On 20 Dec 2011, at 14:35, Stuart Wakefield wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:13 PM, John Gordon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> About the suggestion below. CERN are asking that sites don't point to them so do we want to raise the issue with CERN and say we reject your request and insist on still using you? EGI are monitoring the availability of the combination RAL.OR.Imperial and it has been identically 100% for the few months they have been monitoring. I know some people get a warm and fuzzy feeling from relying on CERN (no-one ever got sacked for doing what CERN do:-) but one can understand that this isn't scalable.
>
> One wonders why a hundred or so clients isn't scalable but thats a
> question for another day.
Because it's not a hundred or so.
For example, we have 2200 here at Glasgow, and I think you've a similar number in Imperial.
Stuart "too busy to have lunch, never mind wine with it" P
|