JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for TB-SUPPORT Archives


TB-SUPPORT Archives

TB-SUPPORT Archives


TB-SUPPORT@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TB-SUPPORT Home

TB-SUPPORT Home

TB-SUPPORT  June 2011

TB-SUPPORT June 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: HS06 factor is missing for Durham ATLAS production

From:

Alessandra Forti <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 7 Jun 2011 16:06:47 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (141 lines)

Hi Steve,

my point is that this is not a transparent method we asked over a year 
ago in RHUL. You are mixing and matching columns and trying to get out a 
single number that you can't get out. It might fix QMUL mismatch of cpu 
hours but it screws up other sites.  HSAtlas is proportional to HSApel 
which depends heavily on where production jobs run. If you look at June 
Manchester figures HSApel is up to 8.1 so it is getting closer to the 
8.8 value we publish while HS-Prod has dropped to a miserable 3.5.  So 
at the moment we a falling down to 3.5/8.1=43% (i.e. 57% less). If I 
complete the move the difference might become even more dramatic.

 > As it only affects the Analysis and Production categories that's 4% 
on the overall points score.

The weights in the Atlas metrics table [1] give a 31.8% 
(35+35/220=31.8%) and if the cpu availability table gets excluded the 
weight will become higher. So I'm not sure where you get that 4%.

But if it is really 4%, which means the CPU output counts almost 0, 
which is questionable then I see no point in changing in the middle of 
the accounting period to a method that is not well tested , not very 
well understood, nor widely recognised.

cheers
alessandra

[1] http://pprc.qmul.ac.uk/~lloyd/gridpp/metrics.html

On 07/06/2011 15:13, Steve Lloyd wrote:
> Hi Alessandra,
>    Sorry I don't understand your point at all. I'm proposing to switch from HS06 ATLAS to HS06 Prod (col 16 to 17) on http://pprc.qmul.ac.uk/~lloyd/gridpp/hs06.html. It's actually 14% for May now as I updated the Apel numbers. As it only affects the Analysis and Production categories that's 4% on the overall points score.
>     Cheers Steve
> PS Also HS06 Prod is doesn't require an understanding of hyperthreading
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +  Steve Lloyd                            Queen Mary, University of London +
> +  E-mail: [log in to unmask]           School of Physics                +
> +  Phone:  +44-(0)20-7882-5057            Mile End Road                    +
> +  Fax:    +44-(0)20-8981-9465            London E1 4NS, UK                +
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>
> On 7 Jun 2011, at 09:55, Alessandra Forti wrote:
>
>> No, Steve,
>>
>> it doesn't drop 10%. It drops 28% (25% if we want to use APEL HS). We have already discussed the fact that Atlas HS depends on the ration of cpu hours between Apel and Atlas and if the measures in Apel are not complete that affect HS-Atlas.
>>
>> HSAtlas= (CPUApel/CPUAtlas)*HS06.
>>
>> Which transforms your
>>
>> AnalysisHours*HSAtlas and ProdHours*HSAtlas in the orginal AnalysisHoursFrac*HS06 and ProdHoursFrac*HS06
>>
>> so it is 28% you are removing especially because I'm moving all production on the fastest CPUs.
>>
>> Atlas Kit and Hepspec are in line at 99% according to the papers widely accepted measures.
>>
>> cheers
>> alessandra
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07/06/2011 09:47, Steve Lloyd wrote:
>>> Hi Alessandra,
>>>    I'm proposing to use the ATLAS production cpu/event as the benchmark. In May switching from Apel to this would only make 10% change to Manchester (6.8 ->   6.2). This also solves the problem at Cambridge where there is no reliable Apel number. Although it was discussed to drop the CPU availability column there was no conclusion but investigations into Lancaster are still continuing. It may be revisited. The proposal was to cap at 20% but this was not agreed. Glasgow were above 20% but now QMUL has it's new disk up no-one is. We don't know the total money that will be spent so you can't translate this into £s.
>>>     Cheers Steve
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> +  Steve Lloyd                            Queen Mary, University of London +
>>> +  E-mail: [log in to unmask]           School of Physics                +
>>> +  Phone:  +44-(0)20-7882-5057            Mile End Road                    +
>>> +  Fax:    +44-(0)20-8981-9465            London E1 4NS, UK                +
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 Jun 2011, at 09:01, Alessandra Forti wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Steve,
>>>>
>>>> are we going to discuss this later at the ops meeting?  Are you using the Atlas Validation Kit [1] to take your measures? Most of my objections depend on the fact that I don't trust the software but if it was something recognised by WLCG and Hepix I might quiet down even if Manchester CPU hours get cut down by 28% with this change.
>>>>
>>>> There are other two points in the PMB minutes [2] that would be interesting to discuss.
>>>>
>>>> 1) How likely it is that the cpu availability column will be dropped and when will we know it?
>>>> 2) It seems a cap will be applied so that no site can get more than £200k but the final number hasn't been decided yet. I'm not against
>>>>      this but it'd be better to know it in advance.
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>> alessandra
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://tinyurl.com/65r2k2g
>>>> [2] http://www.gridpp.ac.uk/pmb/minutes/110531.txt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 06/06/2011 22:51, Steve Lloyd wrote:
>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>    It looks like Apel hasn't updated yet for June. It seems to be somewhat sluggish. It's fine for previous months so it will probably be OK eventually. Anyway we're probably going to stop using it and use the Production HS06 anyway.
>>>>>      Cheers
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> +  Steve Lloyd                            Queen Mary, University of London +
>>>>> +  E-mail:
>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>             School of Physics                +
>>>>> +  Phone:  +44-(0)20-7882-5057            Mile End Road                    +
>>>>> +  Fax:    +44-(0)20-8981-9465            London E1 4NS, UK                +
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6 Jun 2011, at 15:07, Peter Grandi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In the usual metrics prototype page:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://pprc.qmul.ac.uk/~lloyd/gridpp/metrics.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Durham does not get points for production because the HS6 factor
>>>>>> for that is missing. Looking at the HS factor page:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://pprc.qmul.ac.uk/~lloyd/gridpp/hs06.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the BDII reported value is right, what is missing is the APEL
>>>>>> reported value for HS06. But the APEL reported CPU time is
>>>>>> there, so it is perplexing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless the APEL value that matters is that for analysis jobs
>>>>>> even for production CPU scaling, which is missing because we
>>>>>> don't do those (yet).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where can I look or what can I do?
>>>>>>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager