On 08/06/11 06:50, Alessandra Forti wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>> You seem to be suggesting we are publishing incorrectly. I believe
>> that what we are publishing is correct and self consistent. Since you
>> believe otherwise, can you explain what you think we are doing wrong.
>
> one of the reasons CPUAtlas was introduced and deemed better was because
> it solved QMUL discrepancies with atlas when you had in apel twice the
> number of raw cpu hours and published haf the HS06.
So if we publish twice the raw CPU hours and half the HS06, we claim
exactly the right number of Hepspec hours don't we?
> There was a factor 2
> that could be moved around. It seems you have corrected that now.
You are still implying that what we were doing is incorrect. I dispute
that[1] - and fail to understand why you think it is incorrect. Can you
explain how this can make any difference to the resource usage we
publish to APEL - or anywhere else?
I have changed it to scale to the value of our most recent CPUs - mainly
to avoid this sort of discussion if I'm honest. Is that "correct" in
your eyes?
Chris
[1] What we were doing that was incorrect is publishing the available
capacity at 1000hepspec. Thanks to Liverpool's blog on the subject I've
corrected this
|