JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for TB-SUPPORT Archives


TB-SUPPORT Archives

TB-SUPPORT Archives


TB-SUPPORT@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TB-SUPPORT Home

TB-SUPPORT Home

TB-SUPPORT  November 2016

TB-SUPPORT November 2016

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: ATLAS - APEL accounting records comparison

From:

Marcus Ebert <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:07:13 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (212 lines)

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Alessandra Forti wrote:

> It just occurred to me that even though you didn't change the BDII on purpose 
> you changed the system moving from CREAM to ARC as well as changing the WNs.
>
> The numbers in REBUS started to fluctuate wildly in May, before they were 
> stable on 43243/2912 = 14.85. I've asked REBUS people to check, but that 
> might explain some of the differences.
>
Right, while what I mentioned before was just for the ARC CE, we also had 
back then the cream ce for the old cluster (which doesn't exist anymore 
now).

cheers,
  Marcus

> cheeers
> alessandra
>
>
> On 17/11/2016 14:33, Alessandra Forti wrote:
>>  Hi Marcus,
>>
>>  thanks for confirming. It is still not clear to me why REBUS sees this
>>  wild variations for ECDF. I'll try to get an answer from them.
>>
>>  cheers
>>  alessandra
>> 
>>
>>  On 17/11/2016 14:20, Marcus Ebert wrote:
>> >  Hi Alessandra,
>> > 
>> > 
>> >  On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Alessandra Forti wrote:
>> > 
>> > >  size of the site is manually inserted in the BDII. I agree in ECDF it 
>> > >  is variable but you really should put a meaningful value that averages 
>> > >  to a meaningful HS06 number.  I thought you did that but ECDF is red 
>> > >  again. This time APEL is bigger than ATLAS. You seem to change the 
>> > >  capacity in the BDII every month [1] can you confirm that? You should 
>> > >  put values whose ratio is ~HS06 you publish.
>> > > 
>> >  No, I don't think it was changed every month. It was changed in October 
>> >  to make it consistent between the 2 numbers we report and to reflect the 
>> >  current worker node systems we run on (ringfenced nodes, general ECDF 
>> >  cluster, Openstack - all with different HepSpec and job slots/cores).
>> >  (see below)
>> >  This value should reflect the different systems we are running on in 
>> >  very good approximation now.
>> > 
>> > >  aforti@vm7>site=UKI-SCOTGRID-ECDF; ldapsearch -LLL -x -h 
>> > >  top-bdii.tier2.hep.manchester.ac.uk:2170 -b 
>> > >  "mds-vo-name=${site},mds-vo-name=local,o=grid" | perl -p00e 's/\r?\n 
>> > >  //g'|egrep -i 'bench|spec|logical'
>> > >  GlueHostBenchmarkSF00: 0
>> > >  GlueHostBenchmarkSI00: 0
>> > >  objectClass: GlueHostBenchmark
>> > >  GlueHostProcessorOtherDescription: Cores=8, Benchmark=12.9-HEP-SPEC06
>> > >  GlueSubClusterLogicalCPUs: 528
>> > > 
>> >  That's the updated correct one. It was updated in October, so I think we 
>> >  should wait for the November numbers once the whole month is over.
>> >  Cores and Hepspec are averaged over the different systems taking the 
>> >  different number of cores/machines into account we really run on.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > >  ATM REBUS reports weird stuff not corresposnding to 12.9
>> > > 
>> > >  October: 111945/9570 =11. 69 <-- atlas claims 11.884 until August 
>> > >  included
>> > >  September: 74195/7040 = 10.54  <-- atlas see 10.5 from September 
>> > >  onward in line with this numbers
>> > >  October: 76167/7291=10.44 <-- similar enough
>> > >  November: 6811/528 = 12.89 <-- this is ok if ATLAS sees it, but I 
>> > >  suspect numbers are not updated that often and it might be a 
>> > >  discrepancy again.
>> > > 
>> >  Atlas sees 10.5 because that's what we my mistake reported. We didn't 
>> >  updated the Glue value and only the one for APEL when we added new 
>> >  worker nodes. 10.5 was the wrong, too low value. Since we updated now 
>> >  the APEL and GLUE value to be consistent, there should be no 
>> >  reason/possibility that ATLAS sees something different for November.
>> > 
>> > >  so there are 3 points here
>> > > 
>> > >  1) Do you update your numbers to maintain the HS06 ratio in the BDII 
>> > >  consistently? I don't think changing numbers monthly is a good idea 
>> > >  but they should at least match the HS06 value.
>> >  No, we don't change monthly.
>> >  We only looked into it because of the discrepancy you reported and found 
>> >  that a) that the 2 different values we report, Apel and Glue one, are 
>> >  not consisten with each other, b) both don't reflect the new hardware we 
>> >  are running on since a while for the SL6 analysis queue.
>> >  That's why it was changed in October. Before I think the last change was 
>> >  in July when we got new machines to run on (differently configured for 
