Hello,

by the way rebus gives incorrect numbers as well:

http://wlcg-rebus.cern.ch/apps/capacities/sites/.

I changed the numbers recently  (as we added resources) but neither rebus or gstat reflect the change.

Elena

 
On 17 Oct 2014, at 11:20, Stephen Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Matt,
> 
> I believed that gstat is useless. There was something on TB_SUPPORT about
> it, I thought.
> 
> Anyway, the "proper" values for Liverpool are:
> 
>> SI2K
>> 	Q2	 Q3
>> LIV	 4337456	 4336880
>> 
>> CORES
>> 
>> LIV	1384	1384
> 
> I assume the 0.013% difference is a calculation error as the cores have
> not changed.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
>> Hello Everybody,
>> Thanks to Steve for getting the Liverpool Narrative to me on time. I'm
>> still putting together the report - as you know one of the columns is
>> the gstat CPUs and SI2K for sites, to be obtained from gstat.
>> 
>> But the numbers in gstat at the moment are lower then those from Q3 for
>> everyone except Lancaster- is this expected? Perhaps an ARC CE
>> publishing oddity? Or have sites been retiring kit? Or is gstat just
>> being wrong?
>> 
>> SI2K
>> 	Q2	Q3
>> MAN	9666169 8920480
>> LIV	4337456	2400960
>> SHEF	2818080 1409040
>> 
>> 
>> CORES
>> 
>> MAN	3958	3646
>> LIV	1384	732
>> SHEF	912	456
>> 
>> (As you can see the CORES/SI2K proportions seem to remain the same).
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Matt
>> 
>> On 10/01/2014 10:31 AM, Matt Doidge wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>> Well Q3 disappeared in a flash - and it's quarterly report time again!
>>> That means narratives need to be written. Could sites please get their
>>> narratives to me by the 14th of October? That will give us a few days to
>>> iron out any wrinkles before the report has to be in.
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> Matt
>>