> On 7 Dec 2018, at 12:59, sjones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On 2018-12-06 08:54, Ian Collier - UKRI STFC wrote:
>> Again, tarballs are very easy to unpack onto cvmfs.
>
> True enough, but the best people to tell us whether CVMFS (or anything else) is always right, sometimes right, or never right is the VO who uses it.
I don’t disagree at all.
> And the best thing we can do in my view is to capture and summarise a sufficient number of VO "operational baselines". We can then use these to illustrate to prospective customers:
>
> a) the application areas we are involved with;
>
> b) the coverage, applicability and interoperability of our various technologies to specific problem domains; and
>
> c) the trials and tribulations of actually getting something running on our stuff.
>
> That would help prospective customers to set their expectations and make sensible choices. In my view, such a summary should contain a basic description of the science goals (the mission statement); a brief summary of data capture, storage, workflows, transforms and so forth (the task). Then a description of the technology selected (including, for example CVMFS), and a rationale for choosing (or not choosing) it (the plot). Then we need to show how well the solution performed in action, the various hitches that had to be overcome and an honest critique of the final user experience (the review).
>
> If we had material like that, gathered soon after a VO reaches "operational maturity", we would be well placed to simplify the integration of new groups as they come along. And it would would, to some extent, ameliorate subjectivity about the benefits of one choice over another.
All very sensible.
—Ian
>
> Cheers again,
>
> Ste
>
>
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the TB-SUPPORT list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=TB-SUPPORT&A=1
|