We need a clear definition of core services so they can be properly tagged in GOCDB, clean the associated downtime notifications, etc
Main aim is to reduce the list of core services at "grid" and "VO" level. "Federation" level is not that critical, because it's the ROC that get notified, and if they want to stop this, they have proper rights in GOCDB to change the flag by themselves.
A first idea would be to define simple rules to say what is NOT a core service (CEs, UIs, etc.) and systematically exclude any of these services from the "core" flag definition.
breakdown of core services per type of service:
Services on nodes declared as GRID core:
- 13 CE + APEL
- 10 Site-BDII
- 3 UI
- 10 Classic-SE
- 9 MON
- 5 RB
- 19 WMS
- 8 VOMS
- 3 VO-box
- 3 FTS
- 3 SRM
- 6 LB
- 1 Central-LFC
- 2 Local-LFC
- 3 MyProxy
- 7 Top-BDII
- 1 CREAM-CE
Services on nodes declared as VO core:
- 9 CE + APEL
- 5 Site-BDII
- 1 UI
- 8 Classic-SE
- 4 MON
- 1 RB
- 8 WMS
- 6 VOMS
- 8 VO-box
- 1 FTS
- 6 SRM
- 4 LB
- 10 Central-LFC
- 12 Local-LFC
- 3 MyProxy
- 5 Top-BDII
From: David Bouvet - COD-FR
Context: Follow-up of last escalation step by OCC and ROC not correctly done. When last step is reached, as stated in Operational Manual, ROC should normally discuss in private with its site, and then tell at next Weekly Operation meeting if the site should be suspend or not. Most of the time, at Weekly Operation meeting, ROC says that it has too discuss, and then no more news. The site stay in last escalation step during several weeks.
In Operational Manual: "If no progress is made, COD make sure that OMC is informed of the situation, and the site status is set to “suspended” in GOCDB by COD unless OMC say differently."
Proposed solution:As COD has rights to suspend a site, if ROC is not present at Weekly Operation meeting or has not send a mail about that problem, COD suspends the site. If ROC is present and asks for discussion with its site, OCC should put an action on ROC in the list of actions of the Weekly Operation meeting so it will be followed at next meeting. Answer or suspension by ROC should be done within the next 3 days: as acknowledgement, a mail should be sent to both OCC and COD mailing lists. In case not, the site is suspended by COD after these 3 days.
Some example of "long" last step:
* GGUS #40521: RU-Phys-SPbSU (1 month and a half)
o 25/09/2008: last escalation step
o 06/10/2008: raised at WLCG Ops meeting
o 06/11/2008: still in last step and not suspended
o 06/11/2008: Cyril L'Orphelin (COD-FR) send mail to Maite, Steve and Nick
o 06/11/2008: Maite sent mail to Russian ROC
o 06/11/2008: site suspended by Russian ROC
* GGUS #42015: ITPA-LCG2 (4 weeks)
o 24/10/2008: last escalation step
o 27/10/2008: raised at WLCG Ops meeting
o 03/11/2008: raised again at WLCG Ops meeting
o 07/11/2008: still in last step and not suspended
o 10/11/2008: raised again at WLCG Ops meeting
o 17/11/2008: still in last step and not suspended. ROC North is present at WLCG Ops meeting and will check with site.
o 18/11/2008: finally fixed by site
GRIF: 39 cores, 4.5 TB
STFC: 146 cores, 1 TB
CYFRONET: 30 cores, 15 TB
GR-01-AUTH: 42 cores, 6.5 TB
which gives: 257 cores and 27 TB in total.
It was clarified by Project Office that money related to seed resources will be allocated by a contract amendment. I suppose this will affect WBS while there is an option that money will be claimed by partners as effort (!). It is equally clear for sites that they are obliged to start support earlier (on demand).
The first VO that will be running on seed-resource is na4.vo.eu-egee.org according to suggestion from Cal. Currently, I almost finished agreeing with VO the level of support (it took some time becouse VO was not fully prepared). If resources required will be confirmed I will request the site to prepare the configuration.
For other VOs, the possibility of requesting such resources is mentioned on NA4 policies wiki. I contacted NA4 people responsible for this, whenever there were any requests for resources that would be valid still, but there were no.
We are ready to handle new requests being contacted by GGUS ticket (according NA4 policy). Additional, I requested extension to VO cards in CIC portal to make possible apply for seed resource directly while registering the VO (https://savannah.cern.ch/support/?106454). Helene promised me to handle this with a high priority.