JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for UKHEPGRID Archives


UKHEPGRID Archives

UKHEPGRID Archives


UKHEPGRID@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

UKHEPGRID Home

UKHEPGRID Home

UKHEPGRID  June 2012

UKHEPGRID June 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Minutes of the 463rd - 464th GridPP PMB meeting

From:

David Britton <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

David Britton <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:31:13 +0100

Content-Type:

multipart/mixed

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (40 lines) , 120530.txt (1 lines) , 120611.txt (1 lines)

Dear All,


Please find attached the GridPP Project Management Board
Meeting minutes for the 463rd to 464th meetings.

              The latest minutes can be in:

http://www.gridpp.ac.uk/php/pmb/minutes.php?latest

as well as being listed with other minutes at:

http://www.gridpp.ac.uk/php/pmb/minutes.php

Cheers, Dave.


























GridPP PMB Minutes 463 (30.05.2012) ======================================= Present: Dave Britton (Chair), Pete Gronbech, Jeremy Coles, Andrew Sansum, Steve Lloyd, Robin Middleton, Pete Clarke, Tony Doyle, Roger Jones, Dave Kelsey, John Gordon, Dave Colling (Suzanne Scott - Minutes) Apologies: Tony Cass, Neil Geddes 1. Short-term Travel ===================== DB and DK had both circulated spreadsheets. DK had circulated information re the Visit Notices in FY 11-12. DB circulated an initial estimate of PO-Limits and Allocations based algorithmically on the FTE count at each institute. DK's list was within the PO limits which DB had devised. DB would use DK's figures and adjust some of the limits. The allocation numbers would only go to Fred Wickens and Stephen. We would use the figures internally and PG would monitor the spend quarterly. For other Institutes which didn't have GridPP staff, they should claim for one-off trips via RAL rather than having a PO limit assigned to them. We would monitor as we go and spot anomalies as they arose. At this stage all we needed was a sensible set of PO limits. DB hoped that the Visit Notices could be submitted via the GridPP website. 2. Data Preservation and Access ================================ The PMB had exchanged an email conversation. DB had drafted a response document to STFC, for use in Institutes as required. The document from the CAP meeting, chaired by PC, had been sent to STFC. The STFC Data Policy had been on the web for 9 months. It was noted that we needed a common set of arguments to highlight issues relevant to HEP. DB advised that his document was not GridPP-specific, as we were only custodians of other people's data. The document could be amended as appropriate. PC noted that we hadn't known that the STFC Data Policy had been publicly available when the CAP guidelines were sent. JG thought that the umbrella STFC policy was more about requiring projects to have a data policy. DC considered that the STFC Data Policy was a strong document, and it re-affirmed the CMS approach. DC thought that we should take the spirit of the Policy and interpret it appropriately - it had arisen from the RCUK Policy. PC disagreed, noting that there was a danger that the current statements would be interpreted literally so we needed to provide a robust response showing the impact on the HEP community. It was impossible to publish raw data along with a first publication. TD advised that the Policy had general principles of guidance. DC agreed, noting that there was scope for applying it appropriately in the field. RJ disagreed, noting that if the Policy was taken literally and legalistically, it would be impossible for us to adhere to it. TD considered that the Policy provided a starting point for dialogue with the experiments - a reference point in trying to formulate policy for others. PC noted that if common sense were applied to what was written, then that would be fine. However, if this Policy fed-down into Grant Guidelines then there would be problems - grants may not be awarded unless it was shown that we adhered to the Policy. DC disagreed, noting that the Policy had general principles and recommendations for good practice. JG agreed with this interpretation. DC noted we should advise people to write their own policy locally and be involved in guiding that. DB considered that without a better interpretation at STFC, the Policy could be interpreted at Institutes in different ways, therefore we did need to put forward our point of view. TD noted that each experiment had a policy in this area. Provided we had experiment statements, then we could refer to those. PC was concerned that we do the preparation in order to cover all bases - if we did have to tick boxes on application forms then we had to be prepared. DB noted that at the time of applying for new grants we would make it clear that we adhere to international collaboration guidelines, which are devised centrally by the experiments. DB noted that he and SL needed to insert a paragraph at the beginning of the GridPP document, noting that this was an experiment issue and it needed to be done by way of international agreement, and we would adhere to that. The document he had devised would then be ready for use as required. 