|
|
| Line 40: |
Line 40: |
| == [[Operations/Platform_Deployment_Survey|Results]] == | | == [[Operations/Platform_Deployment_Survey|Results]] == |
|
| |
|
| = (CLOSED) NGI International tasks and EGI Global Services = | | = [[EGI_Operations_Surveys_%28CLOSED%29|CLOSED Surveys]] = |
| * Release date: December 20 2011
| |
| * Deadline for submission: January 19 2012
| |
| | |
| == (Overview NGI International Services ==
| |
| NGIs are requested to perform a self-assessment of the NGI operational services.
| |
| * Question 1-7: NGIs are requested to assess the operations international tasks of the NGI/EIRO. The NGI representatives are required to fill in the tables providing an estimation of the current manpower needed to run the service and a written report of the main activities carried out in 2011. Note well: the manpower requested to be estimated is the TOTAL one, including EGI-InSPIRE funding and local sources of funding as applicable.
| |
| * Question 8: NGIs are requested to provide feedback about three areas of improvement of operations for 2012
| |
| * Question 9-11: NGIs are requested to estimate the level of internal funding for NGI operations already secured after the end EGI-InSPIRE
| |
| | |
| '''[https://www.egi.eu/indico/materialDisplay.py?contribId=4&materialId=3&confId=617 WORD version of survey]'''
| |
| | |
| ==Instructions==
| |
| * Please, submit your survey at [http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22E7RRUPNQY NGI Int. Services survey]
| |
| | |
| == Overview: EGI Global Services ==
| |
| NGIs are requested to assess the performance of EGI.eu Global Services (operational ones). Input provided will be used for the yearly assessment of EGI Global Services in 2012 (milestone MS115). The survey addresses all operations Global Services, these are devided into four categories:
| |
| *PART I Infrastructure services and tools (central instances)
| |
| *PART II Grid services: release and deployment
| |
| *PART III Support
| |
| *PART IV Operations management and coordination
| |
| '''[https://www.egi.eu/indico/materialDisplay.py?contribId=4&materialId=3&confId=617 WORD version of survey]'''
| |
| | |
| ==Instructions==
| |
| * Please, submit your survey at [http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22E6SNB4NW7 EGI Global Services survey]
| |
| | |
| == Results ==
| |
| * [https://www.egi.eu/indico/contributionDisplay.py?sessionId=6&contribId=12&confId=709 NGI sustainability]
| |
| * [https://www.egi.eu/indico/getFile.py/access?contribId=3&resId=0&materialId=1&confId=618 Global tasks]
| |
| | |
| = (CLOSED) SLURM support for CREAM =
| |
| * Release date: November 25 2011
| |
| * Deadline for submission: December 14th 2011
| |
| | |
| == Overview==
| |
| This survey is addressed to sites deploying gLite middleware to assess the interest in getting support of the SLRUM batch
| |
| system in CREAM (the batch systems currently supported are LSF, PBS/Torque, SGE, this list does not include SLURM
| |
| currently).SLRUM was reported in our community to be a viable replacement of PBS/Torque especially in large stes,
| |
| thanks to its scalability and good functional capabilities.This survey aims to collect feedback from site managers in order
| |
| to assess the need for support of SLURM in CREAM.We invite all sites deploying CREAM or who are planning to deploy
| |
| CREAM, to participate to this survey (please coordinate participation internally and make sure that a single reply is
| |
| submitted per site).The survey includes five questions, all in one page.
| |
| | |
| ==Instructions==
| |
| * Please, submit your survey using the [http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22DWEANYTKU online form].
| |
| == Results==
| |
| 39 Sites would consider to replace their LRMS with SLURM if supported by CREAM
| |
| * Total of 64600 cores (17% of the job slots available in the infrastructure)
| |
| * 23 sites with more than 1k cores
| |
| | |
| If you are planning a replacement of the current batch system, what are the reasons for this?
