On 23 January 2014 09:57, Stephen Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Re: Notes, esp. CernAtSchool
>
>> There is also the LUCID experiment which will launch
>> on a satellite and start gathering data in low
>> Earth orbit.
>
>
> I'd like Liverpool to have a chance of processing some LUCID data.
> I don't think we've supported any spacecraft here yet, unless it
> was by accident.
>
>> There are disadvantages of having multiple sites, that
>> they are not always able to be equally responsive when they have to
>> support many non-local VOs, and making sure that things work at many
>> sites can be time consuming. However, this is the generic resources
>> argument for "small" VOs, and not based on the wow-factor.
>
>
> Liverpool supports 30 VOs already; one more will make no odds.
> Also, we've been working to automate VO management as much as
> possible (mainly due to the fact that we have so many).
>
>> Tom needs to know more about meta-data and file management. Do we have
>> a tutorial somewhere which is not out of date? Not so much what's in
>> the files but more whether there are datasets and such. We did have
>> guidance for non-LHC VOs, to be updated from time to time.
>
>
> Ewan (and I) put up a "Grid User Crash Course" - I think it's still
> currentish.
> Of course, it's very basic; just LFC and SRM usage.
>
> https://www.gridpp.ac.uk/wiki/Grid_user_crash_course
>
> There is other stuff too, such as
> https://www.gridpp.ac.uk/wiki/Data_Management,
> but we could really do with beefing up our advice to new small VOs. At the
> moment, all we do is explain the most basic toolsets, and leave them to it.
>
> What I would like to see, documentation-wise, is this: a profile for a
> typical
> new small-vo, with recommendations on suitable configuration procedures,
> submission procedures and data procedures. Configuration procedures would
> cover VO
> set-up and management, VO adoption by sites, UI set-up and management, user
> set-up and management, on-going monitoring and administration. Submission
> procedures
> would describe basic job control options, and at least one well-known
> submission/job monitoring framework, preferably one that is well used. Data
> procedures would describe basic data management options, and at least one
> well-known data control and meteadata manemenmhgt rameowrk, prefreably one
> that
> is well used.
The problem with the above is that the most well-used data metadata
tool is the LFC (which the big VOs all don't use now, in favour of
their own stuff). I don't think there's a common metadata catalog that
is used by a lot of different people - AMGA is supposed to be the EMI
project, but I don't think it's actually used by many people (there's
nothing wrong with it, it's just that people have their own tools). In
general, metadata management, and the wider issue of data
organisation, is a "hard" problem, partly because it overbleeds into
discussions of metadata taxonomy and other long words.
Sam
>
> That's a lot of work, so it is progressing piecemeal. For example, we
> recently
> set-up instance UI etc.. Ultimately, when we've got all the blanks filled
> out,
> it would be an integration job to pull it all together into the document
> described.
>
> Anyway, that's one idea.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Steve
>
> --
> Steve Jones [log in to unmask]
> System Administrator office: 220
> High Energy Physics Division tel (int): 42334
> Oliver Lodge Laboratory tel (ext): +44 (0)151 794 2334
> University of Liverpool http://www.liv.ac.uk/physics/hep/
|