Difference between revisions of "FrenchSitesInputtoTEGOp"
(→Input for WG4 - WG 5) |
|||
| Ligne 2: | Ligne 2: | ||
== 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 Mware operational requirements, distribution, deployment, distribution === | ||
Version du 17:14, 14 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
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