| |
| * 35 - Improve the scalability and the stability of the LRMS
| |
| * 20 - The set of features of the current batch system are not sufficient
| |
| * 15 - The new batch system would be easier to deploy and manage
| |
| * 5 - Migrate from a costly solution to a free, open source, one
| |
| Note: Multiple answers were allowed
| |
| | |
| See also:
| |
| * [https://www.egi.eu/indico/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=617 Slides]
| |
| * [https://rt.egi.eu/guest/Ticket/Display.html?id=3262 EGI requirement] to EMI, to check status of requirement
| |
| | |
| =(CLOSED) LB capabilities, service management and auditing and gLite-CLUSTER=
| |
| * Release date: 18 Jan 2011
| |
| * Deadline for submission: 10 Feb 2011
| |
| | |
| ==Overview==
| |
| * '''PART 1, [http://egee.cesnet.cz/cs/JRA1/LB/ Logging and Bookkeeping Service]''': Logging and Bookkeeping (LB) it is a monitoring service which gathers, aggregates and archives information on infrastructure behaviour from the perspective of users' tasks. The EMI project aims at extending the LB scope and its further integration with other grid services. The first page of the survey contains a set of questions to help LB Team to better design the new features of the LB Service, and to target the real users' needs.
| |
| | |
| * '''PART 2, Remote Grid Service Management (RGSM)'''. Management is performed through a set of notifications issued to the relevant Grid service instance. Examples of management actions are: start, stop, drain etc. The RGSM framework can be used for remote management of a service. EMI has a dedicated [https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/EMI/EmiJra1T5TaskForceServiceManagement task force] to investigate the requirements for common service monitoring and management interfaces. This survey is to collect information and requirements from the EGI operations community and sites to understand which technologies are of interest for service management.
| |
| | |
| * '''PART 3, Grid service auditing (GSA)''', that is a feature that allows a system administrators and users to check the status of a service in terms of load, length of internal queues, and to monitor service workload from a grid point of view over time. Service auditing is different from Nagios-based monitoring as it is not based on probes, but rather on the periodic gathering of service status information.
| |
| | |
| * '''PART 4, gLite CLUSTER''', [https://documents.egi.eu/document/308 glite-CLUSTER] allows the configuration of information related to the batch system environment to be separated from the configuration of the job submission interface. With this service sites will be able to publish their resources information consistently and without any workaround. Even in case of multiple CEs or cluster with heterogeneous hardware configuaration. There are few questions to understand how the publishing of cluster information is a problem for site managers.
| |
| | |
| ==Resources==
| |
| * [https://wiki.egi.eu/w/images/8/88/SA1_Survey_2011_Jan_18-v3.pdf pdf] version of the survey
| |
| ==Results==
| |
| '''Q1''':Do you need more platforms to be supported by EMI software, in addition to those already in use (SL5)?
| |
| * 12 responses
| |
| '''Q2''':Part One, Logging and Bookkeeping(Questions from 3 to 10)LB: Which services should be watched in the grid in addition to gLite WMS and CREAM, that are already supported by LB?
| |
| * ARC CE 7 - 58%
| |
| * UNICORE CE 5 - 42%
| |
| * Data Transfer 12 - 100%
| |
| * SRM Operations 8 - 67%
| |
| * Other 1
| |
| '''Q3''':LB: What aggregated information would be useful (e.g. average queue traversal time, task failure rate etc.)?
| |
| * 12 responses
| |
| '''Q4''':LB: And at what level of aggregation (referring to the previous question)?
| |
| * Per Use 6 - 55%
| |
| * Per VO 10 - 91%
| |
| * Per service instance 8 - 73%
| |
| * Other, please specify: 5 - 45%
| |
| '''Q5''': Would you leverage capturing dependencies among the tracked entities (e.g. to know that a computational jobs are blocked by failing transfers of their inputs, and to be able to discover detailsimmediately)?
| |
| * Yes 5 - 50%
| |
| * No 5 - 50%
| |
| '''Q6''': What is the desired level of complexity of the queries on the service?
| |
| *Simple, like: "all tasks on this CE", "this user's tasks within a given time interval": 4 - 36%
| |
| * More sophisticated, but through current LB querying language: 2 - 18%
| |
| * Full SQL/XQuery power on the task data: 7 - 64%
| |
| * Intermediate, describe here: 1 - 9%
| |
| '''Q7''': LB: What are the output formats to be supported
| |
| * Glue-conforming WS interface: 6 - 55%
| |
| *Simple key=value text format: 7 - 64%
| |
| *JSON: 5 - 45%
| |
| *Human readable HTML:2 - 18%
| |
| *Other: 4 - 36%
| |
| '''Q8''': What modes of retrieving information are foreseen ?