3. VOMS Shambles - one ======================= JC had circulated an email report. See description under SI-6 below. GriddPP was being blamed for the affair because it was perceived to be a GridPP VOMS. It was believed that we could have done more to assist with this transition. DB noted that the instructions received had certainly not been clear, even apart from the link being incorrect. He himself had not managed to renew successfully. DB wanted to thank JC for all of his action last week to mitigate the fiasco and to help people through the process. JC advised that this would likely come round again at the same time next year. DB noted that there was still a lot of clearing up to do and that the whole process had been a shambles. 4. VOMS Shambes - two ====================== DB reported on NGS scenario-planning: what would they do if JISC did not fund them? Staff had already been notified of potential redundancy. Did GridPP wish to fund VOMS at Manchester? DB reported that there was no more funding available until 2015 for any new posts. Was anything else possible at Manchester? JC noted that the work load depended on how many VOs were active and joining. PG considered it should be a low load generally. DB advised that if a permanent post on VOMS were to pass back to GridPP, VOMS would be better run at a larger site where there were people who could provide better cover for it. He was not impressed at all by this recent fiasco. Was there anyone within GridPP who had the specific skillset required? JC noted yes, at Glasgow. JG asked if we needed a back-up VOMS as well? He was checking what other countries did. There was an Italian prescription for doing this. DB considered that this was not the right moment to make a decision on the future of VOMS, however we did need to address the issue. He asked everyone to consider the issues involved and this would be discussed again at the next meeting. ACTION 463.1 ALL: to consider the current VOMS situation, and possibilities for supporting VOMS in the future. To be discussed again. 463.2 JC/JG to brief DB on all of the issues surrounding VOMS so that DB could understand the implications for supporting VOMS in the future. 5. AOCB ======== None. STANDING ITEMS ============== SI-1 Dissemination Report -------------------------- No report from Neasan O'Neill had been received this week. SL reported that NO was working on a CHEP news item. The TuringFest was proceeding ok. DB noted that he had spoken to Neasan about this. He had agreed to give a talk. SL had received an email from the Science Museum regarding their LHC exhibition next Autumn. He was discussing requirements. JC would talk to his colleague in the same office regarding this. SL would forward the email to JC. SI-2 ATLAS weekly review & plans --------------------------------- RJ noted that there was nothing to report, things were quiet at present. SI-3 CMS weekly review & plans ------------------------------- DC had left the meeting. SI-4 LHCb weekly review & plans -------------------------------- PC noted nothing to report. SI-5 User Co-ordination Issues ------------------------------- There was no report. SI-6 Production Manager's report --------------------------------- JC reported as follows: 1) On Thursday 24th VOs hosted on the GridPP VOMS came up against a series of deadlines, one related to the expiry of Acceptable Use Policies and another the default expiry date of user memberships of a VO. The default dates for these deadlines was one year after a major VOMS upgrade undertaken last year. That upgrade introduced database scheme changes and new fields with these default values. The VOMS admin sent out notices to all VO-admins on 10th May indicating a looming issue and with instructions to reduce potential problems. Many VO admins missed the warning and subsequently, due to a VOMS bug, users were only given 24hrs notice of their need to re-sign their VO AUP and even then for many their VO membership still expired. The automatic message that went out to users contained an incorrect link that made taking action confusing. A substantial number of VO users were suspended from their VOs, including in several cases the VO admins. The most urgent re-enablement cases were dealt with promptly by manual intervention after the event, but without doubt a lot of inconvenience has resulted. This is embarrassing for GridPP as many consider that GridPP directly runs the service; though we do not, we do have a responsibility to ensure a good overall service for 'our' user communities and the significance of similar events that have impacted other NGIs was missed. The VOMS bug affecting renewals was fixed in a mid-May VOMS release. 2) The GOCDB experienced an unexpected downtime between Friday 25.05.12 19.15 and Monday 28.05.12 07.45 (all times UTC). The downtime was caused by an issue with the Oracle database used to store the GOCDB data. This outage had various consequences including security email lists being empty. 3) There has been confusion about recent ATLAS disk space requests and whether they related to cvmfs local cache or temporary worker node space. There has also been a warning of increased requirements: “The requirements for MC12 digitisation and reconstruction are more stringent than previous digitisation and reconstruction campaigns or Geant4 simulation. Additional pileup inputs are needed, which can increase the network traffic between T2 and T1 site, increase the usage of the PRODDISK space token and the local working directory. The vmen requirement for these type of jobs is 3.8G”. 4) T2K have been continuing to have proxy delegation problems but those of SNO+ have now been resolved and were caused by command (user) errors. SI-7 Tier-1 Manager's report ----------------------------- AS reported that re Operations, things had been reasonably smooth, there had been a few minor issues with the batch server but this was not affecting availability. They had done the transfer manager upgrade for LHCb, which had gone well. They were doing the CMS one tomorrow, and the ATLAS one on 7th June - these would be 2-hr interventions. AS reported that there were a number of other upgrades to be done in June: - CASTOR 2.1.11-9 update on 13th June (he would check with the experiments at the liaison meeting) - Oracle 11 update on 13th June (the LFC was not such a major issue, but the FTS was more crucial) - the site access router on 19th June (this would possibly be a 2-hr outage, perhaps less, they were replacing the site access router with four individual boxes which should give more resilience) - CASTOR Oracle 11 update on 27th June AS advised that these upgrades all needed to be done, they were driven by the need to get to Oracle 11. Re procurement, AS would be meeting with Procurement tomorrow and discussing purchasing constraints. New numbers for the next year were required. SI-8 LCG Management Board Report --------------------------------- The MB was due to take place next week. REVIEW OF ACTIONS ================= 438.9 AS to contact relevant site managers to ask whether or not they would be interested in having retired Tier-1 hardware - if a site were interested then they should submit a proposal as to what they want and why. 448.4 ALL to send names/suggestions to DB regarding the replacement or otherwise for GP in the User Co-ordinator position (not necessarily based at RAL). 458.2 AS to organise meetings with parties at RAL in relation to Capital spend and Capital availability (and lack of Resource). 458.6 DK to close the loop with AS, DB, and Tony Medland regarding the Tier-1 allocation for 2012-13. 458.9 DK to act to recruit a replacement for Mingchao Ma as soon as possible. 460.1 PG to check with sites and the Tier-1, in relation to the £3million DRI grant, what had been spent on UK companies particularly. 461.3 PG to follow-up the issue of the £19k underspend/£14k overspend with Imperial to ensure this was sorted out with STFC. 462.1 AS to investigate the 20th June as a possiblity via Doodle for all to attend a F2F meeting, to include the RAL people as well. 462.2 DB to compile a GridPP document to respond to EPSRC Policy Guidelines regarding data preservation and access, and circulate to PMB for internal use. Done, action closed. 462.3 PC to contact JC to organise a half-day meeting internally in order to explore what the common ground between DIRAC and GridPP might be. ACTIONS AS OF 30.05.12 ====================== 438.9 AS to contact relevant site managers to ask whether or not they would be interested in having retired Tier-1 hardware - if a site were interested then they should submit a proposal as to what they want and why. 448.4 ALL to send names/suggestions to DB regarding the replacement or otherwise for GP in the User Co-ordinator position (not necessarily based at RAL). 458.2 AS to organise meetings with parties at RAL in relation to Capital spend and Capital availability (and lack of Resource). 458.6 DK to close the loop with AS, DB, and Tony Medland regarding the Tier-1 allocation for 2012-13. 458.9 DK to act to recruit a replacement for Mingchao Ma as soon as possible. 460.1 PG to check with sites and the Tier-1, in relation to the £3million DRI grant, what had been spent on UK companies particularly. 461.3 PG to follow-up the issue of the £19k underspend/£14k overspend with Imperial to ensure this was sorted out with STFC. 462.1 AS to investigate the 20th June as a possiblity via Doodle for all to attend a F2F meeting, to include the RAL people as well. 462.3 PC to contact JC to organise a half-day meeting internally in order to explore what the common ground between DIRAC and GridPP might be. 463.1 ALL: to consider the current VOMS situation, and possibilities for supporting VOMS in the future. To be discussed again. 463.2 JC/JG to brief DB on all of the issues surrounding VOMS so that DB could understand the implications for supporting VOMS in the future. Due to next Monday's holiday, the next PMB would take place on Monday 11 June at 12.55 pm.
