NGI International Task Review MS124 Switzerland
In the table below, you should provide your self-assessment for the EGI-InSPIRE "NGI International Tasks" for milestone MS124 "NGI International Tasks Review"
For more information on how to complete the tables, read the dedicated Instructions Page
Notes:
- This milestone is an assessment of services from a managerial perspective and should be reported as an evaluation of the services (e.g. objectives being met; resources to effort; issues; suggested strategic changes).
- 'DO NOT' report what your NGI did for those tasks/services as this is covered by the Quarterly Reports.
- In order to edit this page, you need to log in with your EGI SSO account and click 'edit' on the tab (top of this page).
Community Engagement
EGI-InSPIRE Task | Task Name | Assessment | Score | How to Improve | After EGI-InSPIRE** |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
*NA2U.2E | Marketing |
your assessment here | your score here | how to improve | N/A |
NA2.1N | NGI International Liaison |
your assessment here | 0-5 | how to improve | |
NA2.6N | Distributed Competency Centre |
Overall good, mostly based on WLCG | 4 | reduce/optimize effort | Can one provide the same service level with reduced funding/man power? WLCG will continue after the end of the project though |
*Please provide your external assessment on the quality of the service, which is delivered as a Global Task (scores and feedback will be included as part of MS123 - Global Task Review).
**Please comment on the continuation or service impact at the end of EC funding regarding the EGI-InSPIRE task/service.
Operations
EGI-InSPIRE Task | Task Name | Assessment | Score | How to Improve | After EGI-InSPIRE** |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SA1.1N | NGI Activity Management | Overall good | 4 | Funding concerns often dominate the management activities; no simple solution for that | Less focus on central operation/services |
SA1.2N | A Secure Infrastructure | your assessment here | 0-5 | how to improve | |
SA1.3N | Service Deployment | Often important updates are delayed into UMD -> the repository might not be used after the end of the project. The Documentation is VERY POOR + yaim is going to bedeprecated (MAJOR problem) | 2 | simplify repository structure if possible, follow Linux distros procedures when possible. Consider dropping an official repository in case (e.g. with ARC) | several repo from the software providers, involve non HEP VOs for maintenance (difficult)-> cloud/VM templates better for certain use cases |
SA1.4N | Infrastructure for Grid Management | Overall good, as mostly based on WLCG | 4 | involve non HEP VOs -> cloud solutions. WLCG can live without extra management | WLCG can live without extra management. Expand cloud solutions for non HEP users (from hep centered to non HEP centered?) |
SA1.5N | Accounting | ARC accounting is still not fully integrated. | 3 | Difficult to maintain/improve after the end of the project | |
SA1.6N | Helpdesk Infrastructure | Overall good. The required effort seems however fairly high | 4 | Render more efficient (less manpower required) and involve non HEP VOs if possible | Difficult to maintain/improve after the end of the project-> VOs should take over this effort (non HEP VOs will face major problems) |
SA1.7N | Support Teams | Overall good, but difficult to maintain after the end of the project | 4 | Allow 1 to 1 interaction (via chat/phone) with sys admins/users, when needed. | move this effort to the VOs when possible. Non HEP VOs will face major problems. |
SA1.8N | Providing a Reliable Grid Infrastructure | Overall good, but mostly because based on WLCG | 5 |
**Please comment on the continuation or service impact at the end of EC funding regarding the EGI-InSPIRE task/service. If you have no information you can leave this column blank.