I don't know which system is better, the system we have or the
system proposed, but I do have a general comment.
I spent quite some time (!) getting our local system to run with
LCFGng, and started to create some tools to help. We then moved to the
current system, which rendered most of my previous work redundant.
We moved from LCFGng less than a year ago.
If every year we are going to have a new improved installation
architecture a lot of people are going to spend a lot of time sorting
things out. It is a waste of time, money and effort - none of which we
have in abundance. This needs to be fed back to the developers and the
people who run the development process.
In the interests of equity I feel I have to add that a change now
is better than close to the start of (or even during) data taking. If an
unpopular and time-consuming change is to be forced through the sysadmins
I think the least that we can expect as a quid pro quo is some guarantee
of lifetime. So nothing else between now and the start of LHC running and
say for two years after. That means the last change until 2010.
Paul
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Paul Kyberd Brunel University +
+ E-mail: [log in to unmask] Department of Electronic and +
+ Phone: +44-(0)1895-266801 Computer Engineering +
+ Fax: Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|