Track User Support Requirements

Main

Submit

Track

UMD (TCB)

Operations (OMB)

User Support (UCB)

Status at UCB

This page displays the details of requirements that have been submitted to EGI by its user communities through the Requirement Tracking system. The requirements are investigates by the User Community Support Team of EGI, solutions are offered to them by the team, by NGIs and by external technology providers of EGI. The process is described at https://wiki.egi.eu/wiki/Requirements_gathering_details. If you wish to submit a requirement to EGI, please use the Requirement Tracking system.

Name of the topic	Related requirement tickets	Status of requirement	Date of endorsement by UCB (where applicable)	Requirement tracking history
1. Increased stability and scalability for gLite WMS		21/04/2011. Documentation on WMS configuration and limitations is to be delivered by EMI. Additional details from ticket submitters is still welcome 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	Feedback and technical requirements concerning the APIs are welcopme through the Service_APIs EGI Service API table: Service APIs Partial details received for 1 ticket: #1148 from Life Sciences Grid Community	30 Nov 2010	23 Aug 2011 UCST defined a table in the EGI Wiki to provide information about existing APIs and to collect structured feedback and requirements about these: https://wiki.egi.eu/wiki/Service_APIs 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 Solved Requirement	Resolved #660	Waiting for technical details from ticket submitters. Deadline to answer: 21/04/2011	30 Nov 2010	August 25 2011: Investigation completed. Full details are available in ticket: #1406. Main finding: Currently (for gLite) the way users gather info about running jobs is querying the LB service from the UI. This service does not provide all the information needed by some users. The new LB grid service 2.x and the recent 3.0 version which is included in EMI 1.0 release, allows grid jobs to log user tags in LB. These user tags can be used for example to query the status of intermediary stages of a grid job. If current LB functionalities do not meet user needs, then these users can submit specific requirements against the service. 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.
Data Management 6.1 Coherency of storage and catalog Tickets submitted to TCB		2011 May 06: Full details are received from LSGC	16 Feb 2011	Sep 20: The EMI presentations at the EGI Technical Forum showed that development of SE-LFC synchronisation is ongoing. Link to the "catalogue synchronisation working group" of EMI: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/EMI/EmiJra1Syncat Link to the developers' tracker: https://savannah.cern.ch/task/?21787 Sep 19: confirmation received through the Helpdesk that the requested functionality is currently missing from the middleware Aug 9: TCB accepts the requirement only after UCST confirms that this is a request for new feature and not a bug in the gLite data management services. 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.
Data Management 6.2 Stability and scalability of Data Management Services 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.
Data management Tickets in process by UCST		For the status of each tickets please click on the title and have a look at two fields: Progress and Summary.	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
8. MPI		Aug 13, 2011: The requested services are available in EMI 1.0 and we are Waiting for the completion of the UMD validation of MPI services from EMI 1.0	15 July 2011	Aug 12 2011:The requested services are available in EMI 1.0 and we are Waiting for the completion of the UMD validation of MPI services from EMI 1.0 A Wiki based EGI MPI User Guide has been prepared for application developers: https://wiki.egi.eu/wiki/MPI_User_Guide. Feedback and specific requirements about MPI service can be added to this.
Other Tickets in process by UCST		For the status of each tickets please click on the title and have a look at two fields: Progress and Summary.	15 September 2011	Sep 15 2011: UCST has completed the investigation of requirements. The requests can be submitted to external EGI technology providers to develop solutions.: Redundancy of SE using lcg-cr command Sep 27: Request submitted to technology providers through the Helpdesk. Expected solutions: (1) a FAQ which would tell the users how to craft your job to build fail-over functionality into it (2) further-development of related middleware products to provide fail-save file tranfers. Disk space management (Community: LSGC) TCB should answer if automatic moving of files from SEs should be part of middleware to prevent filling up disk space on a specific storage resource ? Or just alarming system should be implemented e.g. Nagios probes finer grained access controls (VO: vlemed) Homogenous APIs for a middleware Single sign-on lcg-cp - background replication to other SEs (WeNMR) Entry in EMI tracker already exists. Release date is not known yet. Adding LFNs handling in job submission mechanisms Changes in JDL "Executable" attribute handling

Solved Requirements

Name of the topic	Related requirement tickets	Summary & Actions
5. Better feedback about jobs, automated resubmission of jobs that are stuck on sites Solved Requirements	Resolved #660	August 25 2011: Investigation completed. Full details are available in ticket: #1406. Main finding: Currently (for gLite) the way users gather info about running jobs is querying the LB service from the UI. This service does not provide all the information needed by some users. The new LB grid service 2.x and the recent 3.0 version which is included in EMI 1.0 release, allows grid jobs to log user tags in LB. These user tags can be used for example to query the status of intermediary stages of a grid job. If current LB functionalities do not meet user needs, then these users can submit specific requirements against the service. 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.
Other Solved Requirements		September 15th 2011: Currently total number of solved requirements is 75.