John,
The central UI service at RAL was an evolution from a classical computing service with many users. It's inception pre-dated myproxy. It wasn't designed - people just did stuff as they grew to use the grid.
Regards
Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Kewley
> Sent: 30 August 2013 09:39
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Instant UI
>
> With a Central UI service did you dissuade users from uploading their full
> certificates (and use myproxy instead), or was this not mentioned to them?
>
> JK
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB-
> > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Martin Bly
> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:45 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Instant UI
> >
> > The problem with the central UI service at the Tier1 was not the UI
> > systems in particular, since we had (and still have) them anyway - it
> > was (would be) managing and keeping track of all the remote users.
> > Particularly when they go dormant / disappear without telling you.
> >
> > Martin
> > --
> > Tier1 Fabric Team Leader
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ewan MacMahon<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: ý29/ý08/ý2013 15:39
> > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:TB-
> [log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: Instant UI
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stephen Jones [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: 29 August 2013 15:26
> > >
> > > On 08/29/2013 03:05 PM, Ewan MacMahon wrote:
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB-
> > > >> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Jones
> > > >>
> > > >> With the working title "Instant UI", the aim of the project is to
> > > produce
> > > >> a small suite of documentation and software comments that will
> > > >> enable a new user to set up a UI and join the grid with the
> > > >> minimum of
> > hassle.
> > > > Much as I dislike being negative[1]; is this actually a good idea?
> > > > If the question is how to get on the grid with minimal hassle,
> > > > then the answer is surely not 'install a UI' - the answer is 'find
> > > > someone with a UI and get them to give you a login'.
> > >
> > > While that is undoubtedly easy, unfortunately I have at least one
> > > new user who hasn't got a UI in his entire institute. I guess he
> > > could ssh to one, which (say) we maintain for him. His line of
> > > business is "drug discovery" in the education sector, i.e. drug site
> > > binding algorithms etc. His students could benefit if they could
> > > demonstrate knowledge and use of grid computing etc. to find novel
> > > molecules. It could be an important area. Neasan (before he left)
> > > requested new users and uses, and we've got one. But now he's gone
> > > and I'm stuck - I have to offer
> > something.
> > >
> > Sure, it sounds completely worth supporting, but offer him a UI; it
> > should be considerably less time and effort for you to even create a
> > brand new one on a VM than it would be to document and support him
> through creating his own.
> > Call it a VO box, and you're done.
> >
> > > > While the UI may be one of the simpler grid service nodes, they're
> > > > not trivial, they do require active maintenance (preferably by
> > > > someone who receives EGI broadcasts), and they have a habit of
> > > > failing in spectacularly odd manners if they don't get it.
> > >
> > > Thanks; that's a new requirement for Instant UI (should it come to
> > > fruition) - i.e. it needs maintenance procedures etc. It grows and
> > > grows!
> > >
> > Like the plague.
> >
> > > > if we're serious about supporting 'other' VOs rather than just
> > > > being a backend for the WLCG, then we don't need to put the effort
> > > > into documentation, we should put it into running a central UI again.
> > >
> > > That's certainly a route to consider. It's not a case of "either/or"
> > > - we could have both or (as now) continue with neither. Let's have a
> > > think - who would fund and implement the "central UI"? It's a good
> > > idea, but that's the problem.
> > >
> > Well, since we're talking about requirements for GridPP5, I would
> > suggest in outline a restoration of the Tier 1 UI service, funded out
> > of the same 'other VOs' allocation of the money that funds stuff like the
> WMSes and the LFC etc.
> > And if there isn't any money for supporting 'other VOs', then we don't
> > support them and the need for a UI disappears.
> >
> > Ewan
> > --
> > Scanned by iCritical.
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
--
Scanned by iCritical.
|