WLCG-OSG-EGEE Operations meeting

28-R-15 (CERN conferencing service (joining details below))


CERN conferencing service (joining details below)

Nick Thackray
Weekly OSG, EGEE, WLCG infrastructure coordination meeting.
We discuss the weekly running of the production grid infrastructure based on weekly reports from the attendees. The reported issues are discussed, assigned to the relevant teams, followed up and escalated when needed. The meeting is also the forum for the sites to get a summary of the weekly WLCG activities and plans
  • OSG operations team
  • EGEE operations team
  • EGEE ROC managers
  • WLCG coordination representatives
  • WLCG Tier-1 representatives
  • other site representatives (optional)
  • GGUS representatives
  • VO representatives
  • To dial in to the conference:
    a. Dial +41227676000
    b. Enter access code 0148141

    OR click HERE
    (Please specify your name & affiliation in the web-interface)

    Click here for minutes of all meetings

    Click here for the List of Actions

      • 16:00 16:00
        Feedback on last meeting's minutes
      • 16:01 16:30
        EGEE Items 29m
        • <big> Grid-Operator-on-Duty handover </big>
          From: Southwest and NORTH
          To: CERN and France

          Report from SouthWest::
          • A lot of problems this week with dashboard, Monday morning doesn't work Tuesday morning not didn't work again. Friday worked too low ?.
          • Cern has some pps nodes under sam but monday 8 may be disappeared

          Report from NORTH:
          • Problems Encountered during shift
            • Two times the COD Dashboard was unavailable, tuesday morning and thursday morning.
          • Information for the new COD team *
            • Last weeks handover log mentioned the following: GGUS:43130 has to be extended by the reason of SD (until 12/15/08 -Gstat ), but this action was not possible to be done. The ticket has expired and it is still on the Dashboard.
              This is reported as a technical problem of the dashboard.
            • Last week we were able to update this ticket again.
        • <big> PPS Report & Issues </big>
          Please find Issues from EGEE ROCs and general info in:

        • <big> gLite Release News</big>
        • <big> EGEE issues coming from ROC reports </big>
          • France

            In order to make easier the life of VOs that want to run either 32b application or 64b one, we would like to make sure that every french site is correctly publishing the GlueHostArchitecturePlatformType attribute of their lcg-CE GlueSubCluster.

            According to the link http://goc.grid.sinica.edu.tw/gocwiki/How_to_publish_my_machine_architecture, the value is obtained by taking the result of "uname -m" command launched on the worker node (that is, the OS bits capability)

            We are however wondering whether that value has to be adapted or not to the effective Glite-WN version (i686 or x86_64). In particular, if your WN OS is x86_64 and your Glite-WN version is i686, the job environment is set to i686. In such a case, do we really have to publish x86_64 as explained in the above link ? Isn t it a bit error-prone for the VOs ?

          • Germany Switzerland

            Job list match problems at DESY reported by user. Traced back to Top-level BDII. Switched back to a host running an older version. Same effect observed at FZK as well. Details are logged in GGUS:44201 [Might be presently assigned to the wrong support unit]

            An example for a problematic jdl file:

            <verbatim> VirtualOrganisation = "dteam"; Executable = "/bin/env"; StdError = "stderr.txt"; StdOutput = "stdout.txt"; OutputSandbox = { "stdout.txt", "stderr.txt" }; Requirements = Member("srm-dteam.cern.ch", other.GlueCESEBindGroupSEUniqueID) ; </verbatim>

      • 16:30 17:00
        WLCG Items 30m
      • 17:00 17:30
        OSG Items 30m
        Speaker: Rob Quick (OSG - Indiana University)
        • Discussion of open tickets for OSG
      • 17:30 17:35
        Review of action items 5m
      • 17:35 17:35
        1. Should meeting on 22nd December be cancelled?