem to fail.
>
> With regards to the instructions, I can only apologies that ATLAS has
> once again not provided accurate information, hopefully it wasn't too
> frustrating.
Jobs have been failing sporadically at QMUL due to this since Thursday.
Someone thought it frustrating enough to file a ticket.
We are now back up after our scheduled power outage - but cvmfs is
broken (probably because of squid) so atlas jobs are failing sporadically.
> I can try and get the documentation updated but I suspect
> there will always be more important things to fix. In general those
> squids don't require much work to maintain and things mostly work so I
> try to leave it alone.
>
> I will ask at the next Frontier meeting about the Frontier rpm and
> getting the updates added to yum.
I do remember being told a reason that the standard squid wasn't good
enough. I've forgotten though...
>
> I believe squids aren't very good on virtual machines because latency is
> important and thats something you lose with virtualization. At the Tier
> 1 we currently have 6 squid boxes, (doing 3 different things) but we
> hope that over time we can merge these into one large pool.
>
With CVMFS we ought to have 2 squids really I guess.
Chris
> Alastair
>
>
> On 24 Jan 2011, at 17:30, Alessandra Forti wrote:
>
>> The frontier squid is a mess personally if I can avoid using it in the
>> future I will. I showed the developers twice step by step how
>> difficult it was compared to the OS squid. The first time, after I
>> also attended their meeting, they removed customize.sh which overrides
>> the local configuration from the startup script. My point was more
>> general though, do sites with squid caches services really need a
>> frontier rpm? I think they talk about it but never reached a conclusion.
>>
>> cheers
>> alessanda
>>
>> On 24/01/11 16:07, Stephen Jones wrote:
>>> We were on 7.3 here, and I also broke things while upgrading. It's
>>> working now, I think. It seems quite of lot of merging is needed to
>>> bring the new config in line with the old one (e.g. paths for caches
>>> and log files etc. are all different).
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> Christopher J.Walker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But I've managed to break things in the process of upgrading :-(.
>>>>
>>>> We are in downtime now for power work - but will try and fix it when we
>>>> are back up.
>>>>
>>>
|