FrenchSitesInputtoTEGOp: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (16 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 18:02, 16 novembre 2011
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)