On 01/08/13 15:11, Daniela Bauer wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Please don't make up rules where there aren't any.
So the "rule" I should announce is that sites will randomly decide
whether they create a fresh software area. VOs need to deal with that on
a site by site basis.
> We support almost every VO under the sun and not a single one has piped
> up to ask for a separate software area.
>
> Yes, my software area even for the SL6 nodes has an unfortunate sl5 in
> the name, but I am not making a new software area, just because it looks
> pretty when I don't need it.
>
> At some point soon the everything will be SL6, the VOs have been warned,
> they can test their software now to their hearts content, but as far as
> I am concerned I've done my duty and that's it.
>
> Count me out.
OK.
Chris
>
> Cheers,
> Daniela
>
>
>
>
> On 1 August 2013 15:00, Christopher J. Walker <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> On 31/07/13 14:00, Daniela Bauer wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 31 July 2013 13:39, Ewan MacMahon <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes
> [mailto:TB- <mailto:TB->
> > <mailto:TB- <mailto:TB->>
> > > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>] On
> Behalf
> > Of Sam Skipsey
> > >
> > > Well, ATLAS and CMS do still need a "local configuration area",
> > >
> > IIRC ATLAS have a cunning plan to not need that at some point in
> > the future, but I'm not sure they're quite there yet. For CMS,
> > at least the Oxford 'site local' configuration actually lives in
> > CVMFS already; we don't have a local NFS area for them at all.
> >
> > Ewan
> >
> >
> > CMS nearly killed that feature in a recent headless chicken security
> > panic ....
> >
> > On a different note: We left the non-CVMFS software area for CMS
> > untouched, i.e. used by SL5 and SL6 and it seems to work just fine. As
> > far as I am aware there is no requirement by CMS to make a new
> software
> > area.
> > For the experiments that use CVMFS (or try to in our case, sigh),
> their
> > installed software is long gone.
> >
> >
>
>
> So, what is best practice?
>
> It would be useful to tell non-LHC VOs what to expect. Even better if
> all UK sites to do the same thing.
>
> For CVMFS - one just points at CVMFS. The question is what to do for
> others.
>
> My current view is that having a fresh start allows (indeed forces) them
> to compile their software for SL6 - and that this is a good thing.
> Therefore we should do that (making sure that software tags reflect
> that). If VOs want different treatment, they can talk to sites directly.
>
> Would anyone object to me making that statement?
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from the pit of despair
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> HEP Group/Physics Dep
> Imperial College
> London, SW7 2BW
> Tel: +44-(0)20-75947810
> http://www.hep.ph.ic.ac.uk/~dbauer/
|