| |
| *Synchronous (query-response):7 - 64%
| |
| *Asynchronous (subscribe for notification, eventually via message bus): 4 - 36%
| |
| '''Q9''': For how long data about the task should be kept?
| |
| *One day 0 0%
| |
| *One week 2 18%
| |
| *One month 4 36%
| |
| *One year or more 5 45%
| |
| '''Q10''': Part two, Remote Grid Service Management (questions from 11 to 20) RGSM:Do any of your Grid services come with capabilities to react certain conditions by adapting their behaviour?
| |
| *Yes 4 40%
| |
| *No 6 60%
| |
| '''Q11''': According to your day-to-day experience, please describe typical service management scenarios. How is management performed?
| |
| *8 Responses
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| '''Q12''': Are there any management commands that can be performed on your Grid services that go beyond specific business logic (e.g. purge persistent data)?
| |
| *Yes 2 25%
| |
| *No 6 75%
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| '''Q13''': What are the limits of your Grid service management capabilities?Is there a gap between the capabilities offered and your Grid service management needs?
| |
| *9 responses
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| '''Q14''':Please list the 5 management commands you would need the most in your setup (e.g. start/stop services, deploy/un-deploy service, purge service data, dynamically change access rights..).
| |
| *10 Responses
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| '''Q15''':Which of those 5 management commands apply to all of your Grid services?
| |
| *9 Responses
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| '''Q15''':Out of your day-by-day eperience, how many services do you really need to manage remotely?
| |
| *11 Responses
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| '''Q16''':are you capable of (un)deploy Grid services at runtime?
| |
| *Yes 1 9%
| |
| *No, but I would need it. 5 45%
| |
| *No, and I don't need it. 5 45%
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| '''Q17''':If you're deploying stateful Grid services in a site: does the Grid service interface support Grid service state deletion?
| |
| *Yes 2 25%
| |
| *No 6 75%
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| '''Q18''':What kind of setup would you prefer for remotely managing your Grid services?
| |
| *Dedicated: service management interfaces on each Grid service 5 45%
| |
| *Decoupled: services get their commands from a messaging solution they register to 1 9%
| |
| *Both 5 45%
| |
|
| |
| '''Q19''':Part three, Grid Service Auditing (questions from 21 to 26). GSA: What kind of data are you already collecting about your Grid services and how are you doing it?
| |
| *13 Responses
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| '''Q20''':For which services auditing of service status is important?(service status: workload, queue status, etc..)
| |
| *10 Responses
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| '''Q21''':For each service above, which data is mainly useful?
| |
| *8 Responses
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| '''Q22''':For each service above, which data is mainly useful?
| |
| *3 Responses
| |
|
| |
| '''Q23''':Are the current service auditing capabilities sufficient, or should this be improved?
| |
| *Yes 4 44%
| |
| *No 5 56%
| |
|
| |
| '''Q24''':Should status data be automatically archived?
| |
| *Yes 9 90%
| |
| *No 1 10%
| |
|
| |
| '''Q25''':Part four, glite-CLUSTER (questions from 27 to 29). gC: How many sites in your NGI/EIRO have heterogeneous clusters, or multiple sub clusters (disjoint sets of workernodes, each set having sufficiently homogeneous properties), or multiple CEs?
| |
| *0 4 33%
| |
| *Up to 5 6 50%
| |
| *More than 5 2 17%
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| '''Q26''': gC: How many of those sites reported difficulties in configuring their CEs, in order to properly publish their site capacity?
| |
| *0 5 38%
| |
| *Up to 5 5 38%
| |
| *More than 5 3 23%
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| '''Q27''':Given that gLite-CLUSTER is released only for lgc-CE, how many sites in your NGI/EIRO are interested in usinge the gLite-CLUSTER capability?
| |
| *0 8 62%
| |
| *Up to 5 2 15%
| |
| *More than 5 3 23%
| |
| | |
| = (CLOSED) Batch systems current deployment scenario in the EGI infrastructure =
| |
| * Release date: May 18 2011
| |
| * Deadline for submission: 30 June 2011
| |
| == Overview==
| |
| Purpose of this survey is to understand what are the batch systems currently
| |
| mostly deployed.
