Track User Support Requirements

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		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	April 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. April 1 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details. Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged. Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced.
2.Better (more verbose and informative) error messages		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	April 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 April 1 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details. Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged. Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced.
3. Fixing the known bugs before adding new features		Waiting for technical details from ticket submitters. Deadline to answer: 21/04/2011	30 Nov 2010	April 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. April 1 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details. Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged. Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced.
4. Coherency of command line commands, parameters and APIs	Resolved #665	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	April 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 April 1 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details. Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged. Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced.
5. Better feedback about jobs, automated resubmission of jobs that are stuck on sites	Resolved #660	Waiting for technical details from ticket submitters. Deadline to answer: 21/04/2011	30 Nov 2010	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). April 1 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details. Feb 2011: UCST invited the providers of reusable tools to comment on the requirements. Neither negative, nor positive evidences emerged. Jan 2011: UCST asked ticket submitters to provide technical details about the circumstances under which the scalability and stability problems were experienced.
6. Data management Tickets submitted to TCB		2011 May 06: Full details are received from LSGC	16 Feb 2011	Jul 1 2011: Tickets submitted to TCB 2011 May 06: Full details are received from LSGC Mar 30 2011, LSGC requirements were reviewed and representatives were asked for more details.
6. Data management Tickets in process by UCST		2011 May 06: Full details are received from LSGC. Other tickets: work in progress (UCST)	16 Feb 2011	Mar 30 2011: LSGC requirements were reviewed and representatives were asked for more details. All details received from LSGC. Tickets are in process by UCST Dec 2010: DRIHMS requirements (4) were recorded, but no contact with project representatives was made yet.
7. Workflows		2011	30 May 2011	Collecting the requirements

UCST internal

The tickets on this UCST Internal pages page are still under investigation by the User Community Support Team. During the investigation the team collects technical details about the requiement and tries to identify existing solutions from NGIs, existing applications, etc. If no existing solution is found then the ticket is escalated to UCB. If the ticket requires modification/improvements in the EGI grid middleware, then the ticket - after it is endorsed by the UCB - is forwarded to Technology Coordination Board.