WLCG operations coordination kick-off meeting

Agenda

Participants

Local: I. Fisk, M. Girone, A. Sciab`, M. Barroso, D. Collados, S. Roiser, A. Beche, J. Closier, M. Cattaneo, S. Campana, P. Love, E. Dafonte, A. Valassi, M. Litmaath, M. Dimou, S. Gowdy, I. Ueda, A. Lossent, A. Di Girolamo, M. Guijarro, N. Magini Remote: M. Sgaravatto, M. Zielinski, C. Grandi, A. Lahiff, A. Sansum, C. Condurache, M. Jouvin, D. Bonacorsi, C. Cioffi, A. Cavalli, S. De Witt, J. Coles, R. Vernet, S. Mc Kee, T. Ferrari, A. Forti, C. Wissing.

Introduction (Maria G.)

Maria presents the working group. The focus of the activities will be on coordination with limited additional effort from WLCG. The goal is to have Computing as a Service by the end of the long shutdown. It will be based also on contributions from site people. It will interact with the other working groups.

Communication channels (Andrea S.)

Andrea presents the communication channels. The most crucial point is how to reach sites via email, or in other words how to populate a mailing list such that every site is included.

Michel says that the problem is to have all site, and sites might prefer to give mailing lists.

Simone points out that ATLAS has cloud support mailing lists, but these are not always effective because of the delegation layer in the middle.

Michel proposes to extract the contacts from the GOCDB (we never managed to have a list of T2 contacts).

According to Alessandra the real problem is that sites do not always feel involved and we must be able to involve them.

Ikuo warns about the risk of having the same people receiving multiple copies of the same email and Maarten about the risk of people getting too many emails about VOs they do not support.

Ian says that for example CMS could ask its sites to subscribe to wlcg-operations@cernNOSPAMPLEASE.ch.

Michel says that we could ask sites to subscribe and after one month check is somebody is missing.

Maria D. points out that since 2008 we use for GGUS notifications to the sites the contact emails extracted from GOCDB/OIM and it always worked fine.

Maria G. suggests to start with lists from the experiments and in parallel collect emails from GOCDB/OIM.

Daniele asks what is the scope of the experiment reports in the fortnightly meeting and Andrea confirms that it is something in the middle between the daily operations reports and the quarterly GDB reports. Maria G. adds that the focus should be on plans because issues will still be tracked by Maria D. as in the T1SCM.

CVMFS task force (Stefan)

Stefan presents the plans of the CVMFS task force. The primary goal is to help sites that still need to deploy CVMFS. He favours frequent reports and a direct contact with sites whenever practical. SAM tests should be used to verify the correctness of the CVMFS setup. Michel says that the TF should also test new features, and Stefan agrees. Michel and Christoph express the desire to have sites involved in the testing.

gLExec task force (Maarten)

Maarten presents the glExec TF. The goal is to have it working at all sites. All LHC VOs run glexec SAM tests but the CMS ones are the most realistic. For now it is not terribly urgent (only CMS is pushing for it) but we should get going ASAP in case it becomes urgent. The experiments need to be directly involved in the TF, not so obvious for sites. We might also involve OSG and EGI to have the deployment done via their own channels.
Tiziana volunteers to be in the task force.

PerfSONAR task force (Simone)

Simone described the main challenges, namely how to configure a large NxN metric of channels, how to test them without causing congestion and how to visualise them. He plans to start from sites particularly important for the experiments. pS should also be registered as a service in the GOCDB. We need to consolidate the configuration instructions, want to test a new Internet2 development about mesh configuration and extend the pS-PS dashboard. It will be a long-term effort requiring also some development.

Tiziana asks if this is going to be pS-PS or pS-MDM. Simone and Shawn say that they are compatible so either of them can be used (pending some internal checks still to be done). The Tier-0 and the Tier-2 sites use pS-PS.

Alessandro advocates the introduction of service flavour in GOCDB to distinguish pS-PS and pS-MDM without having to register two different service types. This will not be needed if it is confirmed that the two flavours are compatible.

Tiziana asks the creation of a pS support unit in GGUS to provide support to sites.

Daniele asks what is the boundary between our WG and Michael Ernst's networking WG. Shawn says that we focus on deployment issues, they focus on development.

Alessandra volunteers for the TF.

Tracking tools task force (Maria D.)

Maria presents the TF, where experts on the various tools should be present. The idea is to have internal meetings, like the one running since years with the GGUS developers, and come to the general meeting to propose timelines for important changes and get feedback from the community.

There is a discussion about what are the ticketing tools to be used now. For example Ian points out that for the recent CMS security challenge GGUS was not exclusively used. Maria explains that this was because it was not consider "closed" enough to discuss security matters. Concerning OSG Footprints, it's fully interfaced with GGUS, while EGI RT is deliberately not integrated, as Tiziana explains (it is used for incidents, not as a generic support channel).

Tiziana says that the EGI security team is discussing with OSG to decide how to deal with security.

Middleware deployment task force (Maarten)

Maarten starts by saying that WLCG is not in an optimal shape concerning middleware releases and we should improve, in order to go to EMI 1/2 and be prepared for EMI 3. OSG seems to be taking care of itself well enough, though. Another topic will be the move to SL6, that already happened at a few sites but will become a hot topic. There is also the issue of improving documentation, logging, error messages, etc. Sites, experiments and infrastructure projects should all be involved.

Maria D. asks if we should keep using the TEG twikis or create new ones. Everybody favours a fresh start.

XrootD task force (Ian)

-- AndreaSciaba - 26-Sep-2012

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r4 < r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions...
Topic revision: r2 - 2012-09-26 - AndreaSciaba
 
    • Cern Search Icon Cern Search
    • TWiki Search Icon TWiki Search
    • Google Search Icon Google Search

    LCG 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