LCG Management
Board
|
|
Date/Time: |
Tuesday 22 November 2005 at 16:00 |
Agenda: |
|
Members: |
|
|
(Version 2 - 26.11.2005) |
Participants: |
A.Aimar (notes), D.Barberis, L.Bauerdick, I.Bird, K.Bos, D.Boutigny, N.Brook, T.Cass, Ph.Charpentier, Di Quing, I.Fisk, D.Foster, J.Gordon, H.Marten, P.Mato, M.Mazzucato, G.Merino, B.Panzer, J.Shiers, Y.Schutz, L.Robertson (chair) |
Excused: |
B.Gibbard, M.Lamanna |
Next Meeting: |
Tuesday 29 November 2005 at 1600 |
Minutes and matters arising |
|
Minutes of last two MB - 8 and 15.11.2005 (see minutes)
Minutes of both meetings approved. Duration of the MB meetings The MB decided that the meetings should last one hour. Participants should connect at 4 PM in order to start in time. Status of the VO Box meeting The dates agreed are 24-25 January 2006, location still to be decided. Participating sites are: IN2P3, PIC, FZK, RAL and FNAL (but the dates are not convenient for FNAL and it may not be able to attend).
|
|
Actions Review |
|
A proposal was sent, will be discussed with J.Shiers
and I.Bird.
Still to be done.
Few sites have sent their plans updated, others have asked
to postpone until December because this matches the time by when they will
make their internal plans. A couple of sites did not reply. |
|
Feedback from the Comprehensive Review (documents
) |
|
Summary of concerns (document ) Summary of the concerns presented by the referees to the LHCC after the Comprehensive Review. Discussion
Action: J.Shiers has initiated a team to define metrics to measure site reliability and availability, data transfer capability, and overall grid performance . He will distribute a proposal on this to the MB for input from the sites and services, before 6 December 2005.
General tests of availability should be independent of the
implementation (e.g. catalog availability and similar services) and work for
all grids and sites. SFT can run on different grid implementations and should provide
a set of tests common to all sites. In addition there may be different tests
depending on the grid infrastructure and VO that a site has to support (e.g.
FTS service metrics and RB metrics apply to VO that are using the FTS and
RB). L.Bauerdick noted that the SFT framework could already be used with
Tier-1 sites in OSG, and that there is a proposal to deploy the necessary
information providers on the Tier-2s before the end of the year. Sites can add their specific tests which will be executed
in addition to the standard SFT tests.
- CASTOR2 issues
This is an item for later in the agenda
[postponed to next week’s meeting]
The MB will follow the planning and progress closely for the next few months. A.Cass said that he plans to organise a CASTOR 2 Readiness Review, foreseen for March 2005.
ATLAS: Committed to the 3D project.
There was some discussion about the preference of CMS for
a solution different from that selected by the other experiments. Operating
two services at Tier-1 centres would generate an
additional load. L.Bauerdick explained that the FroNtier/Squid system was
straightforward to deploy and support, and that this had bee extensively
discussed and agreed. M.Mazzucato considered that nonetheless this required
sites supporting CMS and other experiments to expend effort investigating and
operating the service.
Few issues from the referees. - SEAL/ROOT: - PROOF: The referees consider that the major investments in PROOF should be matched by a decision by several experiments to use it. ATLAS needs first to discuss this at the AF to see the
implications on the applications. The interest in PROOF should be clearly stated by the experiments. F.Rademakers is in contact with the experiments and the goals and plan for the evaluation will be presented to the MB. The current proposal is for a facility on a single centre for a service to have experiments to try it. In order to know what is possible to deploy and to maintain in the long term, people running services should be involved in the discussion.
Action: Preparation of the goals
and plans for the PROOF evaluation. - should improve sharing experience between
Tier-1 centers Sites are encouraged to discuss directly the details on how they are setting up operations and services support. - LHCC wants to understand and monitor fabric strategies
- Procurement issues CERN, IN2P3, FNAL presented their acquisition procedures. FNAL has a very flexible process which enables the price to be fixed much later than in the longer European procedures. Possibilities for improvement at CERN will be investigated again, but it is not clear how it could be changed. As the hour was up - the remaining sections of the paper (Grid Deployment, Service Challenges, Management) will be continued at the next meeting. |
|
Milestones Issues |
|
The
items below are postponed to the next MB meeting
|
|
AOB |
|
No AOB. |
|
Summary
of the Pending Actions |
|
New Actions:
The full Action List, current and past items, is updated at this wiki page |