Q: since "autofs" is not working properly on SLC6 - how stable is 'eosxd' on SLC6 compared to CC7?
A (APeters): same stability, but on SLC6 it's basically autofs which cannot unmount the unused FS... still under investigation
A (BJones): some problems might not be spotted on CC7, as there is not enough batch capacity on CC7
C: (EObreshkov) ATLAS is still using a lot SLC6, and will use containers with SLC6... struggling to find out why the EOS-FUSE is not stable in the containers
Q: LDeniau: the "bad example" is used by BE-ABP: ROOT "hadd()" and CONDOR batch jobs, writing many files in a single dir - what to expect?
A (APeters): Try to split over several directories to reduce crosstalk. Try not to use SQLite, if possible or use it only for reading, as writing generates a lot of flock()s; for boosting performance we can try to relax the messaging for each file written
A (Ben): In batch, the default use case is in sandboxes (the input data is loaded, processed and then copied into the shared FS)
A (Jan): see already-existing (AFS-area) best practices for using the shared FS
Q (APfeiffer): Can you do a "make -j 20" from a single machine?
A (APeters): In principle yes, at ~the same speed as AFS; has been tried with -j 4... just because the machine didn't have enough cores; question about why would you run the compilation on the shared FS
A (APfeiffer): output is needed on a shared FS
A (Jan): temporary object files might go outside the shared FS (as best practice - EOS should still work OK, just become slow)
Q: Why do you not recommend to use EOS for the home directories yet?
A (APeters): still some known issues to be fixed before this is made more widely available
A (Jan): nothing major, just that we would like not to waste user's time on things we already know that can be improved before making it widely available
Comment: testing the new EOS FUSEX is important for many users, and could easily become a show-stopper if not done in time
Q: What would be the difference between AFS and EOS, provided all things are fixed?
A (APeters): feature-wise, almost on par; high throughput would be more easily achievable; some things would be slower, due to the fact that eosxd runs in user space (high I/O operations would be slower than on AFS, due to the architecture fuse vs in-kernel)
A (Jan): specific AFS workloads (if using AFS commands, not just filesystem) would need to be translated
Q (APfeiffer): Do you plan long term to have a kernel interface for the EOS client?
A (APeters): due to kernel conservative approach to kernel releases in RHEL/CentOS, we might not want to take this approach
Q (APfeiffer): Would it be possible to push it as a kernel module in order to eliminate part of the performance issues?
A (Jan): Strict kernel policies may prevent for the module to be accepted in mainline. Also fragile interface - contributes to current AFS trouble.
Q: Are 24h backups available?
A: Yes, in a slightly different way; we have the recycle in which we keep removed data for 6 months
A: No tape backup at the moment, and not envisaged; R&D for having snapshots running every day
Q: Can a directory be recovered completely?
A (APeters): Yes, if removed in one go via "rm -r"; we keep versions for files, as well
A [clarification after meeting]: note: FUSE/FUSEX do not create versions for every open/update/close - see EOS-3194
Q (Joel): Management of the ACLs: the interface is not very friendly - i.e using CERNBox to set ACLs, seem to have discrepancies between CERNBox / EOS
A (Luca): we plan a CLI to support ACLs
A (APeters): ACLs to be kept in sync between Win/POSIX ACLs
Q: Will the policy of not having publicly available directories in HOME be reviewed?
A (Luca): We could relax this particular behaviour from inside CERN network (for unauthenticated access). Not planning to give truly anonymous access even from outside CERN.
Q (APfeiffer): One more thing needed: ACLs (slide 1?)
A: we'll discuss this in the presentation
Q (JClosier): For the default action, why not just delete? (slide 2)
A: we'll try to identify the best solution for each use case if no reaction/decision from the owner
Q: JIRA or SNOW tickets in case of encountering issues? (slide 4)
A: Any kind, please make sure it's linked to the JIRA tracker for the affected AFS area
Q: Why not moving scratch to EOS directly, instead of AFS (slide 5)
A: They might behave differently, so AFS requires less interaction with the user (short notice - first part of 2019). Except most content to be deleted before.
Q (Joel): "work" is /afs/cern.ch/work, or the initial work directories under the home directories ("w0" under home...)?
A: "work" is /afs/cern.ch/work. The old "w0" areas will be handled as part of the "project scratch space" phaseout (please send an example)
Q: Are there issues with 'case (in)sensitiveness' between Windows and Linux?
A: not obvious (yet); things are looking better in more modern OS. But EOS is case-aware, so at worst would end up with duplicate differently-capitalized EOS entries.
Q (Baosong Shan): For the "project" area will there be one instance or more?
A (Jan): in general, number of instances to be kept low.
A (Jan,Luca): negotiable, AMS might get its own instance since already "big".
Q (Baosong): When will EOSPROJECT be ready for testing?
A (Luca): Probably from March
Q (Baosong): Can we test FUSEX+QuarkDB namespace before?
A: Yes, on user/service account home directories - already running the new combination.
Q: Could some users start earlier with testing?
A: Sure. For different communities, arrangements can be made for testing
Q: What if there are plenty of references to different locations? Moving might mean everything or nothing.
A (Massimo): Symlinks should still work as replacement for volume mounts inside AFS, etc.
A (Jan): Only a few of the tools are aware about volume mounts. To prevent unwanted volume traversal, could replace them with symlinks; at filesystem-level this should not break anything (unless being AFS admins and using "vos release" etc)
Q: (Frank Locci) BE-CO client machines would need to be up to date with the latest client but are snapshotted.. What to do in order to do this on prod machines which are staged/snapshotted?
A: Suggest to freeze the version that is at the point in time seeming to be bug-free; update when an important bug in the client is fixed for you. Similar model to LXPLUS=LXBATCH (frequent updates) and Linux desktops (which see fewer versions)
Q (Elena Gianolio): What about the AFS web sites?
A: Agreement with the Web team: migration mostly driven by the Web Team => pointer (i.e URL redirector) could be changed almost at the same time as the website data; would still need validation from the user => test link to be tested => OK from user, before making to prod
Also: the Web Team is investigating containers, which might provide more security to the websites (would no longer using the same shared identity for allowing the web server access)