 |
 |
Hi, On Tue, 15 May 2007, Gordon, JC (John) wrote: > Alessandra, can we include feedback on GridView too? > > a) Data retrieved from SAM and GridView is not always consistent. In > particular the Tier1 availability metrics. Gridview is the more usable > interface so we'd like to believe it. Same for Liverpool Tier2 > c) Tier2 names in GridView are nonsense. They have just made up their > own abbreviations to meet some arbitrary field constraint. A good > example of a user interface designed with the underlying system in mind, > not the user. Thats true > > d) extracting data, not just plots. > > I believe the item below is under way but it is worth supporting it so > it gets sufficient priority to actually be finished. > > d) Some SAM failures are due to SAM, or rather not to the site. The > SAM-BDII problems are a good example of this. In evaluating site > metrics, failures due to SAM problems should be removed. A new status of > Unknown would help. Tests could be pass/fail/unknown, sites could be > up/down/unknown. A simple change would be daily availability=up/up+down > and not up/24. A more sophisticated use would be unknowns in a series of > up or down would not break the sequence. Ie up-up-up-unknown-up-up would > be treated as all ups, similar for downs. Thats a good point to evaluate output for SAM and could be a one of the point which is relevant to GridView or the alghoritm over GridView will change to mentioned by John sentences in case that several plot are related to the external network providers (for Liverpool excluding the days 1-14 of May 07, where we are doing cluster backbone upgrade) Cheers Paul -- Dr. Paul A. Trepka ;Intl:+44(0)151 794 2137 Oliver Lodge Laboratory ;Fax: +44(0)151 794 3444 Dept. of Physics ;e-mail: [log in to unmask] The University of Liverpool Liverpool L69 7ZE England, UK