 |
 |
Gordon, John (STFC,RAL,ESC) wrote: > I can confirm Dug’s comments from the wider GDB perspective. CREAM seems > to work well but no WMS job submission yet so stay with lcg-CE. > Do you expect that CREAM will be used when data taking starts? Or to put it another way, do I build an lcg-CE on older hardware for testing the SL5 worker nodes - with the expectation that I'll use CREAM on a newer machine in the end, or should I put the lcg-CE on the newer machine. Chris > > > More volunteers to try CREAM welcome though. > > > > JOhn > > > > *From:* Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Douglas McNab > *Sent:* 13 August 2009 11:09 > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: WLCG migration of WNs to SL5 > > > > Hi, > > In the UK, RAL & Glasgow have CREAM CE's in 'production', well in the > GOCDB anyway. > > From Glasgow perspective it is used for a set of local users with > direct submission as the WMS ICE component required for submission is > still broken. We use it for our local optics VO as CREAM has a much > easier way of adding functionality to the job manager via a plugin > mechanism consisting of bash scripts. We use it for adding a consumable > resource when arbitarty JDL is specified. Something that on an lcg-CE > would require 'tweaking' the job manager itself. > > Observations on cream: Direct Submission is fast and JDL based, the > same WMS JDL should work with direct submission to CREAM. Output has to > be returned via gridftp automatically. So no need for users to retrieve > output or forget to retrieve it but the requirement for a gridftp > server. Easy to tweak job manager. Not really subjected it to heavy > load so do not know how it would handle large numbers of jobs. > > Atlas cannot submit via CREAM as there are issues with condor_g although > a patch for this does exist I believe. > ALICE are using CREAM now, not so sure about LHCb or CMS. > > However, as Jeremy stated it has still not met the criteria to replace > the lcg-CE. So I would use another lcg-CE for now. > > Cheers, > > Dug > > 2009/8/13 Coles, Jeremy (STFC,RAL,ESC) <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > > Hi Winnie > > I am replying on TB-SUPPORT not the GridPP-USERS list as I think this is > a question more relevant to other sysadmins than UK users. > > The CREAM CE has still not met the criteria put in place to indicate > when it is accepted > (https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LCG/LCGCEtoCREAMCETransition ) to > replace the LCG CE. Therefore it is not recommended. > > A couple UK sites have played with the basic CREAM CE - perhaps those > involved could respond to the list with their observations? > > Thanks, > Jeremy > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Discussion list for GridPP Users > [mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Winnie Lacesso > Sent: 13 August 2009 09:26 > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: WLCG migration of WNs to SL5 > > Dear Doctor, > > Bristol's got some new SL5 WN not yet in production - got to build a > new CE to drive them, question is should it be CREAM-CE or lcg-CE? > A while back the concensus seemed to be CREAM-CE was problematic or > just didn't work. Has it improved? > Any UK sites had experience with or using CREAM-CE? > Is it stable/fine or still not yet ready for prime time? > > ldapsearch AFAICS shows only 2 sites using it: > GlueForeignKey: GlueClusterUniqueID=cream-ce01.marie.hellasgrid.gr > <http://cream-ce01.marie.hellasgrid.gr> > GlueForeignKey: GlueClusterUniqueID=cream-ce.pdc.kth.se > <http://cream-ce.pdc.kth.se> > > wl / got -5 min to waste time if CREAM-CE is borken > -- > Scanned by iCritical. > > > > > -- > ScotGrid, Room 481, Kelvin Building, University of Glasgow > tel: +44(0)141 330 6439 > > > -- > Scanned by iCritical. > >