 |
 |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ewan MacMahon > Sent: 08 August 2008 12:43 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Inefficient Jobs > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB- > > > > I have received a response from my ticket... > > https://gus.fzk.de/pages/ticket_details.php?ticket=39591 > > > > It states we can kill her jobs... which I have done. > > > That response is from a dteam VO person though isn't it? While this is > clearly > an inappropriate use of the dteam VO, it's not at all clear to me that > the > user actually meant to use the dteam VO. At Oxford we (obviously) > support > dteam, but don't support biomed, and I don't see any submissions from > this > user, so I'd guess that the RB is only matching the jobs to biomed > supporting > sites. > I agree, we've only seen jobs via the CE that supports biomed. > So, I think we've got two problems here: > - badly written jobs, > - incorrect VO mapping at some sites (rather than abuse of > the dteam VO) > > It'd be interesting to know why RAL-LCG2 and Liverpool mapped the user > to a > biomed account, they're certainly in my grid-mapfile as dteam. Is the > user > not using a VOMS extended proxy, or is Durham having trouble with the > VOMS > and falling back to the basic grid-mapfile approach? > One of the jobs I looked at did have biomed voms extensions in the proxy attribute : /biomed/Role=NULL/Capability=NULL attribute : /biomed/lcg1/Role=NULL/Capability=NULL but we map the user to biomed in the gridmap file anyway on that CE, their mapped to dteam on the CEs that don't support biomed. I think the order of the VOs in ed-mkgridmap.conf is significant - we have dteam right at the end. Derek