Difference between revisions of "FrenchSitesInputtoTEGOp"
(→Strategic directions you would like to recommend) |
(→What takes the most effort?) |
||
| Ligne 12: | Ligne 12: | ||
==== What takes the most effort?==== | ==== What takes the most effort?==== | ||
| − | * understanding the Middelware dependencies | + | * understanding the Middelware dependencies |
| + | * the worst case: 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?==== | ||
Version du 16:51, 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
- the worst case: 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)
