 |
 |
Hi Steve, About CREAM/HTCondor, you should take into consideration that Andrew's tests were done a while ago (he was a real precursor!) but that since then the situation evolves. For example, at GRIF we have 2 production CEs using CREAM + HTCondor and we have no specific problem, BDII support and APEL accounting included. That said, we had local constraints and decided to keep the CREAM CE but I don't want to defend that this is the best option! As far as we are concerned, if we move to something else, it will certainly be HTCondor CE for the reason given (manage only one product). Cheers, Michel Le 23/06/2016 à 13:45, sjones a écrit : > On 2016-06-22 15:31, Michel Jouvin wrote: > >> I have one reason in mind... probably the only one. If you want to >> move your batch system to HTCondor but that some of your users rely >> (strongly) on the CREAM CE interface/client and don't have the >> resources to migrate to the new interface. If you don't have this >> constraint, I share Helge's view that the most attractive choice is >> probably HTCondor CE as this is the same product as HTCondor (with the >> same management and configuration commands) with a specific (and >> simpler) configuration. > > Hi Michel. > > Re: HTCondor CE. I have no experience of HTCondor CE (so I can't say > much) but it sounds like things are progressing well on that. > > Re: CREAM/HTCondor: I asked Andrew Lahiff here (we're at a conference > at RAL) who tried CREAM with HTCondor. He told me switched to ARC with > HTCondor instead, due to integration gaps. (As you know, there are > integration gaps with ARC/HTCondor as well, but we have documented > solutions.) > > Cheers, > > > Steve >