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  February 2012

TB-SUPPORT February 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Ticket summary - 20th Feb 12

From:

Alessandra Forti <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:59:56 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (130 lines)

To work ops group must appear only in the new pool otherwise it picks 
the first pool available in the BDII which last night was still the 
atlas_pool.  For some reason I always thought that groups could write in 
any pool which is the reason we never used more than one pool.

I've inserted a slide about this in my talk for today.

cheers
alessandra

On 21/02/2012 14:21, Alessandra Forti wrote:
> Except we don't have a "spare" file system. We need to install the fs 
> node on purpose for this using an old machine or I need to use the 
> head node which I'm reluctant to do.
>
> cheers
> alessandra
>
> On 21/02/2012 14:18, John Bland wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Take any spare FS (I mean anything with more than a few gig on it, 
>> certainly not 60TB colossi) on a pool node or head node. Add it to a 
>> new pool which is marked only for ops/sgmops. This is all you should 
>> need to do, unless this bug is far worse than I think it is.
>>
>> There are certainly more elegant solutions but this should fix the 
>> problem in 5mins.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On 21/02/2012 13:14, Alessandra Forti wrote:
>>> The only people who can feign surprise are those who don't listen or 
>>> who
>>> forget.
>>>
>>> We never had more than one pool because as Kashif points out the 
>>> writing is
>>> random anyway. I'm not even sure if the solution proposed is real or 
>>> if it
>>> works because Glasgow has 4 times smaller fs and a larger common area.
>>> Infact adding a new pool and adding a file system adds the whole 
>>> 60TB to the
>>> new pool which means removing it from the atlas pool. We can 
>>> reinstall one
>>> of the old DELL (~480GB) as a DPM fs but I'm not going to sacrifice 
>>> more
>>> than that to this.
>>>
>>> POOL atlas_pool DEFSIZE 20.00T GC_START_THRESH 0 GC_STOP_THRESH 0
>>> DEF_LIFETIME 7.0d DEFPINTIME 2.0h MAX_LIFETIME 1.0m MAXPINTIME 12.0h
>>> FSS_POLICY maxfreespace GC_POLICY lru RS_POLICY fifo GIDS 0 S_TYPE P
>>> MIG_POLICY none RET_POLICY R
>>> CAPACITY 604.95T FREE 0 ( 0.0%)
>>> [.....]
>>> se12.tier2.hep.manchester.ac.uk /raid CAPACITY 54.49T FREE 16.38T ( 
>>> 30.1%)
>>> [.....]
>>> POOL ops_pool DEFSIZE 50.00G GC_START_THRESH 0 GC_STOP_THRESH 0 
>>> DEF_LIFETIME
>>> 7.0d DEFPINTIME 2.0h MAX_LIFETIME 1.0m MAXPINTIME 12.0h FSS_POLICY
>>> maxfreespace GC_POLICY lru RS_POLICY fifo GIDS 104 S_TYPE - 
>>> MIG_POLICY none
>>> RET_POLICY R
>>> CAPACITY 54.49T FREE 16.38T ( 30.1%)
>>> se12.tier2.hep.manchester.ac.uk /raid/ops CAPACITY 54.49T FREE 
>>> 16.38T ( 30.1%)
>>>
>>> BTW sites were still accused of "cheating" at the ops TEG for using
>>> reservations to make ops test pass when clusters are full.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> alessandra
>>>
>>> On 21/02/2012 12:08, Daniela Bauer wrote:
>>>> But the ops tests have been around for *ages* and the consequences
>>>> known, so I don't think it'll suit us well to feign surprise right
>>>> now. Just give ops 500 GB and be done with it.
>>>>
>>>> Daniela
>>>>
>>>> On 21 February 2012 12:05, Sam Skipsey<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 21 February 2012 11:45, Stephen Burke<[log in to unmask]> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB-
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Gordon said:
>>>>>>> If this has been a long-standing DPM issue then I will ask to 
>>>>>>> have this
>>>>>>> test (SRMput ?) removed from the SRMV2 set of tests so that it 
>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>> included in availability.
>>>>>> Even if there really was no free space for ops, does that make 
>>>>>> the SE
>>>>>> unavailable? Any VO may fill up its space, that doesn't mean the 
>>>>>> site is
>>>>>> broken. Probably the intention is that the test is just supposed 
>>>>>> to verify
>>>>>> the functionality and no-one has considered the possibility of it 
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> full. (CE tests are similar if the queues are full - there I 
>>>>>> think most
>>>>>> sites do have an explicit reservation just to let the ops tests 
>>>>>> run.)
>>>>>>
>>>>> This is a valid point, and what I was getting at with my nagios test
>>>>> comment: the test doesn't test if the storage is available, it 
>>>>> tests if ops
>>>>> can write to the storage. (Now, obviously, there's a point at 
>>>>> which you have
>>>>> to consider that a test has to test *something*...). ATLAS, 
>>>>> meanwhile, can
>>>>> happily write to the storage; and even ops tests are happy talking 
>>>>> to the
>>>>> storage, and it is responding in a reasonable and sane way.
>>>>>
>>>>> I note that Manchester is an almost entirely ATLAS site. It seems 
>>>>> reasonable
>>>>> that their availability be determined by their being available for 
>>>>> the
>>>>> entities that they are supposed to be supporting in the main, surely?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sam
>>>>>
>>>>>> Stephen
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

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