GridPP PMB Minutes 464 (11.06.2012) ======================================= Present: Dave Britton (Chair), Pete Gronbech, Jeremy Coles, Andrew Sansum, Robin Middleton, Pete Clarke, John Gordon, Dave Colling, Tony Cass (Suzanne Scott - Minutes) Apologies: Tony Doyle, Roger Jones, Dave Kelsey, Steve Lloyd, Neil Geddes 1. NGS ======= DB reported that the funding situation had been resolved - they had received funding at a reduced level for 12 months from 01/08/2012 to 31/07/2013. NGS would continue to meet the EGI international tasks and fund the CE however there was no funding for training, outreach, or VOMS. DB noted that we needed to act on VOMS. In addition, DB reported that after the 12-month period there were no plans for JISC to continue support for NGS, although STFC have to continue the support for the international tasks within EGI. The EGI subscription had to be paid by JISC up until the end of December this year. Payment of the EGI subscription in 2013 was unknown as yet, various scenarios were possible. DB advised that an e-Leadership Council (eLC) would be involved in funding for the future but they appeared to have little knowledge of HEP. 2. VOMS ======== DB noted that we had originally handed-over the CA and VOMS to NGS but now needed to take back VOMS. DB had circulated a proposal regarding the running of VOMS, and considered that this did not generally equate to a full FTE of work. However when things went wrong, it was a lot of work to sort out. DB considered that a better way of dealing with this was to use a distributed VOMS system where two or more sites would share the load - this would mean sharing instances but would result in better resilience. DP proposed that, as we currently had 4 x 0.8FTE at Institutes, looking forward to GridPP5 we could increase these to 1.0FTE and see if we could run a distributed VOMS in the UK, one at each Tier-2 site. This did not require STFC approval, as we had reduced these posts ourselves in order to save funds. JG asked if we really needed four VOMS? DB thought that technically we did need two. JC advised that there were various technical issues and there was only one instance of VOMS admin. DB wanted to refer this issue to JC and the Ops Team for discussion and their advice. It would be good to host VOMS at each Tier-2 but technically was it the best solution? VOMS should be sited at the large sites which could field problems if they arose - this would put GridPP back in control of VOMS rather than being a 'middle-man'. DB asked if the PMB could approve the proposal in principle and refer it to JC and the Ops Team to advise re the technical ramifications of having 2 x or 4 x instances of VOMS. DB noted this was urgent in relation to the JeS forms and it had to be addressed this week. JC advised that there might be proxy and configuration issues. DC noted that he supported DB's proposal in principle and that there should be an action on JC to devise a good technical solution. DB asked that DC, JC and JG try to establish the best technical solution and see if we could match this to the available FTE increases. Regarding the support of NGS VOs, we would not abandon them if help was required. Manchester could still run VOMS and part of that could be to run the NGS VOs, depending on the best technical fit. Also, how would the change affect users? ACTION 464.1 JC/DC/JG to establish the best technical solution to hosting VOMS at Tier-2 sites and see if we could match this to the available 4 x FTE increases. JC to discuss at Ops Team. This was urgent - a plan was required by the end of this week. PC asked if there was a definite time-limit on what support we could provide? DB noted this would be built-into GridPP4 and then we would address the issue for next time, but would need STFC support to continue supporting VOMS. There were no objections to the proposal. 3. Tier-1 Review ================= DB reported that he had decided to proceed with this on 20th June - it was the only time available over the next 2-3 months. It was a good time to have a review exercise, and the short time to prepare was also good as the review should be a lightweight review. Timing would be from 10.30 am until 4.00 pm. DB asked AS to structure the day, he did not want a lot of long presentations, rather, it should comprise a look back at the things that had gone wrong; the status of CASTOR; upcoming issues over the next 12 months - in summary: lessons learnt and a forward look, not in depth post mortems. DB did not want the review to be an onerous process but key issues should be discussed and clear conclusions reached. AS to circulate the Agenda. DC asked if there would be 'phone connection? AS would check with Gareth and let him know. ACTION 464.2 AS to devise and circulate the Agenda for the Tier-1 Review on 20th June - this should comprise a look back at the things that had gone wrong; the status of CASTOR; upcoming issues over the next 12 months - in summary: lessons learnt and a forward look - a lightweight Review. 4. AOCB ======== - DB advised that we needed a theme for the next GridPP Collaboration Meeting at Oxford - could everyone think about an overarching theme and let PG/DB know. 