JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for TB-SUPPORT Archives


TB-SUPPORT Archives

TB-SUPPORT Archives


TB-SUPPORT@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TB-SUPPORT Home

TB-SUPPORT Home

TB-SUPPORT  April 2011

TB-SUPPORT April 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: HEPSPEC06 numbers for GridPP metrics

From:

Alastair Dewhurst <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 4 Apr 2011 22:40:47 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (61 lines)

Hi

I know I am coming quite late to the discussion and I also wasn't at  
GridPP so apologies if this has already been suggested and discounted  
but if you want a metric of how much work has been done surely we  
should just get this direct from panda.

For any month period it shouldn't be too difficult to get the number  
of production and user jobs each site has run.  Given that ATLAS  
request Tier 2 should run 50% user and 50% production jobs it would  
then be possible to weight them accordingly (and if ATLAS changed  
their request the weighting could be redone).  It would then be  
possible to see which sites were doing the work that got sent to the  
UK.  Most of the other suggestion seem to rely on some assumption  
that sites will be mostly full or the tier 1 will be mostly up or  
there will be a constant stream of jobs and thats not going to be the  
case.

Alastair



On 4 Apr 2011, at 18:20, Ewan MacMahon wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB-
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Burke
>>
>> Alessandra Forti [mailto:[log in to unmask]] said:
>>> and we are trying to find a metric that expresses how best a site is
>>> performing.
>>
>> So what is the argument that says that one site is performing  
>> better than
>> another if it gets some jobs that either site could have run? If  
>> the other
>> site is full, down or blacklisted that should count against it, but
>> otherwise it's just chance.
>>
> Given the increase in experimental computing requirements and the
> decrease in budgets, I think the underlying assumption is that
> under normal circumstances (i.e. not when the Tier 1 is dead, for
> example) there will be work enough to go round, and it's just a
> question of what we can get through.
>
>> (Well, in practice it probably correlates with storage but presumably
>> that's another metric.)
>>
> For ATLAS I think that's actually rather the point - if a site
> has, for example, a very fast site network link and can get fresh
> interesting data sets into its storage and ready to analyse faster
> than other sites can, then that's a genuine improvement in throughput
> and they should get the credit for it.
>
> If we can stop measuring by artificial metrics and actually measure
> real results delivered then it automatically gives credit for
> everything a site can do to help and eliminates perverse incentives
> for things like turning turbo mode off. Or delivering lots of very
> slow disk to get the 'terabyte days' metric up. Or whatever.
>
> Ewan

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager