LCG Management Board

Date/Time:

Tuesday 16 October 2007 16:00-17:00 – Phone Meeting

Agenda:

http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=18006

Members:

http://lcg.web.cern.ch/LCG/Boards/MB/mb-members.html

 

(Version 1 - 18.10.2007)

Participants:

A.Aimar (notes), D.Barberis, I.Bird, T.Cass, Ph.Charpentier, L.Dell’Agnello, T.Doyle, M.Ernst, S.Foffano, J.Gordon, F.Hernandez, M.Kasemann, J.Knobloch, M.Lamanna, U.Marconi, P.Mato, G.Merino, R.Pordes, Di Qing, L.Robertson, Y.Schutz, J.Shiers, R.Tafirout, J.Templon

Action List

https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LCG/MbActionList

Mailing List Archive:

https://mmm.cern.ch/public/archive-list/w/worldwide-lcg-management-board/

Next Meeting:

Tuesday 23 October 2007 16:00-17:00 – Phone Meeting

1.    Minutes and Matters arising (Minutes)

 

1.1      Minutes of Previous Meeting

The minutes of the previous meeting were distributed only on Tuesday morning. Unless the MB members have any comment or feedback in the next few days the minutes will be considered approved.

 

Update: No comments received, minutes approved.

1.2      Sites Names (Document)

A.Aimar proposed that the name of each site becomes unique in all reports, document, tables, etc. Now several names are used for some of the sites.

 

Below is the table with a couple of proposals, but is each site that should decide.

 

GOCDB Id

Site Names

 

I

II

Taiwan-LCG2

ASGC

TW-ASGC

 

BNL-LCG2

BNL

US-BNL

 

CERN-PROD

CERN

CH-CERN

 

INFN-T1

CNAF

IT-CNAF

INFN?

USCMS-FNAL-WC1

FNAL

US-FNAL

 

FZK-LCG2

FZK

DE-FZK

GridKa?

IN2P3-CC

IN2P3

FR-IN2P3

CC?

NDGF-T1

NDGF

NDGF

?

pic

PIC

ES-PIC

 

RAL-LCG2

RAL

UK-RAL

 

SARA-MATRIX

SARA-NIKHEF

NL-SARA-NIKHEF

 

TRIUMF-LCG2

TRIUMF

CA-TRIUMF

 

 

He proposed that:

-       each site chooses the name that will be used to identify the site itself

-       as for the Tier-s sites, the 2-letters ISO country code is prefixed to the name

-       the only character used as separator is the hyphen (avoiding slashes, underscores, etc).

 

L.Robertson added that the Tier-2 sites were asked their name and the name they have registered in GOCDB. The proposal is that the Tier-1 sites do the same and this will not require any change in GOCDB.

 

L.Dell’Agnello noted that there is “CNAF-INFN” as the Tier-1 and also a smaller Tier-2 also called “CNAF”. They will have to discuss and agree which name to choose.

 

Decision:

The MB agreed to have the country code prefixed to all Tier-1 sites name (except NDGF, being across several countries).

 

Action:

The Tier-1 sites should define the name that will be used in all reports of the LCG.

1.3      LCG MB Private Web Area (Slides)

The MB had agreed that the Sites would share their 24x7 and VO Boxes SLA documents but it should be done only among the members of the MB.

 

A.Aimar has created a private Web Area accessible only by the members of the MB and will distribute the details after the meeting

 

Information sent by email after the meeting:

------------

https://cern.ch/lcg-mb-private/Documents

Dear MB Members
 as discussed at the MB meeting yesterday the MB private web area is
now available at the link above.

The agreement  is that only the members of the MB mailing list can
see the material and we should consider what is there confidential.

Have a look at the page please. It should be quite easy to see how to
browse, upload  or retrieve documents. The system also allows each user
to set up email alerts and RSS feeds on what is added/changed in the
repository.

Your CERN login will work. If you do not have one you can use the exact
email address in the MB mailing list if you registered that email at CERN.
Help here https://cern.ch/cernaccount/ but if you have problems with it
just contact me right away.

------------

 

R.Tafirout asked whether confidential information can be put safely there.

L.Robertson replied that is a site’s decision what to share and whether remove some confidential information in the documents. But it would be useful that the 24x7 and the VO Boxes documents are shared among sites, as requested by several of them.

 

2.    Action List Review (List of actions)

Actions that are late are highlighted in RED.

  • 18 Sept 2007 - Next week D.Liko will report a short update about the start of the tests in the JP working group.

 

  • 21 Sept 2007 - D.Liko sends to the MB mailing list an updated version of the JP document, including the latest feedback.

 

I.Bird agreed to report to the Management Board about the progress of the Job Priority working group.

He will report next week after a new meeting.

 

·         16 October 2007 - Sites should send the pointers to their documents about 24x7 and VO Boxes to A.Aimar. A.Aimar will prepare a protected web area for confidential documents of the LCG Management Board.

 

Done. A.Aimar created the private Web Area and sites can upload themselves the documents.

 

·         D.Barberis agreed to clarify with the Reviewers the kind of presentations and demos that they are expecting from the Experiments at the Comprehensive Review.

 

Ongoing. D.Barberis started the discussions with the Reviewers and with the other Computing Coordinators. He will send a summary via email in the next days.

 

3.    SRM 2.2 Weekly Update (Agenda Edinburgh workshop; dCache 1.8 deployment schedule; dCache site) – J.Shiers

 

J.Shiers presented the weekly update on the SRM Roll-out at the Tier-1 Sites.

 

Deployment:

The dCache 1.8 deployment schedule is now available (Link). Preparations for the production deployment at named sites, at defined dates, continues and is on track.

 

Issues:

The outstanding issues that were blocking high-level tools were fixed with latest dCache releases. A new issue was found and is being solved.

A similar situation also for CASTOR2 SRM. The 1.1.5 release is going to be available for deployment in the coming week(s) and fixes several outstanding bugs

 

Sites:

CNAF (CASTOR2 + STORM) is in production for ATLAS and is now available for testing by the Experiments

A recent mail from Frank Wuerthwein proposes that dCache 1.8 is ready for production deployment at (CMS) Tier2s now (forwarded by GSSD & GDB mail lists).

 

Experiments:

It is important that Experiments test the SRM V2.2 features not only by running SRM 1.1 applications by with applications using the SRM 2.2 features. This will come back later, under the CCRC'08 topic.

LHCb foresee restarting testing on Thursday this week, along the lines of the original plan:

-       transfer of data

-       access data from applications on the WN

-       deletion of data (not originally included in our list of tests)

 

4.    Update on CCRC-08 Planning (CCRC'08 Meetings, Slides) – J.Shiers

                                                                 

J.Shiers summarized the weekly CCRC’08 phone meeting held on the day before.

 

The goals of the first meeting were to start working on:

1.    First draft of a combined scheduled

2.    First draft of combined goals (as started in the CSA08 description)

3.    Initial identification of key (existing) services for February run
These are, in practice, the full production services, including experiment-specific ones

 

Slide 2 shows the overall proposed schedule.

Phase 1 - February 2008:

Possible scenario: blocks of functional tests,

Try to reach 2008 scale for tests for:

1.    CERN: data recording, processing, CAF, data export

2.    Tier-1’s: data handling (import, mass-storage, export), processing, analysis

3.    Tier-2’s: Data Analysis, Monte Carlo, data import and export

4.     

Phase 2: May 2008

Duration of challenge: 1 week setup, 4 weeks challenge

 

Of course the Phase 1 results will be used to define the Phase 2:

-       Use February (pre-)GDB to review metric, tools to drive tests and monitoring tools

-       Use March GDB to analyze CCRC phase 1

-       Launch the May challenge at the WLCG workshop (April 21-25, 2008)

 

The next F2F CCRC meetings will cover:

-       Nov 6: agreement on key services & goals – including with sites; draft schedule for component testing; check-point on Explicit Requirements (ERs)

-       Dec 4: progress with component testing; plans for integration testing; remaining ERs; status of site services

-       Jan 8: review metric, tools to drive tests and monitoring tools; progress with integration

-       Feb 12: mid-challenge assessment.

 

Slide 4 shows the tasks, activities, holidays, etc from now to May 2008.

