Difference between revisions of "FrenchSitesInputtoTEGOp"
(→Input for WG4 - WG 5) |
(→What takes the most effort?) |
||
| (17 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Ligne 1: | Ligne 1: | ||
| + | [http://lcg.in2p3.fr/wiki/index.php/TEG BACK to TEG] | ||
| + | |||
== Input provided by french sites == | == Input provided by french sites == | ||
| − | + | === Input for WG4 - WG 5 Mware operational requirements, distribution, deployment, distribution === | |
| − | |||
| − | === Input for WG4 - WG 5 | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==== What is in use currently and works well?==== | ==== What is in use currently and works well?==== | ||
| − | * Quattor ( | + | * Mware integration using Quattor (long-term support essential) |
==== Top problems==== | ==== Top problems==== | ||
| − | * Too many information on logfiles | + | * Mware usability : Too many information on logfiles. Finding the good information is too hard. |
| + | Log management in order to improve Incident Detection and Traceability | ||
==== What takes the most effort?==== | ==== What takes the most effort?==== | ||
| − | * Middelware | + | * understanding the Middelware dependencies |
| + | * reverse engineering of yaim scripts to understand what has changed in Mware configuration ! | ||
==== What can be improved about operational procedures?==== | ==== What can be improved about operational procedures?==== | ||
| − | * A clear and single channel | + | * A clear and single channel to announce a new release and documentation |
| + | |||
| + | ==== What can be dropped? ==== | ||
| − | |||
==== Strategic directions you would like to recommend==== | ==== Strategic directions you would like to recommend==== | ||
| − | * Middelware | + | * Improving Middelware compatibility with the larger set of technical constraints (yaim/quattor, NAS/SAN storage infrastructure,...), minimizing dependencies and extending the compliance with existing standard |
==== Other comments==== | ==== Other comments==== | ||
| − | * | + | * Confidence in Mware : EGI staged-rollout on best effort basis. Is this sustainable ? |
| − | * | + | * Still needed : relocatable version of Mware |
| + | * Dropped too early : 32 bits UI | ||
| + | * SL6 WN and disk servers may be needed soon (new hardware procurements) | ||
| + | * Mware distribution via EMI and UMD : no enhancement of interfaces ergonomics (compared to what was available with gLite) | ||
Latest revision as of 17:02, 16 novembre 2011
Sommaire
Input provided by french sites
Input for WG4 - WG 5 Mware operational requirements, distribution, deployment, distribution
What is in use currently and works well?
- Mware integration using Quattor (long-term support essential)
Top problems
- Mware usability : Too many information on logfiles. Finding the good information is too hard.
Log management in order to improve Incident Detection and Traceability
What takes the most effort?
- understanding the Middelware dependencies
- reverse engineering of yaim scripts to understand what has changed in Mware configuration !
What can be improved about operational procedures?
- A clear and single channel to announce a new release and documentation
What can be dropped?
Strategic directions you would like to recommend
- Improving Middelware compatibility with the larger set of technical constraints (yaim/quattor, NAS/SAN storage infrastructure,...), minimizing dependencies and extending the compliance with existing standard
Other comments
- Confidence in Mware : EGI staged-rollout on best effort basis. Is this sustainable ?
- Still needed : relocatable version of Mware
- Dropped too early : 32 bits UI
- SL6 WN and disk servers may be needed soon (new hardware procurements)
- Mware distribution via EMI and UMD : no enhancement of interfaces ergonomics (compared to what was available with gLite)