| |
| | |
| == Results overview==
| |
| '''Q1''': Which are the batch systems currently deployed in your site? You can have a multiple choice.
| |
| *PBS 12 5%
| |
| *PBS/Torque 139 60%
| |
| *PBS/Maui 142 61%
| |
| *PBS/Moab 7 3%
| |
| *LSF 18 8%
| |
| *SGE(OGE) 20 9%
| |
| *Slurm 5 2%
| |
| *Condor 3 1%
| |
| *Other, please specify 15 6%
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| '''Q3''':Are you planning to replace the existing batch system in the near future? If so, please select the new one from the list below.
| |
| *No plans to change the batch system 206 89%
| |
| *PBS 0 0%
| |
| *PBS/Torque 4 2%
| |
| *PBS/Maui 3 1%
| |
| *PBS/Moab 0 0%
| |
| *LSF 1 0%
| |
| *SGE(OGE) 8 3%
| |
| *Slurm 7 3%
| |
| *Condor 2 1%
| |
| *Other, please specify 5 2%
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| '''Q4''':If you have faced integration issues between your local batch system and the deployed middleware, please tell us about them
| |
| *70 Responses
| |
| | |
| = (CLOSED) top-BDII deployment scenarios =
| |
| * Release date: May 24th 2011
| |
| * Deadline for submission: June 30th 2011
| |
| == Overview ==
| |
| Survey addressed to NGIs
| |
| == Results ==
| |
| '''Q1''':Do you currently deploy a top-BDII service?
| |
| *Yes 17 94%
| |
| *No 1 6%
| |
|
| |
| '''Q2''': If not, are you planning to deploy one?
| |
| *Yes 2 40%
| |
| *No 3 60%
| |
|
| |
| '''Q3''': Your NGI current top-BDII deployment
| |
| *Without High Availability and/or Load Balancing 6 35%
| |
| *With HA or LB, describe your solution 11 65%
| |
|
| |
| '''Q4''': Are you using failover at the client side using the top-BDII of another NGI?
| |
| *Yes 1 6%
| |
| *No 17 94%
| |
|
| |
| '''Q5''': Number of sites using the current top-BDII of your NGI
| |
| *Unknoun 1 6%
| |
| *From 1 to 5 7 39%
| |
| *From 6 to 10 2 11%
| |
| *From 11 to 15 4 22%
| |
| *From 16 to 20 2 11%
| |
| *From 21 to 25 0 0%
| |
| *From 25 to 30 0 0%
| |
| *More than 30 2 11%
| |
|
| |
| '''Q6''': Top-BDII is a critical service that needs to be highly available. Various strategies to improve the robustness of the service are possible, such as a load balancing configuration implementing a cluster of top-BDIIs (within your infrastructure or shared with other Resource Infrastructures), or by deploying a list of alternative top-BDII instances at the client side. Both scenarios are mostly beneficial to small/medium NGIs where the amount or resources may not justify the deployment of an own top-BDII cluster. Are you interested in this? In case of sufficient interest, EGI can put effort in the definition of a top-BDII deployment model that addresses these needs.
| |
| *Yes 9 56%
| |
| *No 7 44%
| |
| | |
| = (CLOSED) UMD current deployment scenario =
| |
| * Release date: September 14th 2011
| |
| * Deadline for submission: September 20th 2011
| |
| == Overview ==
| |
| In this survey we are collecting information about the level of deployment of UMD and EMI released services into the
| |
| production infrastructure. The results of the survey will be presented in the next week EGI Technical Forum, and as such
| |
| we set a deadline until next Monday 19 September 2011 at 12h00 (France time)
| |
| ==Instructions==
| |
| Survey '''closed'''.
| |
| == Results ==
| |
| '''Q1''':List here which services (if any) did you deploy from the UMD repositories (http://repository.egi.eu), please include the service version.
| |
| *59 Responses
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| '''Q2''':List here which services (if any) did you deploy from the EMI repositories (http://emisoft.web.cern.ch/emisoft/), please include the service version.
| |
| *49 Responses
| |
|
| |
| '''Q3''':Please, leave here additional comments
| |
| * 18 Responses
| |
The wiki is deprecated and due to be decommissioned by the end of September 2022.