Hi Elena,
As Chris mentions it records how a user job submitted via the WMS fairs across the UK sites. I think the figure you quote is based on http://pprc.qmul.ac.uk/~lloyd/gridpp/uktest.html. So Sheffield may be 82% not 87% which is Lancaster (or I may have the wrong table!). We agreed a while ago that the number was not a useful metric upon which to measure site performance (so it was greyed out in the T2 quarterly reports) because if your site is busy with other work the figure will drop as jobs that do get queued might not complete successfully in a given time. However it is still useful for us to have a view on how such general user jobs distribute across sites and their success or failure so the collection of the data continues. This data is not used in the accounting algorithm!
Jeremy
On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:04, Christopher J. Walker wrote:
> On 21/01/13 17:24, Elena Korolkova wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> Sheffield has availability above 95% in nagios tests and atlas analysis for every month during this 2012 (and in 2010 and 2011 as well).
>> In quarter reports there is a parameter "Average SLL untargeted ATLAS test performance (UK test)" which is 87% for Sheffield for the last Quarter.
>> I'm wondering what does this parameter reflect?
>>
>
> It tests how well WMS jobs run at the site. To do this, it submits jobs
> to the WMS targeting the UK, but not any particular site. Jobs that the
> WMS brokers to a site will then end up in this statistic.
>
> Whilst ATLAS now have other mechanisms, this should reflect how other
> VOs that rely on the WMS see your site if jobs get brokered there.
>
> To get a VO perception, one needs to convolute that with number of jobs
> that actually get brokered to a site, but none the less poor performance
> here is probably one of the reasons t2k.org are suffering|at the moment.
>
>> AFAIR there was already discussion on this topic but "Average SLL
>> untargeted ATLAS test performance (UK test)" is still in Quarter
>> reports.
>
> Wearing my "other VOs" hat, I think that whilst atlas might not be the
> right VO, it's probably as good as any other - and until we recommend
> another method to small VOs, we should keep this metric.
>
> Wearing my QMUL hat, I can only apologise - we need to get better - the
> rather rushed EMI transition probably caused some of the problems, and
> took our eye off the others.
>
> Chris
|