Hi Chris
For 3.1Torque that's true and for other services in 3.2/EMI-1 this situation will arise again - but the accounting reflects site availability/performance for the VOs and all sites face similar issues (or have mitigated them by moving/testing sooner rather than later). Ideally we will move to continuous accounting at some point to give the fuller picture across all sites.
I was more concerned about the indication yesterday that security challenge 5 would impact a subset of sites which would be a disadvantage to those taking part. That is something I will follow up.
Jeremy
On 13 Apr 2011, at 11:47, <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB-
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of J Coles
>> Sent: 13 April 2011 10:48
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Middleware - release and updates summary
>
>> In answer to Ewan - I think it is the version of Torque recently
>> released for 3.2 (a version for 3.1 is still in staged rollout -
>> related patch https://savannah.cern.ch/patch/?4719). The situation is
>> summarised in this page:
>> https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/EGEE/LCGprioritiesgLite.
>
> Great, that'll be nicely disruptive during the accounting period since to update the torque server you really want to completely drain the farm.
>
> Yours,
> Chris.
|