 

Month

Experiment

Experiment Activity

Deployment Task

Event

Oct

ALICE
ATLAS
CMS

LHCb

FDR phase 1

CSA07; s/w release 1_7




SRM v2.2 deployment starts

CCRC’08 kick-off

Nov

ALICE
ATLAS
CMS

LHCb

FDR phase 1+2

2007 analyses completed

SRM v2.2 continues (through year end
at Tier0 / Tier1 sites and some Tier2s)



WLCG Comprehensive Review
WLCG Service Reliability workshop 26-30

Dec

ALICE
ATLAS
CMS

LHCb

FDR phase 1+2


s/w release 1_8

CASTOR 2.1.5 – first release
(SRM v2.2 continues (through year end
at Tier0 / Tier1 sites and some Tier2s)




Christmas & New Year

Jan

ALICE
ATLAS
CMS

LHCb

SRM v2.2 continues at Tier2s
CASTOR 2.1.5 upgrade to Experiments’
production instances at CERN

Feb
CCRC’08

phase I

ALICE
ATLAS
CMS

LHCb

FDR phases 1-3
FDR1
CSA08 part 1
‘FDR 1’

SRM v2.2 ~complete at Tier2s


EGEE User Forum 11-14 Feb

Mar

ALICE
ATLAS
CMS

LHCb

FDR phases 1-3


CASTOR 2.1.6 pre-release testing???


GridPP 20 12-12 March
Easter 21-24 March

Apr

ALICE
ATLAS
CMS

LHCb

FDR phases 1-3

CASTOR 2.1.6 production upgrades?



WLCG Collaboration workshop 21-25 Apr

May
CCRC’08

phase II

ALICE
ATLAS
CMS

LHCb

FDR phases 1-3
FDR2
CSA08 part 2
‘FDR 2’ = 2 x ‘FDR 1’

Many holidays (~1 per week)

First proton beams in LHC

 

Slide 5 shows the current explicit requirements from the Experiments.

 

Service

Experiments

Comments

SRM v2.2

ATLAS,
CMS,
LHCb

Roll-out schedule defined. Expected to be at ~all Tier1s < end 2007, ~1/2 Tier2s by end January 2008, ~all Tier2s by end March 2008. (Hidden slides)

xrootd i/f

ALICE

Production schedule defined? Priority wrt SRM v2.2?

(Status by “storage solution” in hidden slide)

R/O LFC

LHCb

Developments for R/O replicas done – to be packaged and released. Patch to be submitted this week(?) EMT 15/10

Generic agents
(aka “pilot jobs”)

LHCb

Requires WLCG Management Board decision.

No known technical show-stoppers.

Required developments to be certified / tested.

gLite 3.1 WMS

ALICE

SL3 in production (OK for February); SL4 in integration.  Minimum time to release (if given priority): ~1 month

Q: is this OK for sites?

gLite 3.1 VO box

ALICE

In certification; pilot deployed on voalice03@CERN

Commissioned

links

CMS

According to CMS definition & measurement

Conditions DB

ATLAS, LHCb

In production. Tested at CCRC’08 scale?

 

J.Gordon asked how many sites are going to run SL3 for WMS in CCRC.

J.Shiers replied that CERN will do so and maybe one other site will have to do it for LHCb, if needed.

But Ph.Charpentier added that LHCb does not require any WMS outside of CERN.

 

J.Templon asked how many RB is ATLAS expecting to have on the Tier-1 sites.

J.Shiers replied that CCRC will soon prepare a clear list of which service should be running at which site (“what service and where” table).

 

J.Templon noted that “pilot jobs” limitation will also imply a change in the way ALICE is operating and therefore ALICE should be added to LHCb in the corresponding cell, in the table above.

 

J.Shiers then highlighted (slide 10) the fact that there cannot be “implicit requirements”. For each service VOs must specify the installations required, the level of service and the target performance to be reached in CCRC-Feb08 and CCRC-May08.

 

Slides 12 and 13 show two examples (CMS and LHCb) of the kind of information about targets that is needed for the preparation. All Experiments agreed to produce this kind of information at the CCRC meeting on Monday.

 

At the CCRC meeting was also agreed that a usual milestone plan will be initiated (by A.Aimar) and then used to plan and monitor CCRC’08.

 

The focus of next 1-2 CCRC meetings is to obtain the detailed target described above from all 4 Experiments:

-       Week 1: equivalent of CMS targets

-       Week 2: resource requirements at sites

 

Agendas for the next CCRC meetings (up to but not including F2F) are in Indico: http://indico.cern.ch/categoryDisplay.py?categId=1613

 

5.    Report from the EGI Workshop (Slides) - J.Knobloch

 

J.Knobloch presented a summary of the EGI Workshop in Budapest and other information on EGI.

