- Where next...
The questionnaire (also put on last week's agenda for those who think this summary is familiar)
Does your site policy allow the use of MUPJ by the LHC experiments you support? (no/depends/yes)
• Yes 16/17
• Depends 1/17
• No
• Does your site policy support the use of glexec in setuid mode? (no/allow/require)
• No
• Allow 14/17
• Require 3/17
• Does your site policy support the use of glexec in log-only mode? (no/allow/require)
• No 4/16
• Allow 12/16
• Require
To smooth the deployment and use of the critical components involved, an exceptional treatment of the following case may be desirable until sufficient stability has been demonstrated across WLCG:
• When glexec returns an internal error (e.g. SCAS/Argus/GUMS temporarily unavailable),
does your site policy allow the pilot to continue and run the payload itself? (no/depends/yes)
• No 4/16
• Depends 10/16
• Yes 2/16
- Next steps are for the technical forum to review WLCG feedback overall.
- To come back to you for clarification where required
- Put forward conclusions/recommendations ahead of March GDB
In the background testing of SCAS/glexec continues
- We have a few instances in production
- Testing has so far produced positive feedback
- Further supporting sites requested
CREAM:
- Seems to be working well at several sites (feedback?)
- The EGEE target was for all sites to deploy CREAM in parallel to LCG CE by end of March
- We would like some more sites to deploy this month.