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	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. 1st of April 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details. 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.
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	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. 1st of April 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details. 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
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	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. 1st of April 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details. 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.
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	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. 1st of April 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details. 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
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	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. 1st of April 2011: UCST sent 2nd reminder to ticket submitters to provide technical details. 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).
6. Data management	Tickets submitted to TCB: Tickets in process by UCST:	2011 May 06: Full details are received from LSGC. Other tickets: work in progress (UCST)	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. Jul 1 2011: Tickets submitted to TCB
7. Workflows		2011	30 May 2011	Collecting the requirements

UCST internal

UCST Internal pages