Difference between revisions of "FrenchSitesInputtoTEGOp"

Un article de lcgwiki.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Other comments)
(Strategic directions you would like to recommend)
Ligne 21: Ligne 21:
  
 
==== Strategic directions you would like to recommend====
 
==== Strategic directions you would like to recommend====
* Middelware compatibilities with the larger set of technical constraints (yaim/quattor, NAS/SAN storage infrastructure,...)
+
* Improving Middelware compatibility with the larger set of technical constraints (yaim/quattor, NAS/SAN storage infrastructure,...)and extending the compliance with existing standard
  
 
==== Other comments====
 
==== Other comments====

Version du 18:41, 15 novembre 2011

BACK to TEG

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

  • Improving Middelware compatibility with the larger set of technical constraints (yaim/quattor, NAS/SAN storage infrastructure,...)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)