 |
 |
Hi Alessandra, I'm proposing to use the ATLAS production cpu/event as the benchmark. In May switching from Apel to this would only make 10% change to Manchester (6.8 -> 6.2). This also solves the problem at Cambridge where there is no reliable Apel number. Although it was discussed to drop the CPU availability column there was no conclusion but investigations into Lancaster are still continuing. It may be revisited. The proposal was to cap at 20% but this was not agreed. Glasgow were above 20% but now QMUL has it's new disk up no-one is. We don't know the total money that will be spent so you can't translate this into £s. Cheers Steve ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Steve Lloyd Queen Mary, University of London + + E-mail: [log in to unmask] School of Physics + + Phone: +44-(0)20-7882-5057 Mile End Road + + Fax: +44-(0)20-8981-9465 London E1 4NS, UK + ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On 7 Jun 2011, at 09:01, Alessandra Forti wrote: > Hi Steve, > > are we going to discuss this later at the ops meeting? Are you using the Atlas Validation Kit [1] to take your measures? Most of my objections depend on the fact that I don't trust the software but if it was something recognised by WLCG and Hepix I might quiet down even if Manchester CPU hours get cut down by 28% with this change. > > There are other two points in the PMB minutes [2] that would be interesting to discuss. > > 1) How likely it is that the cpu availability column will be dropped and when will we know it? > 2) It seems a cap will be applied so that no site can get more than £200k but the final number hasn't been decided yet. I'm not against > this but it'd be better to know it in advance. > > cheers > alessandra > > [1] http://tinyurl.com/65r2k2g > [2] http://www.gridpp.ac.uk/pmb/minutes/110531.txt > > > On 06/06/2011 22:51, Steve Lloyd wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> It looks like Apel hasn't updated yet for June. It seems to be somewhat sluggish. It's fine for previous months so it will probably be OK eventually. Anyway we're probably going to stop using it and use the Production HS06 anyway. >> Cheers >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> + Steve Lloyd Queen Mary, University of London + >> + E-mail: >> [log in to unmask] >> School of Physics + >> + Phone: +44-(0)20-7882-5057 Mile End Road + >> + Fax: +44-(0)20-8981-9465 London E1 4NS, UK + >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >> >> >> On 6 Jun 2011, at 15:07, Peter Grandi wrote: >> >> >>> In the usual metrics prototype page: >>> >>> >>> http://pprc.qmul.ac.uk/~lloyd/gridpp/metrics.html >>> >>> >>> Durham does not get points for production because the HS6 factor >>> for that is missing. Looking at the HS factor page: >>> >>> >>> http://pprc.qmul.ac.uk/~lloyd/gridpp/hs06.html >>> >>> >>> the BDII reported value is right, what is missing is the APEL >>> reported value for HS06. But the APEL reported CPU time is >>> there, so it is perplexing. >>> >>> Unless the APEL value that matters is that for analysis jobs >>> even for production CPU scaling, which is missing because we >>> don't do those (yet). >>> >>> Where can I look or what can I do? >>> >