Difference between revisions of "Network Support Task force"
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
== '''Contacts and other relevant information ''' == | == '''Contacts and other relevant information ''' == | ||
'''Mailing List (ML): ''network.support AT mailman.egi.eu ''''' | * '''Mailing List (ML): ''network.support AT mailman.egi.eu ''''' | ||
''' | Note: '''33''' NGIs/EIROs provided contacts out of '''41''' total ['''80%'''] - '''8 still missing''' as of Nov 20,2010 | ||
* Netwrok Support Task Force [https://www.egi.eu/indico/categoryDisplay.py?categId=42 agendas] | |||
* Network support workshop, Amsterdam, 24 Jan 2011: [https://www.egi.eu/indico/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=153 agenda] | |||
== '''Questionnaire on Network Support Use Cases''' == | == '''Questionnaire on Network Support Use Cases''' == |
Revision as of 07:39, 24 February 2011
Main | EGI.eu operations services | Support | Documentation | Tools | Activities | Performance | Technology | Catch-all Services | Resource Allocation | Security |
Tools menu: | • Main page | • Instructions for developers | • AAI Proxy | • Accounting Portal | • Accounting Repository | • AppDB | • ARGO | • GGUS | • GOCDB |
• Message brokers | • Licenses | • OTAGs | • Operations Portal | • Perun | • EGI Collaboration tools | • LToS | • EGI Workload Manager |
Network Support Team
Contacts and other relevant information
- Mailing List (ML): network.support AT mailman.egi.eu
Note: 33 NGIs/EIROs provided contacts out of 41 total [80%] - 8 still missing as of Nov 20,2010
Questionnaire on Network Support Use Cases
https://wiki.egi.eu/w/images/6/62/Answers-Explained.pdf - (Higher numbers mean high involvement offered/requested [task considered useful] )
https://wiki.egi.eu/w/images/5/59/Questionnaire-NGIs-ANSWERS.xls : Excel file summarizing the results so far (as of Nov 25, 24 NGIs answered)
# | Short | Country | NGI | in ML? | NGI= NREN? |
Answ. Quest? |
GGUS (A) |
PERT (B) |
Sched Maint (C) |
Troub OnDem (D) |
e2eMultiD Monit (E) |
Down Coll (F) |
Policy Collab (G) |
other info or comments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | AL | Albania | ALBGRID | yes | ... | yes | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ... |
2. | AM | Armenia | ANGI | no | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
3. | AT | Austria | AustrianGrid | no | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
4. | BY | Belarus | BNGI | yes | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
5. | BE | Belgium | BEgrid | no | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
6. | BA | Bosnia-Herzegovina | NGI_BA | yes | ... | yes | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | ... |
7. | BG | Bulgaria | BGI | yes | ... | yes | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ... |
8. | HR | Croatia | CRO NGI | yes | no | yes | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | B: 1) EGI PERT will confuse users (and community) as it would be very hard to distinguish ‘network(data transfer issues) performance’ from e.g. ‘computing performance’; perhaps EGI netPERT 2) In a specific situation of course that ‘not only a dispatcher role (Answer 3)’ we see this service as a useful service in community C:We have a ‘schedule maintenance’ notification procedure |
9. | CY | Cyprus | CGI | yes | yes | yes | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ... |
10. | CZ | Czech Republic | MetaCentrum | yes | yes | yes | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | |
11. | DK | Denmark | <TBA> | no | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
12. | FI | Finland | CSC/Funet | yes | yes | yes | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 6 | B: In establishing this function, one important starting point is coordination with existing activities within NRENs and DANTE/GÉANT. C:ideally, both push and pull functionalities |
13. | FR | France | IDG/CNRS | yes | no | yes | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 4 | A: If the network problem will occur within the French NGI, French sites will contact the appropriate network provider. If the problem is a remote problem ( a French site cannot join a foreign site ), we will check with Down Collector tool ; then if the status of the foreign site is still ‘unreachable’, it will be useful to escalate the problem either toward EGI network support team or towards the contact person for the network support of the remote NGI C: We prefer “the pull approach” in a first step, |
14. | GE | Georgia | GEO-GRID | yes | yes | yes | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | ... |
15. | DE | Germany | NGI-DE | yes | no | yes | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | B: The Grid/Middleware knowledge is present at each attached site D: constant service monitoring --> like developed at Dante MDM-system |
