Hi,
Although, actually, if the frontier-squids didn’t come from an EGI repository then that may also be why they aren’t testing for it (but I think it’s useful to look at as well).
Cheers
David
On 24/03/2016, 11:24, "Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes on behalf of David Crooks" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hi Chris,
>
>Thanks, that’s a good point (and we just quickly double checked ours again :-). I should have said that my notes are (largely, though not completely) from the results on https://midmon.egi.eu/nagios/cgi-bin/status.cgi?hostgroup=NGI_UK&style=detail, which in is turn linked to from the EGI SL5 retirement wiki here: https://wiki.egi.eu/wiki/SL5_retirement . As they note on that page, not all services are tested for in their probes, which was one reason I wanted to check with people through TB-SUPPORT as well.
>
>Best wishes
>David
>
>
>
>On 24/03/2016, 11:14, "Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes on behalf of Chris Brew" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>Hi David,
>>
>>What about frontier-squids? They so rarely go wrong I tend to forget about them. I just this morning added two new Centos7 frontier squids into our production cvmfs configuration – next week I’ll get the experiments to replace the SL5 ones with them in their config and decommission the SL5 ones.
>>
>>Yours,
>>Chris.
>>
>>On 24/03/2016, 10:21, "Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes on behalf of David Crooks" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> on behalf of [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>>Dear all,
>>
>>After Ops, I wanted to send round an email to help build a report on where we are with SL5. I’ve made a note of where I think we are below, with comments of status from emails and in Ops. If you could read this over and make any comments or amendments I’d appreciate it, particularly if you have a service that I’ve missed (and with apologies if I miss a comment that you’ve made :-) If you could get back to me by Tuesday morning I’d appreciate it as I plan to send the report in by the end of Tuesday.
>>
>>DPM:
>>
>>Several sites: we’d like to clarify what timescale would be appropriate if we wanted to decommission SL5 pool/head nodes over the coming months rather than migrate.
>>
>>Non-DPM services:
>>
>>BRUNEL
>>
>>- BDII – Raul reports: validation of site BDII on Centos 7 done.
>>
>>RHUL
>>
>>- CREAM
>>- BDII: Govind looking at CentOS 7 for the BDII
>>
>>BRISTOL
>>
>>- CREAM: Lukasz asked about an SL7 middleware readiness page.
>>
>>GLASGOW
>>
>>- WMS/LB – we’re going to decommission these shortly
>>
>>LANCASTER
>>
>>- BDII – Our BDII was stealth SL5 - [Matt] hope[s] to change that quickly after Easter.
>>
>>T1:
>>
>>Castor SRMs: SL6 version exists but hasn’t been moved to yet.
>>
>>Best wishes
>>David
|