 |
 |
Hi Alessandra I thought a longer history was on Steve's site but as Graeme points out (and you probably found yourself) it is only for the last 10 submissions. Some periods for sites might be explainable for reasons of the site being in scheduled maintenance (the jobs don't check this fact yet) or the site over used. There are some things that do need to be understood. Graeme I'll try to think about other ways of presenting the individual site data so that it can quickly be compared to say the average of all results for a given period - that will definitely point to general problem days. For now perhaps the RAL-PPD chart could be used as a reference since it clearly shows the two main problems and remains relatively stable at other times. As mentioned above though, we could do with more history information. All This is really just trying to give a new perspective on site "availability" for a general user so please do look at the results (http://hepwww.ph.qmul.ac.uk/~lloyd/atlas/atest.php) often together with SAM. Our objective is to try to get the overall pass rates up - even today there is an obvious improvement. One other thing (already discussed by the deployment team on Tuesday), please feel free to mail me your suggestions on how to improve the GridView availability interface (shown here http://gridview.cern.ch/GRIDVIEW/same_index.php) as I am speaking to the developers tomorrow. Already on the list is getting rid of the abbreviations and clearer explanations of the tests used. It looks likely that figures from this tool will be among the first to be used by the WLCG Management Board to judge site availability. For your site select "Tier-2 site availability" and then select your site from the (annoying) list, select the daily report and then the time frame. Finally click display graphs. Let me know if you are unable to find your site in the Tier-2 list - we already see some are missing. Also let me know if the data looks completely wrong from your perspective (i.e. do you think the trend is correct?). Thanks, Jeremy > -----Original Message----- > From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB- > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alessandra Forti > Sent: 07 March 2007 09:55 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: What does your site look like to an average (ATLAS) user? > > Hi Jeremy, > > I don't think it is possible to comment on the history and the > variations without more information. > > cheers > alessandra > > Coles, J (Jeremy) wrote: > > Dear site admins > > > > You will probably be aware that for the last 2 months Steve Lloyd has > > been running a series of test jobs against GridPP sites. There are three > > types as explained here: > > http://hepwww.ph.qmul.ac.uk/~lloyd/atlas/atest.php?action=info. You'll > > note that only the analysis job is ATLAS specific so the results are > > pretty indicative of a general user's view. > > > > The deployment team via the Tier-2 coordinators and storage group have > > been addressing problems uncovered with many of your sites. However, it > > seems that there are many reasons the tests may fail including when a > > tested site is full of ATLAS production jobs. Nevertheless one might > > expect to see a little more stability than is observed. Please take a > > look at this wiki page which now shows the historical results for each > > site since January: http://www.gridpp.ac.uk/wiki/SL_ATLAS_tests. The > > first plot is the combination of all sites and shows how chaotic the > > situation is to a user! > > > > Please feel free to edit the wiki with comments for your site explaining > > some of the variations if you can. We will revisit these results at the > > next UKI monthly support meeting on March 14th. > > > > Kind regards, > > Jeremy > > -- > Alessandra Forti > NorthGrid Technical Coordinator > University of Manchester