5.1      Introduction to EGI

As described in slide 2, Starting nearly two years ago, CERN has prepared the ground (nickname: EGO) to create a sustainable infrastructure in Europe with the vision of transferring the know-how and the responsibility for a global e-infrastructure into a new organization independent from CERN. CERN has also offered to host this new organization at least initially, to facilitate a smooth transition from present CERN-led operations.

 

CERN’s proposal was well received and following a large information campaign initiated via EGEE, which included visits to many countries, the idea is now generally accepted. Supported by the position of e-IRG, the EU has now opened as part of FP7 a call for design studies with EGI in mind. Although CERN has proposed to lead the design project, the recent choice by the majority of the EGI preparation team was different. CERN accepts this and it does not change CERN’s position as far as the need for a sustainable e-infrastructure is concerned.

 

CERN must ensure that the needs of the LHC community are fully taken into account. CERN expects that the future EGI will gradually take over, together with the NGIs, the responsibility for the operation presently provided by EGEE, the software integration, certification and distribution, as well as the required support and training.

 

While global coordination is important, it is not sufficient and EGI will have to provide reliable long-term services until such services can be obtained from industry. CERN also sees a role for EGI in the coordination of future middleware developments and in standardization as described in the vision paper prepared for the February 2007 workshop in Munich.

 

The EGI project must help to ensure that National Funding will take over a large fraction of the EU funding for operations, which is expected to run down with time.

 

J.Templon asked how this mandate compares to the OMII mandate (http://omii-europe.org/).

I.Bird replied that the OMII goal is mainly the standardization of the existing middleware and this will not be part of the EGI mandate.

5.2      EGI Design Study

The current work is regarding the setup and operation of a new organizational model of a sustainable pan-European grid infrastructure.

 

The main dates are:

-       February 26-27: EGI Workshop in Munich

-       May 2: Proposal submitted to the EC for funding within FP7-INFRA-2007-1, 1.2.1 Design Studies

-       September 1: Project start (if approved)

-       September 27: End of negotiations with EC

-       October 2: EGI workshop in Budapest

 

And it will involve about 300 person months.

 

The institutes that will participate to the preparation of the design documents are:

-       Johannes Kepler Universität Linz (GUP)

-       Greek Research and Technology Network S.A. (GRNET)

-       Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN)

-       CSC - Scientific Computing Ltd. (CSC)

-       CESNET, z.s.p.o. (CESNET)

-       European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)

-       Verein zur Förderung eines Deutschen Forschungsnetzes - DFN-Verein (DFN)

-       Science & Technology Facilities Council (STFC)

-       Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique(CNRS)

 

A slide 6 shows the Management Structure that has been agreed, with an Advisory Board and a Management Board.

 

The overall Project Director is Dieter Kranzlmüller (Linz) and 6 work packages have been defined (WP1 to WP6).

Below are the details of each work package, each with a leading partner (slide 7).

 

No

Work package title

Lead by

Person-months

Start
month
F

End
month

WP 1

Project management

Dieter Kranzlmüller
GUP

32,25

1

27

WP 2

EGI Requirements Consolidation

Fotis Karayannis, GRNET

30

1

4

WP 3

EGI Functions Definition

Laura Perini
INFN

92

1

15

WP 4

Design Study of EGI Legal and Organisational Options

Beatrice Merlin
CNRS

59

1

15

WP 5

Establishment of EGI

Jürgen Knobloch
CERN

48

5

27

WP 6

EGI Promotion and Links with Other Initiatives

Per Öster
CSC

38

1

27

TOTAL

299,25

 

J.Knobloch also added that J.Shiers represents CERN in WP3: Functions Definitions.

 

I.Bird added that “Functions Definitions” will be about the functions of the EGI infrastructure from the NGIs, etc. Not the functionalities and requirements of the middleware software.

 

J.Shiers said that he will distribute the links to the EGI web and to the Use Cases Letter that is being prepared.

 

Information received:

http://www.eu-egi.org/ 
http://www.eu-egi.org/public/EGI_Use_Case_Letter.pdf 

5.3      Scope of WP5: Establishment of EGI

The main objectives of WP5 are:

-       Generate with WP3 and WP4 the “blueprint” which will serve to establish EGI

-       Get the Organization and its Conventions ratified by a significant majority of European States

-       Prepare and start the transition from EGEE to EGI

 

WP5 will be based on the results from WP2, WP3 and WP4 and, if needed, direct investigations. It is vital that the process for establishing EGI completes successfully at least 3 months before the end of EGEE-III, anticipated to be March 2010. WP5 will therefore span 23 months starting in January 2008, not counting preparatory work done outside the project.

 

The main tasks of WP5 (with partner working on it) will be

-       Establish the convention of the organisation (CERN)

-       Get the convention agreed by a majority of European NGIs (all)

-       Maintain the relationship with the EC in view of supporting EGI (CERN and GUP)

-       Initiate and complete the ratification process with the NGIs willing to join EGI (all)

-       Incorporate the organisation (CERN)

-       Initiate and complete the hand-over from major RI-project (e.g. EGEE) operations (all)

 

The preparation work will be done mostly by the lead partner – CERN - but all partners will contribute to obtain the agreement from the NGIs and during the ratification process.

5.4      Project Status

Now they have submitted “Description of Work” and “Grant agreement Preparation Forms” to the EU.

 

The Project started 1 September 2007 even if is still waiting for official approval:

-       Development of an NGI knowledge base

-       Collected use uses (NGIs, EGEE, …)

-       Elected chair of advisory board: Gaspar Barreira (Portugal)

5.5      Next Steps

Dec 2007:
D2.1 – EGI consolidated requirements and use cases

 

Feb 2008:
D4.2 – Options analysis of different legal structures

 

Mar 2008:
D5.1 – Draft definition of EGI organization

D5.2 – Draft convention of new EGI organization
M3.1 – Next EGI Workshop – “List of EGI functions and working model”

 

Apr 2008:
D4.3 – Guidelines for NGIs

 

June 2008:
M4.1 – EGI Blueprint publication

 

J.Templon asked when the proposal will be negotiated with all the other NGIs that do not participate to the design project.

J.Knobloch replied that all the NGIs are represented in the Advisory Board which is a more operation role than its name tells. That board is now more an oversight body on the whole project than just advisory. In addition the workshop in March 2008 is open to all people that want to contribute.

 

6.    VO-specific SAM Tests (VO-specific SAM tests) - Experiments

                                                                                            

 

The Experiment had agreed to comment the results of the VO-specific SAM tests when they are above the targets (in red in the table below).

 

 

OPS

ALICE

ATLAS

CMS

LHCb

CERN-PROD

100%

97%

100%

100%

96%

FZK-LCG2

91%

95%

62%

99%

91%

IN2P3-CC

70%

45%

26%

8%

97%

INFN-T1

80%

97%

85%

100%

66%

NDGF-T1

97%

0%

76%

0%

-

RAL-LCG2

90%

96%

100%

100%

97%

SARA-MATRIX

92%

96%

92%

-

90%

TRIUMF-LCG2

95%

-

98%

-

-

Taiwan-LCG2

93%

-

98%

95%

-

USCMS-FNAL-WC1

89%

-

-

38%

-

pic

93%

-

100%

100%

93%

BNL-LCG2

91%

-

72%

-

-

 

6.1      ALICE

Y.Schutz will ask information about the SAM tests.

6.2      ATLAS

D.Barberis explained that the ATLAS tests are still under development therefore the values reported are not to be considered very realistic, both the positive and the negative ones. The issues were mostly on the test configuration of the connection between SE and CE at some of the sites.

 

A major bug was fixed only in mid-October; therefore also for this month part the values will not be reliable. From this week on the ATLAS SAM values should be correct.

6.3      CMS

S.Belforte and A.Sciabá are looking into the issue.

-       FNAL: there is a name clash in the SRM endpoint that is being fixed.

-       IN2P3: executing a test that is misconfigured at IN2P3. CMS will fix it.

6.4      LHCb

The issue at INFN are about accessing files. Could be a mismatch between the file catalog and the SE and not a site problem.

There is no real follow-up daily of the tests and is difficult to catch up at the end of the month.

The numbers are over positive in the table because the SAM test do not test all services needed by LHCb.

 

L.Dell’Agnello asked where could INFN find more information about the LHCb tests.

Ph.Charpentier replied that all information in on the LHCB SAM tests page.

 

L.Robertson concluded that the tests are still under development and will be prepared during the next few months. Until then the results will be discussed in the MB but not presented in other reports.

 

7.    Sites Reliability Reports for September 2007 (Sites Reports; Slides) - A.Aimar

 

A.Aimar briefly commented the Site Reliability Reports for September 2007.

 

Here is the summary of the reliability since January 2007.

 

Site

Jan 07

Feb 07

Mar 07

Apr 07

May 07

Jun 07

Jul 07

Aug 07

Sept 07

CERN

99

91

97

96

90

96

95

99

100

GridKa/FZK

85

90

75

79

79

48

75

67

91

IN2P3

96

74

58

95

94

88

94

95

70

INFN/CNAF

75

93

76

93

87

67

82

70

80

RAL

80

82

80

87

87

87

98

99

90

SARA-NIKHEF

93

83

47

92

99

75

92

86

92

TRIUMF

79

88

70

73

95

95

97

97

95

ASGC

96

97

95

92

98

80

83

83

93

FNAL

84

67

90

85

77

77

92

99

89

PIC

86

86

96

95

77

79

96

94

93

BNL

90

57*

6*

89

98

94

75

71

91

NDGF

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Reliability Target

88

88

88

88

88

91

91

91

91

Target
+ 90% target

5 + 5

6 + 3

4 + 1

7 + 3

6 + 3

3 + 2

7 + 2

6+2

7+2

 

We have again 7 sites above 91% (current target) and 2 above 82% (90% of the target). The two sites below target are very close (FNAL and RAL) so we could easily have had 9 sites this time above target.

 

Below is the progression of the global averages in the last 6 months:

 

Average 8 best sites:         Sept 93%   Aug 94%    Jul 93%  Jun:87%    May 94%    Apr 92%

Average all sites:                               Sept 89%   Aug 88%    Jul 89%  Jun:80%    May 89%    Apr 89%

 

The site reports are available here and are summarized by the table below.

 

Most of the issues are on:

-       SRM and SE components that will anyway be upgraded; therefore not much progress is expected until these upgrades.

-       Operational issues regarding certificated, network or power problems or maintenance

 

J.Gordon explained that a certificate badly renewed on Friday was discovered on Monday. And was enough to go to 90% and therefore RAL is below the target.

 

F.Hernandez noted that the scheduled downtime for IN2P3 is not taken into account and otherwise the availability will be better.

 

G.Merino reported that on 11 September the unavailability is not clear. SAM restarted working at PIC without intervention. As is only in PIC down that day it is not clear why the SAM tests failed and restarted at PIC.

 

J.Templon added that in October there will be a week with a major problem at SARA and he submitted a ticket about it.

 

L.Robertson noted that from next quarter the target should raise to 93%.

 

 

Description

SITE: Problem à Solution

SRM/MSS/DB

BNL: HPSS unstable several times after upgrade à Restarted and reconfigured HPSS

BNL: Wrong mapping of dCache accounts, some dCache pool offline

CNAF: CASTOR instabilities all end-points affected

CNAF: Problems with the CASTOR LSF license server

FZK: dCache gridftp doors problems à Restarted several times

FZK: SRM lock-up because of memory problems à Investigated

IN2P3: dCache instabilities with non-LHC VOs but affected the score of the CEs.

PIC: dCache SRM hanging, all transfers failed à SRM node restarted

SARA-NIKHEF: dCache authentication error

TRIUMF: Problems with SRM and gridftp, missing host certificate

Other Services

BNL: OSG gatekeeper down, Pool Mgr overloaded and restarted

FZK: FTS DB non responsive à DB Restarted

IN2P3: AFS problems for several days à AFS restarted

TRIUMF: LFC authentication problems à Restarted

Operational Issues

ASGC: Power maintenance and network problems

ASGC: SAM tests changed DN but the sites did not change the local mapping

BNL: Power failure and network maintenance problem

CNAF: Cooling problems for several days

PIC: Network problems in a couple of occasions

RAL: Network problems

RAL: Certificate of disk server expired for several days

SARA-NIKHEF: Fabrics management  uninstalled some RPMs that were needed

SARA-NIKHEF: Power outage cause network problems

TRIUMF: SRM host certificate obtained but not installed à Certificate procedures need work

Tools, SAM, GOCDB

FNAL: Claim that the SAM tests are incorrect, but is a change in the site configuration

 

 

8.    AOB

 

 

I.Fisk and R.Tafirout were confirmed as speakers at the Comprehensive Review.

 

 

9.    Summary of New Actions

 

The full Action List, current and past items, will be in this wiki page before next MB meeting.