On 10/05/13 13:50, Stephen Jones wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 05/10/2013 11:01 AM, Ewan MacMahon wrote:
>
>> So, would it be fair to summarise this as "Everything works with
>> everything else, except the APEL parsers on the CEs and batch server
>> have to match the site APEL node"?
I would
>
> Perhaps. This table (which looks OK on my system!) summarises the
> "testing" done. I've made various assumptions about Chris' WN OS, which
> he should confirm.
>
> The trouble we have is caused by the combinatorial explosion when more
> than one major element changes at once - I call it "death by migration".
> But at least the i386, x86_64 malarkey is over and done with, so
> I shouldn't complain too much.
>
> Cheers, Steve
>
>
> :----------- TABLE ALESSANDRA ASKED FOR ---
>
> *CREAM* *WN* *Status*
>
> CE-EMI2-SL5 WN-EMI2-SL5 Tested - status quo
> CE-EMI2-SL5 WN-EMI2-SL6 Tested – Raul
> CE-EMI2-SL5 WN-EMI3-SL5 Not known
> CE-EMI2-SL5 WN-EMI3-SL6 Tested – Raul
> CE-EMI3-SL5 WN-EMI2-SL5 Not known
> CE-EMI3-SL5 WN-EMI2-SL6 Not known
> CE-EMI3-SL5 WN-EMI3-SL5 Not known
> CE-EMI3-SL5 WN-EMI3-SL6 Not known
> CE-EMI2-SL6 WN-EMI2-SL5 Tested – Chris (WN OS assumed, APEL workaround
> for EMI3 collector)
> CE-EMI2-SL6 WN-EMI2-SL6 Tested – Raul, Chris (WN OS assumed, APEL
> workaround for EMI3 collector)
> CE-EMI2-SL6 WN-EMI3-SL5 Not known
> CE-EMI2-SL6 WN-EMI3-SL6 Tested – Raul
> CE-EMI3-SL6 WN-EMI2-SL5 Tested – Chris (WN OS assumed)
Yes, that's "OK" (or no worse than CE-EMI-2-SL6 WN-EMI2-SL5).
> CE-EMI3-SL6 WN-EMI2-SL6 Tested – Chris (WN OS assumed)
No, I've not tested SL6 WN.
> CE-EMI3-SL6 WN-EMI3-SL5 Not known
> CE-EMI3-SL6 WN-EMI3-SL6 Kashif (APEL workaround for EMI2 collector)
>
Chris
|