Difference between revisions of "Track User Support Requirements"
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced.<br> | | Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced.<br> | ||
Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged.<br> | Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged.<br> | ||
1st of April 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details. | 1st of April 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details.<br> | ||
Apr 21 2011 (TCB answer): EMI will provide a document detailing the scalability and stability capabilities of WMS under recommended typical deployment. The "WMS performance report" can then be used as a basis for further discussions. The WMS team thinks that the current performance numbers already meet the need of most of the user communities. | |||
At the same time, users are requested to submit bug reports directly to WMS via GGUS. | |||
|- | |- | ||
|[https://rt.egi.eu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=1778 2.Better (more verbose and informative) error messages] | |[https://rt.egi.eu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=1778 2.Better (more verbose and informative) error messages] | ||
Line 28: | Line 32: | ||
| Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced.<br> | | Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced.<br> | ||
Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged.<br> | Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged.<br> | ||
1st of April 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details. | 1st of April 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details.<br> | ||
Apr 21 2011 (TCB answer): EMI proposes the following strategy: | |||
- initially, we concentrate only on the client error messages | |||
- the user community is asked to submit the ten most annoying error messages per area (compute, data, security, information system/accounting) | |||
- EMI teams will fix and at the same time analyze the error messages | |||
|- | |- | ||
|[https://rt.egi.eu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=1779 3. Fixing the known bugs before adding new features] | |[https://rt.egi.eu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=1779 3. Fixing the known bugs before adding new features] | ||
Line 36: | Line 45: | ||
| Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced.<br> | | Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced.<br> | ||
Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged.<br> | Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged.<br> | ||
1st of April 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details. | 1st of April 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details.<br> | ||
Apr 21 2011 (TCB answer): EMI commits itself to be focused on achieving service consolidation and stability. | |||
The handling of bugs is regulated by the EGI-EMI SLA. That SLA identifies very specific response and resolution deadlines for bug categories. Changes in the SLA have to be negotiated with EMI project office. | |||
|- | |- | ||
|[https://rt.egi.eu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=1780 4. Coherency of command line commands, parameters and APIs] | |[https://rt.egi.eu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=1780 4. Coherency of command line commands, parameters and APIs] | ||
Line 46: | Line 58: | ||
| Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced.<br> | | Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced.<br> | ||
Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged.<br> | Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged.<br> | ||
1st of April 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details. | 1st of April 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details.<br> | ||
Apr 21 2011 (TCB answer): | |||
The latter is already addressed by the different convergence and harmonization plans of EMI areas. | |||
For the former, EMI has already started a first assessment of this problem, after a first evaluation phase, experts found out that this might represent a very delicate step in that it can break submission frameworks, helper scripts in a very dangerous way, this is the reason why at this stage, we think the users should be proactively involved. EMI proposes the following strategy for the command line parameters coherency challenge: | |||
- focus on user-side commands only, service administration commands should be excluded | |||
- EMI will provide a table of cli parameters, an inventory of all the cli parameters per commands as it is Today | |||
- EMI will ask the community to mark which parameters they want to change | |||
- EMI will also come with is own proposition concerning what kind of changes are feasible | |||
<!--- | <!--- | ||
[https://rt.egi.eu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=681 #681 (split) -> 1149] | [https://rt.egi.eu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=681 #681 (split) -> 1149] | ||
Line 58: | Line 80: | ||
| Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced.<br> | | Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced.<br> | ||
Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged.<br> | Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged.<br> | ||
1st of April 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details. | 1st of April 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details.<br> | ||
Apr 21 2011 (TCB answer): According to the WMS product team the latest version of the WMS, that is released with EMI-1 should address most of the request. If there are still unresoolved issues please open a GGUS ticket for the missing part(s). | |||
|- | |- | ||