'Evolution' was suggested, as this could be applied to various ongoing issues. - DB noted that we had to consider the future of DPM - JC to consider/assess the situation re the UK taking on DPM in agreement with CERN and other nations. Was this viable? And what was the alternative? ACTION 464.3 JC to consider/assess the situation re the UK taking on DPM in agreement with CERN and other nations. Was this viable? And what was the alternative? STANDING ITEMS ============== SI-1 Dissemination Report -------------------------- SL had circulated a report from Neasan as follows: 1) CHEP news item published 2) Working on Tomato genome news item - this will appear sometime this week hopefully (week starting 11th June). It will also get used on the EGI website and maybe iSGTW 3) SARoNGS news item also being worked on 4) CVMFS is now being tested for non-LHC experiments and RAL and CNAF are planning local-VO repositories so will do news on that as well 5) Have been contacted about some citizen science stuff here at QMUL in the geography department, following that up 6) Dave B is talking at EM360 (http://www.enterprisemanagement360.com/), I will be attending, there is another free pass available if anyone is interested 7) Would be quite interested in the VO admin mailing list as a source of news, could I be kept in the loop? 8) Is PerfSonar worth a news item? Who is the best contact JC? 9) Resurrection of Tier 1 hardware at other site could be a news item if it happens 10) C Walker has had some interest from Bio people at QMUL if possible will look into a Bio workshop with them and other "locals" 11) Dave B and Pete C are meeting Jeremy Yates from UCL/DIRAC. Could I have more details/is this worth keeping an eye on? 12) On the tomato genome work the first email I got about this was 20:53 on 31st of May. The paper was received on the 17th of August 2011, accepted on the 3rd of April 2012 and published online on the 30th of May 2012. This is a paper in Nature, if I had been given notice we could have had a press release and a news item to coincide with it. I also know the press officer at Imperial who worked on the IC release so we could probably have ensured a better grid bit went into that release too 13) Wording about resource allocation for non-LHC experiments to appear at the top of this page http://www.gridpp.ac.uk/support/: "GridPP is primarily for use by the LHC experiments, however it also has an allocation of storage and CPU available to other disciplines. These are provided on a site by site basis. If you wish to investigate using these resources please contact [log in to unmask] with brief details of the kind of research you do, your institute, your requirements and the application(s) you wish to use on the infrastructure." SI-2 ATLAS weekly review & plans --------------------------------- RJ was not present. SI-3 CMS weekly review & plans ------------------------------- DC reported that there was currently a lot of pressure on the UK analysis side, negotiations were ongoing. He had nothing major to report. SI-4 LHCb weekly review & plans -------------------------------- PC noted nothing of significance to report. SI-6 Production Manager's Report --------------------------------- JC reported as follows: 1) Power cuts are affecting Durham. 2) CMS are working with Brunel to get MUPJ properly running. Jobs were coming, but failing. It was found that CMS was using a hard-coded path to glexec and this did not work for the EMI WNs. 3) The WLCG T2 availability and reliability figures for May are now available: http://grid- monitoring.cern.ch/reports/2012/201205/wlcg/WLCG_Tier2_May2012.pdf. Two entries that are being followed up (reliability:availability): QMUL (75%: 74%) and Durham (76%: 76%). 4) Current site priorities: Deployment wise we are asking those sites that can to deploy glexec (we are about half way). Once the DRI kit is installed the strategy is to setup sites with perfSonar with a target of all sites having made progress by the end of July (and 4 more sites by the end of June). 5) Current core-tasks priorities: Documentation – provide VO (and VOMS) document updates Monitoring – Rank tools for a discussion in July Accounting – Confirm HS06 benchmarks of new kit and check publishing. Staged rollout – Initial feedback on EMI-2 Ticketing – Assess tickets raised by UK but stalled Core services – perfsonar deployment and define testing matrix Wider VOs – Survey current issues Regoinal tools – Configure backup Nagios and also run smaller VO tests Interoperation – review latest EGI/EMI plans and NGS tools Security – Understand SSC5 and SSC6 requirements SI-7 Tier-1 Manager's Report ----------------------------- AS repoted as follows: Fabric: ------- 1) We have been in discussion with the procurement team in preparation for start of the 2012 procurement round. 2) We believe that problems with DNS lookups of FNAL addresses seen last Friday (also seen at at least one other site) are suspected to have been caused by an interaction between the local and FNAL DNS services possibly relating to DNSSec. Changes have been made to the RAL DNS config to resolve this. 3) There was a 15 minute network break on the SAR on Friday 8th 17:20. 4) The Site Access Router (SAR) will be replaced with new hardware on Tuesday 19th June. We will schedule a 3 hour downtime. 