Dear All
A number of things have and are happening as a result of the biomed
usage issue discussed a lot on this list last week. You may wish to read
the content of GGUS ticket 28530 for the general summary from the UK
side. With regards to the action taken by biomed (the nature of the work
was not known to the VO managers) here is a reply from Johan. It is up
to sites to individually decide how they wish to respond (i.e. banning
the user or if they feel especially strongly the VO), but if there is
further considerable reaction I will of course make that known to EGEE.
Regards,
Jeremy
Message from Johan Montagnat 6th November 11:37:
Hi Jeremy,
Our emails probably crossed each other: Heinz has announced that he was
stopping this activity under the biomed VO. Please inform the UK sites.
Given the misunderstanding there has been about this (the project
management was informed and agreed about this, the biomed VO had even
been mentionned), it seems to me that excluding the user is over
reactive. However we have the guarantee from Heinz that he will not use
the biomed
VO for that activity again and he already stopped submitting these jobs
last week. Of course a new such event would be considered as a AUP
violation and sanctionned.
Regards,
Johan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Stokes-Rees
> Sent: 03 November 2007 10:05
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Heinz' Challenge
>
>
>
> Graeme Stewart wrote:
> >>> 1. Job visibility: this suggests a scenario where users are not
> allowed
> >>> to run their own executables, but instead are only allowed to
manage
> >>> parameters/configuration, and input/output data. Executable
software
> is
> >>> all deployed by sites or through the VO-specific software manager.
> >>
> >> I'm afraid that this model won't work for VOs like pheno, where
each
> >> one of our 20 odd users runs their own software. I would have to
make
> >> them all SW managers. Alternatively, we would need to give up on
the
> >> idea of a common theory VO, and splinter into project-specific VOs
> >> (most of which would have 1 or 2 members).
> >
> > Let me echo David's point. We're now working with several research
> > groups at Glasgow for whom the standard EGEE software deployment
model
> > dose not work at all.
> >
> > For the moment we support shell access to our own cluster to get
around
> > this issue (including for the Durham pheno people) - but clearly
this
> > does not scale at all.
>
> As I see it, the "bigger" issue for a general purpose computational
grid
> is that I can imagine many sites which would be happy to allow
VOs/users
> to run jobs on their system provided there was tight control over the
> executables, but not allowing "just anyone" to run "just anything" on
> their systems. *Some* model which allowed sites this kind of control
> would surely be valuable, with the flexibility that for "trusted" VOs
> and users it would be possible to run arbitrary user-installed
software.
>
> Ian
>
> --
> Ian Stokes-Rees [log in to unmask]
> Particle Physics, Oxford http://grid.physics.ox.ac.uk/~stokes
|