It depends on the experiment. CMS has different executables and needs at
the very least separate queues. Atlas uses compatibility libraries and
can run SL5 releases on SL6 so it is a bit smoother but they are not
ready to go on a big scale. Lhcb are like CMS I think.
All experiments agreed that we can talk again after Moriond.
cheers
alessandra
On 07/02/2013 15:27, Stephen Jones wrote:
> On 02/07/2013 03:05 PM, Jeremy Coles wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I would like to understand whether any GridPP sites have a strong
>> need to move their WNs to SL6 and what would the sysadmins on this
>> list consider as a reasonable timeline on which to migrate their WNs
>> to SL6?
>>
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> We (Liv) don't "need" to move yet. There are some technical issues
> surrounding the migration, and we might need to do a bit of
> research.
>
> Can a cluster be mixed sl5 and sl6 and run the same jobs, i.e.
> is it a big bang or an incremental migration?
>
> If it's an incremental migration, we can put (say) 4 x WNs on SL6
> and see how it goes. It's dead easy, and no risk.
>
> But if it's a big bang migration, we need more coordination.
> If we want to be able to rollback, we will need separation, via
> some scheme (spare CEs, two batch head nodes, two queues,
> scheduling rules or whatever). We'd make the transition to
> the new SL6 setup, and gradually retire one set while bringing the
> other on line. But this will need some careful thinking through
> to dodge the constraints!
>
> Does anyone already have a good plan in their back pocket? Can I see
> it, please?
>
> Steve
>
>
>> Many thanks,
>> Jeremy
>
>
--
Facts aren't facts if they come from the wrong people. (Paul Krugman)
|