On 16/03/11 12:22, Daniela Bauer wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> after last weeks dteam meeting, I've taken an unscientific survey for
> the London sites and here's the answers (Chris of QMUL fame is on
> holiday):
QMUL:
It has, I think, been agreed that we will install it (though with some
reluctance). We have lots of other priorities too and I guess it's a
question of when we slot it in. Like Imperial, we don't currently have
time to be a crash test dummy. We use the tarball WN install (converted
into an rpm). We have root access, so a glexec rpm would be installable
(if it would work).
If Argus is the way forward, and it looks like it is, we'd be inclined
to use this.
If EMI are changing the paths of everything, I guess we'd prefer to
start with the new paths.
> - Imperial:
> Tarball WNs (for convenience, up-and-downgrading is just so much
> easier), but have root access to WNs. We will install glexec but not
> as a crash test dummy (I hate messing with a production system).
> Current setup is different accounts on different CEs submitting to the
> same cluster (maximum independence of all CEs) and shared home dirs,
> which is not compatible with Argus. This setup has served us well in
> the past, and I'd be reluctant to give it up.
>
> - UCL: Tarball at central facilities, glexec should be possible ("As
> far as Legion is concerned we're a little concerned about the
> security model but it shouldn't be impossible to fix.")
> glexec at HEP no problem.
>
> - RHUL: Will install glexec.
>
> - Brunel: glexec OK, have a stab at installing it around April.
>
> The enthusiasm for Argus seems to be still limited though.
QMUL's main issue is which tasks to do in what order given a large
number of tasks and not enough time to do them all.
Chris
|