On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:13:12 +0100
"Jensen, J (Jens)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Are now uploaded to the agenda:
>
> http://agenda.cern.ch/fullAgenda.php?ida=a063421
>
> Thanks,
> --jens
I disagree with this section of the minutes, maybe in emphasis rather
than content. I should like to be more explisit, and not muddy the
waters with available space.
I would rather the minutes said that the new Glue scheamer allows a more
repreisentative description of resorces and resorces consumed allowing
higher level services to accurately calculate the availablity of
resorces.
> Indeed, an SA is now more a unit of storage - we no longer have to
> publish specific SAs for each VO. The new mapping does not solve
> the problem with available space for an SA which has more than one
> VO associated to it, but it may help visualise why it's a problem
> when people see available space published for the SA, not for the
> VO.
I belive the Glue scheamer changes does solve the issue of "available
space" as it expresses clearly how much data is stored and by which vo
in which storage area.
Since the storage area descibes the amount of space available the
available space can be calculated. This also clearly states the type of
available space, ie is this storage area shared by many vo's or is this
storage area dedicated to a single vo, and so through assosiation it
clearly states the so called "Quality of Available Space" or how shared
the avaialable space is which reporting in any other way could lead to a
very complex compromise in my opion.
I also wish it to be noted that Derek Ross, myself and I think Greg saw
this as a suitable solution. JPB of DPM also finds this acceptable as
for his system VO's and storage areas always map one to one, making the
changes in realtional information only a matter of reformating the
output.
If this email is not clear please point this out, as relational issues
can be quite complex.
Regards
Owen
PS may I have permision to redistribute your UML to this list so that
everyone can clearly see what we are talking about Jens?
|