>> >  job slots than our ringfenced nodes which made a change neccessary)
>> >  The change in October reflected the addition of the Openstack nodes for 
>> >  the SL6 queue.
>> > 
>> > >  2) If you do that why rebus is reporting a different set of numbers 
>> > >  for example I'd expect Ocotber 7291*12.9 = 94053 not 76167
>> >  We don't do that.
>> >  It was changed in October, so probably that's why it's different since 
>> >  it was not the same for the whole month?
>> >  I would expect that November onwards it should now correspond to 12.9
>> > 
>> > >  3) ATLAS doesn't seem to update the HS06 often enough to have such 
>> > >  frequent changes. And TBF most sites usually don't change their size 
>> > >  every month.
>> > > 
>> >  As I said, we also don't do that.
>> > 
>> > 
>> >  I think we should wait until the end of October to see if it will be 
>> >  green then and consistent.
>> >  In any case, we will look through the published data using the scripts 
>> >  you published to make sure it will be consistent in the future.
>> > 
>> > 
>> >  Cheers,
>> >   Marcus
>> > 
>> > >  [2] http://tinyurl.com/j2fylyx
>> > > 
>> > >  On 17/11/2016 12:05, Marcus Ebert wrote:
>> > > >   Thanks Alessandra,
>> > > > 
>> > > >  I think I understand now, also from previous discussions in the list 
>> > > >  here.
>> > > >  Basically, it only tests if 2 values published by a site, both 
>> > > >  defined in
>> > > >  the bdii and put in manually by the site, agree or not, but doesn't 
>> > > >  say
>> > > >   anything about the correctness of the HEPSPEC value used.
>> > > >   So it seems what really meaningfully can be compared is just the 
>> > > >  wallclock
>> > > >   work from Atlas and APEL, if it's not scaled at a site.
>> > > > 
>> > > >   Wouldn't it be better then to split the plot in 2 different ones,
>> > > >   - one for the ratio of wallclock hours Atlas/APEL to have a site 
>> > > >  check
>> > > >   that both values published are consistent, and
>> > > >   - second one only for the wallclock work ratio Atlas/APEL to see 
>> > > >   any
>> > > >   differences between the reported wallclock work in APEL and the 
>> > > >   ATLAS
>> > > >   records?
>> > > > 
>> > > >  If it shows for example "red" right now, it's not obvious just from 
>> > > >  the
>> > > >   plot which of the 2 numbers are the problem.
>> > > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > >   Cheers,
>> > > >    Marcus
>> > > > 
>> > > >   On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Alessandra Forti wrote:
>> > > > 
>> > > > >   Hi Marcus,
>> > > > > > >    Thanks, I think I nearly understand it now. To fully 
>> > > >  understand, >  could you please explain how HS06 in Atlas wallclock 
>> > > >  work is determined? >  It isn't the same that > is used in APEL 
>> > > >  wallclock work, is it?
>> > > > > >   the presentation I gave yesterday at the HEPSYSMAN gives the 
>> > > >  details
>> > > > > > 
>> > > >  https://indico.cern.ch/event/577279/contributions/2353919/attachments/1367099/2071452/20161107_hepsysman-accounting.pdf 
>> > > > > > >   in the specific today I've also started an FAQ
>> > > > > > 
>> > > >  https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LCG/AccountingFAQ#How_are_the_ATLAS_numbers_in_SSB 
>> > > > > > >   cheers
>> > > > >   alessandra
>> > > > > >   On 01/11/2016 09:52, Marcus Ebert wrote:
>> > > > > >    Hi Alessandra,
>> > > > > > > >    On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, Alessandra Forti wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >     I'm not sure if I understand it or if it makes sense 
>> > > >  that way:
>> > > > > > > >     Basically what you are saying is that the initial number 
>> > > >  values
>> > > > > > > >     "HS06 on the atlas dashboard, HS06 in APEL, ratio, 
>> > > > wallclock > > in > >     ATLAS,
>> > > > > > > >     wallclock in APEL, wallclock ratio"
>> > > > > > > >     are really
>> > > > > > > >     "wallclock work in the Atlas, wallclock work in APEL, 
>> > > >  ratio, > > > > wallclock
>> > > > > > > >     work in Atlas (unscaled), wallclock work in APEL (maybe 
>> > > > > > > >     scaled)",
>> > > > > > > >     isn't it?
>> > > > > > >    the fields are
>> > > > > > > >    ATLAS wallclock work (HS06*hours), APEL wallclock work > 
>> > > > >   (HS06*hours), >  ratio, ATLAS wallclock (hours), APEL wallclock 
>> > > >  (hours > > maybe internally >  scale), ratio
>> > > > > > > > >   Thanks, I think I nearly understand it now. To fully 
>> > > >  understand, could > >  you
>> > > > > >   please explain how HS06 in Atlas wallclock work is determined? 
>> > > > It > >   isn't
>> > > > > >    the same that is used in APEL wallclock work, is it?
>> > > > > > > > > >    Cheers,
>> > > > > >     Marcus
>> > > > > > > > > > > > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> 
>
>

-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager