FrenchSitesInputtoTEGOp
Sommaire
Input provided by french sites
Input for WG1 : Monitoring & Metrics
- WG1 Sub-Wiki: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LCG/WLCGTegOperationsWG1
- What works well?
- GGUS
- What is used ?
- What are the three main problems?
Input for WG2 : Support tools & Underlying services + WLCG operations
- Scope ====
- Support tools : Ticketing, Accounting tools, Request trackers,Administration tools [GOCDB, CIC]
- Underlying services : Messaging services, Information services
- WG2 Sub-Wiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LCG/WLCGTegOperationsWG2
- What works well? What is used ?
- What are the three main problems?
Input for WG3 : Application Software Management
- WG3 Sub-Wiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LCG/WLCGTegOperationsWG3
- What works well? What is used ?
- What are the three main problems?
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
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
- Middelware compatibilities with the larger set of technical constraints (yaim/quattor, NAS/SAN storage infrastructure,...)
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
