 |
 |
Jeremy, the issue is not how old the release that these sites are running is but when it was superseded in the WLCG minimum release definition. Was that a year ago? If so then some GridPP sites have questions to answer. If not then it is a different discussion. Some experiments have been asking for more recent gfal and lcg-utils for a long time. There have been various suggestions at the GDB about how sites could support multiple releases. UK sites have been negative about them all and it looks like we are getting bit now. If sites are against multiple release support then surely there is a responsibility to keep reasonably up to date? John > -----Original Message----- > From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB- > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Coles, J (Jeremy) > Sent: 21 July 2009 13:55 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: New DPM for SAM causes failures at many UKI sites > > Dear All > > I've been made aware of an issue that affects many UKI sites running > older versions of GFAL and lcg_utils. Specific sites in UKI that should > read the following carefully are: > > RAL-LCG2 lcgce02.gridpp.rl.ac.uk; > lcgce03.gridpp.rl.ac.uk; lcgce04.gridpp.rl.ac.uk; > lcgce05.gridpp.rl.ac.uk > UKI-LT2-IC-HEP ce00.hep.ph.ic.ac.uk > UKI-LT2-RHUL ce1.pp.rhul.ac.uk > UKI-LT2-UCL-HEP lcg-ce01.hep.ucl.ac.uk > UKI-NORTHGRID-MAN-HEP ce01.tier2.hep.manchester.ac.uk > UKI-NORTHGRID-MAN-HEP ce02.tier2.hep.manchester.ac.uk > UKI-SCOTGRID-ECDF ce.glite.ecdf.ed.ac.uk > UKI-SCOTGRID-ECDF mw05.ecdf.ed.ac.uk > > There is likely to be an urgent request to upgrade in the coming days. > We can review the situation at the UKI meeting on Thursday > (http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=64531). > > If you are aware of reasons an upgrade is not possible for GFAL and > lcg_utils then please reply to the list. > > Many thanks, > Jeremy > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Maarten Litmaath <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:24 PM > Subject: new DPM for SAM causes failures at 10% of the sites !! > > > Hi all, > the SAM CE tests include the replication of a file from the site's > default SE for "ops" to a central SE, for which lxdpm104.cern.ch > is the default choice and thereby almost always used. > > The problem with lxdpm104 is its OS: it still runs SLC3, which is > no longer supported. Tony Cass is not happy with this situation. > > We already upgraded the spare nodes lxdpm101 and lxdpm103 to SLC4 > and the latest DPM version for gLite 3.1. > > lxdpm101 is used as the central SE for the SAM validation instance, > where we see about 10% more of the sites failing, compared to the > production instance. There are some big sites included. > > Production: > > https://lcg- > sam.cern.ch:8443/sam/sam.py?sensors=CE®ions=AsiaPacific®ions=CERN > ®ions=CentralEurope®ions=France®ions=GermanySwitzerland®ion > s=Italy®ions=NorthernEurope®ions=Russia®ions=SouthEasternEurop > e®ions=SouthWesternEurope®ions=UKI&vo=ops&order=RegionName&funct= > ShowSensorTests > > Validation: > > https://sam- > val.cern.ch:8443/sam/sam.py?sensors=CE®ions=AsiaPacific®ions=CERN > ®ions=CentralEurope®ions=France®ions=GermanySwitzerland®ion > s=Italy®ions=NorthernEurope®ions=Russia®ions=SouthEasternEurop > e®ions=SouthWesternEurope®ions=UKI&vo=ops&order=RegionName&funct= > ShowSensorTests > > As I am writing this, production has 342 green CEs, validation 307. > > There are many failures in particular in Italy and UKI. > The error usually is as follows: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > Both SAPath and SARoot are not set about ops VO and SE : > lxdpm101.cern.ch > lcg_rep: Invalid argument > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > The cause of that error becomes clear when we look at the versions of > GFAL and lcg_utils that are present on the WN. For example, at RAL: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > Using lcg-utils version: > > + lcg-cp --version > lcg_util-1.6.11 > GFAL-client-1.10.11 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > That version is more than a year old and cannot handle the way > lxdpm101.cern.ch now is published in the info system (I verified that). > > Conclusion: I think all sites that fail in the SAM validation instance > need to be told to upgrade their WNs to the latest version _URGENTLY_. > > We should give them a deadline by which time we switch the production > instance to lxdpm101.cern.ch. > Thanks, > Maarten > > > > -- > Steve Traylen > -- > Scanned by iCritical. -- Scanned by iCritical.