Hi Kostas
My own view on this is that we should not lower security in order to
bend to meet this request. I have tried to get clarification on the
status of the experiment developments but it seems always get mixed
responses. The MB is responsible for making strategic decisions for the
whole of WLCG and they ask all sites now to move - they have written
input from all the experiments indicating readiness (whatever that means
to them!). One of the possible reasons to move is to break the deadlock
we always seem to get into whereby insufficient priority is given to the
migration until resources shift. A sensible way to proceed if possible
is to put half your resources under SL5 and then migrate the others once
comfortable. However given that this is an MB request it would be quite
reasonable to move all resources even if this meant that they were not
usable by a given experiment for a short period - since the experiment
has indicated that they can run on SL5. If we simply delay then we'll
probably just hit these problems again a few months later (when data
taking has started).
The MB request does not include asking you to lower your site security
and if it did would (probably!) not have been made. If you move and the
experiment asks you to lower security in order to work that is your
decision and you'll be supported in saying no. Fortunately the hardware
accounting period has finished for 2009 so running less work for a short
period should not be a concern for you... but one the MB might need to
see to believe! I agree this is not a good transition approach but this
is what we are being asked to do now. SL5 has been available for a long
time now with little progress on moving resources/the experiments.
Cheers,
Jeremy
-----Original Message-----
From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kostas Georgiou
Sent: 13 August 2009 10:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Request for sites to move WNs to SL5
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 02:39:18PM +0100, Coles, Jeremy (STFC,RAL,ESC)
wrote:
> There are already SL5 instances at RAL, Glasgow and Oxford. Our
original
> plan was to wait for full confirmation from these sites of any
remaining
> problems before asking further sites to migrate, but we now have
> assurances from the MB (and its constituent members) that the
> experiments are ready.
Does this means that the experiments fixed the problems with their code
i.e. ancient versions of root requiring the heap to be executable or are
they asking to lower the security of the system?
Kostas
--
Scanned by iCritical.
|