The only explanation Chris has given about how representative they are
is that these jobs use the WMS. My reply is: so do ops, atlas, lhcb and
CMS nagios tests.
cheers
alessandra
On 22/01/2013 10:58, Peter Gronbech wrote:
> Hi Alessandra et al,
> These tests have been a little unreliable in the past but I think Chris's explanation of how they represent jobs from smaller VOs points out that they can provide useful data.
> I am curious as to why some sites attract more of these jobs than others.
>
> RALPP, Manchester, Oxford account for 85% of the jobs.
>
> Is this because we have more ce's? (Oxford has 3), Ralpp has 3, Manchester has 3 but only 2 in production.
>
> I then wondered why although Oxford and RALPP are doing well (97%) success, why do we fail some times.
> All the errors from our sites are down to a failed lcg-cp which Kashif believes is down to a time out from the top level bdii at RAL. Chris W has already opened a ticket about this.
>
> However the errors at Manchester seem to be down to a CVMFS issue on wn2206180 as they error message is
> Trying to source:
> /cvmfs/atlas.cern.ch/repo/sw/software/x86_64-slc5-gcc43-opt/17.6.0/cmtsite/asetup.sh AtlasOffline 17.6.0
> Failed to find asetup.sh
>
> Alessandra, can you check if this is the case, if so your score would probably go to 100%. The question is why don't you see the lcg-cp error. Are you using your own top bdii?
>
> Thanks Pete
>
--
Facts aren't facts if they come from the wrong people. (Paul Krugman)
|