Hi,
It's interesting. We can't predict when some scary exploit will jump up
at us, so we can't pledge to give much notice. So perhaps we should say
that some types of unscheduled downtimes are perfectly acceptable and
are no reflection on site performance. As others say, if unscheduled
downtimes are always taken to be a reflection on site performance, then
the temptation is to delay the adoption of patches in order to give
plenty of notice. And this would be a case of throwing out the baby with
the bathwater.
(On a related issue: it's easy to patch a cluster without taking it down
for a significant time, by doing batches of nodes in series. I have a
little script, called snakey.pl, that I bring out when I need to put a
new kernel on our Condor cluster.)
Cheers,
Ste
On 16/05/17 15:11, Ian Collier wrote:
> There should be an opportunity to discuss this at the Manchester Workshop.
>
> —Ian
>
>> On 16 May 2017, at 11:56, Peter Gronbech <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> I noticed that there is a proposal to change the downtime declaration to 5 days before and intervention from 24 hours.
>> See slide 6 of https://indico.egi.eu/indico/event/3237/contribution/4/material/slides/0.pdf
>>
>> This would mean interventions declared less than 5 days in advance will be considered unscheduled.
>> I'm not sure if this has been approved yet though.
>>
>> Cheers Pete
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Peter Gronbech GridPP Project Manager Tel No. : 01865 273389
>>
>> Department of Particle Physics,
>> University of Oxford,
>> Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3RH, UK E-mail : [log in to unmask]
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Steve Jones [log in to unmask]
Grid System Administrator office: 220
High Energy Physics Division tel (int): 43396
Oliver Lodge Laboratory tel (ext): +44 (0)151 794 3396
University of Liverpool http://www.liv.ac.uk/physics/hep/
|