5) An "in rack" PDU failed on Thursday 7th, this unfortunately caused a loss of power to a network switch and a number of other operationally important systems. Service: ------- A number of problems in the days following the bank holiday weekend (the long weekend itself went well) 1) Summary of operational issues and scheduled interventions is at: https://www.gridpp.ac.uk/wiki/Tier1_Operations_Report_2012-06-06 2) CASTOR a) Upgrade to CASTOR 2.1.11-9 on Wednesday (downtime). This is a preparatory upgrade to allow an upgrade to ORACLE 11g to take place a few weeks later. b) The transfer manager upgrades went well. c) The CASTOR Information Provider (CIP) was upgraded (in order to improve the accuracy of the data it provides). 3) An upgrade to the FTS and LFC back end database to ORACLE 11g will take place on Wednesday 4) Problems with the RAL FTS transfers into CASTOR on Wednesday (apparent SRM errors) were traced on Friday to the FTS itself. The cause was not identified but was resolved by a reboot of the FTS agent host. 5) Routine UPS tests identified a problem preventing the diesel generator from being started. Staff: ------ 1) New system admin for the Fabric team drawing up job specification ongoing. 2) Database post - rejected us. We are now drawing up a new specification. 3) We expect to start a Year in Industry student in the Fabric team in July. SI-8 LCG Management Board Report --------------------------------- DB reported that items discussed included: the wLCG service report; the plan for a Tier-1 in Korea; federated identity management for research collaborations, browser and non-browser based pilots; and a talk had been given on networking as a 'core resource' (LHC OPN and network as part of global resource planning). The TEG reports follow-up would be discussed next time. REVIEW OF ACTIONS ================= 438.9 AS to contact relevant site managers to ask whether or not they would be interested in having retired Tier-1 hardware - if a site were interested then they should submit a proposal as to what they want and why. Ongoing. 448.4 ALL to send names/suggestions to DB regarding the replacement or otherwise for GP in the User Co-ordinator position (not necessarily based at RAL). In progress. 458.2 AS to organise meetings with parties at RAL in relation to Capital spend and Capital availability (and lack of Resource). Done, item closed. 458.6 DK to close the loop with AS, DB, and Tony Medland regarding the Tier-1 allocation for 2012-13. Ongoing. 458.9 DK to act to recruit a replacement for Mingchao Ma as soon as possible. In progress. 460.1 PG to check with sites and the Tier-1, in relation to the £3million DRI grant, what had been spent on UK companies particularly. In progress. 461.3 PG to follow-up the issue of the £19k underspend/£14k overspend with Imperial to ensure this was sorted out with STFC. Ongoing. 462.1 AS to investigate the 20th June as a possiblity via Doodle for all to attend a F2F meeting, to include the RAL people as well. Done, item closed. 462.3 PC to contact JC to organise a half-day meeting internally in order to explore what the common ground between DIRAC and GridPP might be. Done, item closed. 463.1 ALL: to consider the current VOMS situation, and possibilities for supporting VOMS in the future. To be discussed again. Done, item closed. 463.2 JC/JG to brief DB on all of the issues surrounding VOMS so that DB could understand the implications for supporting VOMS in the future. Done, item closed. ACTIONS AS AT 11.06.12 ====================== 438.9 AS to contact relevant site managers to ask whether or not they would be interested in having retired Tier-1 hardware - if a site were interested then they should submit a proposal as to what they want and why. 448.4 ALL to send names/suggestions to DB regarding the replacement or otherwise for GP in the User Co-ordinator position (not necessarily based at RAL). 458.6 DK to close the loop with AS, DB, and Tony Medland regarding the Tier-1 allocation for 2012-13. 458.9 DK to act to recruit a replacement for Mingchao Ma as soon as possible. 460.1 PG to check with sites and the Tier-1, in relation to the £3million DRI grant, what had been spent on UK companies particularly. 461.3 PG to follow-up the issue of the £19k underspend/£14k overspend with Imperial to ensure this was sorted out with STFC. 464.1 JC/DC/JG to establish the best technical solution to hosting VOMS at Tier-2 sites and see if we could match this to the available 4 x 0.2FTE increases. JC to discuss at Ops Team. This was urgent - a plan was required by the end of this week. 464.2 AS to devise and circulate the Agenda for the Tier-1 Review on 20th June - this should comprise a look back at the things that had gone wrong; the status of CASTOR; upcoming issues over the next 12 months - in summary: lessons learnt and a forward look - a lightweight Review. 464.3 JC to consider/assess the situation re the UK taking on DPM in agreement with CERN and other nations. Was this viable? And what was the alternative? The next PMB would take place on Monday 18th June; there would be the Tier-1 Review on 20th June. The PMB following this would take place on Monday 25th June at 12.55 pm.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 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
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

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