EMI SA2 Weekly Meeting 20100630

Meeting Information

Actions Review

  • A.Aimar - Prepare wiki page describing how to use the infrastructure, wiki, mailing list, indico, etc..
DONE. All information is on the first page of the internal SA2 wiki. If more information is needed ask to A.Aimar.


Open Issues

  • GRNET participation

  • Clarify the task 2.5 with the PO
DONE. The PEB confirmed that the review and reporting will start when the other tasks have defined the initial setup and verifications. For now is good that the 2.5 participants take part into the other tasks who are already ongoing

  • Mandatory Platforms? SL5 64 bits? A clear calendar is needed.
NOT DONE. Need to become an open issues for the PEB or the PCB. For now all currently supported by the middleware are supported (separately)

  • Who is supporting the WN, UI, maui , LSF and other products? Who provides the resources?
NOT DONE. Need to become an open issues for the PEB or the PTB

  • Availability and reliability of the testbed and of the service must be clarified.
DONE. Will be clarified later. Task TSA2.6 can go on with its proposal. Danilo asked who is going to provide a custom BDII for the testbeds? ARC will provide one for their services. Maybe the custom BDII should still be used too but will not be a production level service


Participants:(in the disorder, please mail me if I have forgotten¨ your name)

Marek Kocan, Jozef Cernak, Giuseppe Fiameni, Andrea Ceccanti, Claudio Cacciari, Danilo Dongiovanni Gianni Pucciani, Tomasz Wolak, Maria Alandes Pradillo, Andres Abad Rodriguez, Alberto Resco Perez, Bjoern Hagemeier Anders Waananen, Eamonn Kenny, Zdenek Sustr, Alberto Aimar

Task Reports and Progress

TSA2.1 - Work Package coordination (Alberto Aimar)

+ Status and Progress
- Followed Open Issues with the PEB. In particular platforms and 2.5 task. 
See action list. 
- CESNET in contact now, not very happy of the collaboration proposed. 
No news from GRNET.
Zdenek Sustr agreed that the effort can be contributed in burst for some 
time especially at the beginning. They have a testbed used by some product teams

- CERN accounts all solved. 
- Templates available for deliverables, milestones, trip reports and PRESENTATIONS. 
We must us the templates available for presentations.
- EMI repo is been filled. GLite and ARC in. No UNICORE last time I checked.
- User support SA1 has clarified the role of first level support. 
- PTB is collecting the PTs development plans. Area leaders are consolidating the 
individual PT plans to come up with a more consistent area workplan.

+Issues to Discuss
- We receive very little feedback but is our interest to have the users clearly 
exposed to the proposals (and not come later to give us problems...). 
Should we organize presentations (phone conf) of the Deliverable and Milestones? 
PEB, first then PTs. All together?

Maria, Giuseppe and Andrea noted that the document will have to be really 
agreed by the reviewers and also by PEB. And also the other documents are 
needed to completed the SQAP properly. 
The parts missing should be included as questions and be filled and discussed later.
when we have the info

It was agreed to have a meeting to discuss the document completely. Maria will organise it

+ Step for Next Week
- Deliverable DSA2.1 reviewed. We should have several iterations. But would include the PEB soon.
- M2 - DSA2.1 - Quality Assurance Plan (task 2.2) 
Reviewers: Francesco Giacomini (SA1), Andrea Ceccanti (JRA1)
- M3 - DSA2.2.1 - QA Tools Documentation (task SA2.4) 
Reviewers: to be defined

TSA2.2 - Quality Assurance Process Definition and Monitoring (Maria Alandes Pradillo)

+ Status and Progress
- Second draft of SQAP sent to Technical area leaders + WP leaders + Release Manager
- Started to write down the SQAP document
- Started to collect information about status of the Minimum Documentation Requirements for 
gLite, ARC, Unicore and dCache for the first periodic QA report. gLite and ARC already done.
 + Issues to Discuss
 - None
 + Steps Next Week
- Get first version of the SQAP approved by PEB or at least get feedback to improve it.

TSA2.3 - Metrics and KPIs Definition and Reporting

+ Status and Progress
- Defining a template for metric descriptions
- Defining coding metrics including PTs input, process metrics based on DSA2.1 draft.
- SA 2.3 metrics meeting on Thursday morning at 10:30CEST.

+ Issues to Discuss
- Who has been the beneficiaries of the Savannah statistics in the past
- How have the statistics improved the Q/A process in the past?
The metrics in EGEE were only used for the review but in 
EMI will be used constantly to rate the product and the PTs.
EGI expects to see this statistics.

+ Steps Next Week
Define real metrics based on coding tools and process life cycle.
Categorize according to middleware applicability and programming language.
Ensure the tools actually work and are reasonable (this will be ongoing

TSA2.4- Tools and Repositories Selection, Maintenance and Integration

+ Status and Progress
   - Finalizing the Tools Plan to be sent out tonight/tomorrow

+ Issues to Discuss
   - Internal task tracking in SA2.4
+ Steps Next Week (for SA2.4)
   - Write Milestone report out of the tools plan
   - Take over Jira from TOM
   - Install an EMI ETICS instance
   - Collect feedback of the plan
   - ETICS bug fixes (repository and client)
   - Repository extraction into a separate service
   - Externals import tool

TSA2.5 - QA Implementation Review and Support

+ Status and Progress
task participants are known

+ Issues to Discuss
input from PB what is the most important to check in the first 3 months

+ Steps Next Week
Distribution of subtasks for first 3 months
If no proposal from PB we may concentrate on 
-review of proposed plans
-communication channels 
-existence an functionality of basic tools for 
     -project management
     -QSAP metrics

TSA2.6 - Testbeds Setup, Maintenance and Coordination

+ Status and Progress 
    * Submitted Savannah tasks under group EMI-SA2 deriving from proposed 
draft planof testbed implementation and started working on them. 
(high priority  16285, 16300, 16304, 16305, 16306, 16337, 16307;  
medium priority 16308, 16309;  low priority 16311,16310, 16301)
          o task 16304: defined a basic template for testbed description, and each server status logbook
          o task16285: created a squad for sa2.6, will be used for tracking testbed requests
          o task 16337: opened on the sa26 squad: requested to all members to fill the
              twiki with HW currently available for testbed (mentioned in the survey)

Danilo added that using Nagios can be used for monitoring the nodes but can be 
adapted to monitor the services too

+ Issues to Discuss
    * One point in savannah task is the way we communicate with developers 
and track actions on them. We asked 1 person for PT to be involved in testbed activities. 
PT replied it is better to use savannah squads (for redundancy), but we have a technical 
issue in savannah: can't create more squads than members in a group so we should ask 
all PT members to join savannah and sa2 group. Is that ok? Do other SA2 tasks have similar needs? 
should we coordinate the request to join savannah groups?
A mailing list for the product team can be added to the savannah CC. Gianni will check it

+ Steps Next Week
    * task 16337: opened on the sa26 squad: requested to all members to fill the 
twiki with HW currently available for testbed (mentioned in the survey). Tracking available 
HW and service installed with the new template standard
    * task 16307: survey on what services in task 16337 have nagios, 
plan to monitor all services in sa2 testbed.

Issue and Topics to Discuss 25'

  • AOB
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r3 - 2010-07-07 - AlbertoAimar
    • Cern Search Icon Cern Search
    • TWiki Search Icon TWiki Search
    • Google Search Icon Google Search

    EMI All webs login

This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright &© 2008-2021 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
or Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? use Discourse or Send feedback