|[https://rt.egi.eu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=1808 6. Data management] | |[https://rt.egi.eu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=1808 6. Data management] |
Revision as of 20:11, 13 July 2011
Main | Submit | Track |
UMD (TCB) | Operations (OMB) | User Support (UCB) |
Status at UCB
Name of the topic | Related requirement tickets | Status of tickets | Date of flagging the topic as priotiry by the UCB | Summary & Actions |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Increased stability and scalability for gLite WMS | Extension:RSS -- Error: "https://service-requirements:Teoer02i@rt.egi.eu/requirements/Search/Results.rdf?Order=DESC&OrderBy=Created&Query=Queue%20%3D%20'requirements'%20AND%20'CF.{Custom%20Tag}'%20%3D%20'ucb1'" is not in the list of allowed feeds. There are no allowed feed URLs in the list. | Waiting for technical details from ticket submitters. Deadline to answer: 21/04/2011 Full details received for 1 ticket: #704 from VO hone |
30 Nov 2010 | Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced. Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged. At the same time, users are requested to submit bug reports directly to WMS via GGUS. |
2.Better (more verbose and informative) error messages | Extension:RSS -- Error: "https://service-requirements:Teoer02i@rt.egi.eu/requirements/Search/Results.rdf?Order=DESC&OrderBy=Created&Query=Queue%20%3D%20'requirements'%20AND%20'CF.{Custom%20Tag}'%20%3D%20'ucb2'" is not in the list of allowed feeds. There are no allowed feed URLs in the list. | Waiting for technical details from ticket submitters. Deadline to answer: 21/04/2011 Partial details received for 2 tickets: #712 from NGI_IL #1147 from Life Sciences Grid Community |
30 Nov 2010 | Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced. Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged. - initially, we concentrate only on the client error messages - the user community is asked to submit the ten most annoying error messages per area (compute, data, security, information system/accounting) - EMI teams will fix and at the same time analyze the error messages |
3. Fixing the known bugs before adding new features | Extension:RSS -- Error: "https://service-requirements:Teoer02i@rt.egi.eu/requirements/Search/Results.rdf?Order=DESC&OrderBy=Created&Query=Queue%20%3D%20'requirements'%20AND%20'CF.{Custom%20Tag}'%20%3D%20'ucb3'" is not in the list of allowed feeds. There are no allowed feed URLs in the list. | Waiting for technical details from ticket submitters. Deadline to answer: 21/04/2011 |
30 Nov 2010 | Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced. Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged. |
4. Coherency of command line commands, parameters and APIs | Extension:RSS -- Error: "https://service-requirements:Teoer02i@rt.egi.eu/requirements/Search/Results.rdf?Order=DESC&OrderBy=Created&Query=Queue%20%3D%20'requirements'%20AND%20'CF.{Custom%20Tag}'%20%3D%20'ucb4'" is not in the list of allowed feeds. There are no allowed feed URLs in the list. | Waiting for technical details from ticket submitters. Deadline to answer: 21/04/2011 Partial details received for 1 ticket: #1148 from Life Sciences Grid Community |
30 Nov 2010 | Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced. Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged. The latter is already addressed by the different convergence and harmonization plans of EMI areas. For the former, EMI has already started a first assessment of this problem, after a first evaluation phase, experts found out that this might represent a very delicate step in that it can break submission frameworks, helper scripts in a very dangerous way, this is the reason why at this stage, we think the users should be proactively involved. EMI proposes the following strategy for the command line parameters coherency challenge: - focus on user-side commands only, service administration commands should be excluded - EMI will provide a table of cli parameters, an inventory of all the cli parameters per commands as it is Today - EMI will ask the community to mark which parameters they want to change - EMI will also come with is own proposition concerning what kind of changes are feasible |
5. Better feedback about jobs, automated resubmission of jobs that are stuck on sites | Extension:RSS -- Error: "https://service-requirements:Teoer02i@rt.egi.eu/requirements/Search/Results.rdf?Order=DESC&OrderBy=Created&Query=Queue%20%3D%20'requirements'%20AND%20'CF.{Custom%20Tag}'%20%3D%20'ucb5'" is not in the list of allowed feeds. There are no allowed feed URLs in the list. | Waiting for technical details from ticket submitters. Deadline to answer: 21/04/2011 |
30 Nov 2010 | Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced. Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged. |
6. Data management | Extension:RSS -- Error: "https://service-requirements:Teoer02i@rt.egi.eu/requirements/Search/Results.rdf?Order=DESC&OrderBy=Created&Query=Queue%20%3D%20'requirements'%20AND%20'CF.{Custom%20Tag}'%20%3D%20'ucb6'" is not in the list of allowed feeds. There are no allowed feed URLs in the list. | 2011 May 06: Full details are received from LSGC. |
16 Feb 2011 | Dec 2010, DRIHMS requirements (4) were recorded, but no contact with project representatives was made yet. Mar 30 2011, LSGC requirements (10) were reviewed and representatives were asked for more details. All details received from LSGC. |
7. Workflows | Extension:RSS -- Error: "https://service-requirements:Teoer02i@rt.egi.eu/requirements/Search/Results.rdf?Order=DESC&OrderBy=Created&Query=Queue%20%3D%20'requirements'%20AND%20'CF.{Custom%20Tag}'%20%3D%20'ucb7'" is not in the list of allowed feeds. There are no allowed feed URLs in the list. | 2011 |
30 May 2011 | Collecting the requirements |
UCST internal