16. | GR | Greece | Hellasgrid | yes | yes | yes | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | ... |
17. | HU | Hungary | MGKK | yes | ... | yes | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | ... |
18. | IE | Ireland | GridIreland | yes | ... | yes | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 6 | C: Not every site is of interest to the VOs. Most VOs and Users are only interested in knowing about the availability of the services that directly affect them ( WMS,LB, MyProxy, Top-BDII etc). F: Multiple down collectors could be used, |
19. | IL | Israel | ISRAGRID | no | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
20. | IT | Italy | IGI | yes | no | yes | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 6 | ... |
# | Short | Country | NGI | in ML? | NGI= NREN? |
Answ. Quest? |
GGUS (A) |
PERT (B) |
Sched Maint (C) |
Troub OnDem (D) |
e2eMultiD Monit (E) |
Down Coll (F) |
Policy Collab (G) |
other info or comments |
21. | LV | Latvia | LatvianGrid | yes | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
22. | LT | Lithuania | LitGRID | no | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
23. | MK | FYR Macedonia | MARGI | yes | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
24. | MD | Moldova | MD-Grid | yes | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
25. | ME | Montenegro | MREN | yes | yes | yes | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | ... |
26. | NL | The Netherlands | BIG Grid | yes | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
27. | NO | Norway | NorGrid | yes | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
28. | PL | Poland | PL-Grid | yes | no | yes | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 2 | D. E. and F. could be combined in a common tool or group of tools and its development should be synchronized. Contribution to E. and F. needs to be confirmed when expected resources and effort will be known. G. We do not see a strong need for such a group, especially not merged with PERT. But if a group will be setup we can consider a way of participation. |
29. | PT | Portugal | NGI-PT | yes | no | yes | 2 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 6 | B: Yes, but working as an advice group since the capacity to act at the site level is low D: The monitoring system is valuable. |
30. | RO | Romania | RoGrid | yes | no | yes | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ... |
31. | RU | Russian Federation | <TBA> | no | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
32. | RS | Serbia | AEGIS | yes | yes | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | ... | |
33. | SK | Slovakia | SlovakGrid | yes | ... | yes | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2 | ... |
34. | SI | Slovenia | SLING | yes | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
35. | ES | Spain | RedIRIS | yes | yes | yes | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 6 | ... |
36. | SW | Sweeden | SweGrid | no | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
37. | CH | Switzerland | SwiNG | yes | no | yes | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 5 | A:There’s a single person to contact: A. Aeschlimann, no replacement. There’s very few available time resources. E: There’s very few available time resources. |
38. | TR | Turkey | TR-Grid | yes | yes | yes | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | A: TUBITAK ULAKBIM (NGI_TR coordinator) is also managing NREN. Manpower will be given on a best effort basis. |
39. | UK | United Kingdom | NGS | yes | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
40. | EIRO | CERN | CERN | yes | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
41. | EIRO | EMBL | EMBL | no | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
42. | TW | Taiwan | ASGC | ... | yes | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 4 | A: The up today status report of the ticket is valuable to users to arrange their work in a more efficient way. ASGC definitely would provide first level network monitoring support to Asia partners. But, currently the manpower resource is still not enough to service entire NGI project partners. B: Yes, it is good to have such kind of support team. |
Network Monitoring Proposal Task Force
egi-network-monitoring-proposal-task-force@googlegroups.com
- Etienne Duble France-Grille (UREC CNRS)
Presentations on Network Monitoring and Support for EGI
Task Coordination
- Presentation at the EGI TF 15 Sept 2010 Amsterdam
Documents
- Questionnaire sent to the NGIs about Network Support use casesTools Wiki Page
https://wiki.egi.eu/wiki/Network
also reachable through the alias http://net.egi.eu