WP4 phone conference, 24/10/2001

• Excused: ZIB
• Heidelberg University: Frank
• INFN Rome: Marco
• PPARC Edinburgh: Lex
• CERN: Olof, Jan, Maite, German
• NIKHEF: David

Review of action list

• 2: closed after decision at installation phone conference 17/10/01
• 3: still using the old. Maite is going through the current list of all RPMs and working with Cal which list should be officially installed to be distributed to sites. (David) is the OpenLDAP client part of that list. It could be handy for the grid-map files.
• 13: ZIB (mail prior to meeting): “Not yet done in detail, but should be finished for the workshop in November.” (German) somebody needs to be pro-active. Olof should discuss this with Lionel.
• 14: (David) Ben’s review doubted the FLIDS component and this is one of the good arguments.
• 17: no news
• 18: no news
• 19: action moved to Heidelberg
• 36: essentially what has been done last week, finalized the Globus configuration in a single file globus.conf and the problem was the distribution of that file to all farm nodes and Marco used the filecopy object to do this. The documentation will be available this week. WP2: what could be done for the configuration of GDMP (they need to modify files like /etc/service, /etc/init.d which are “owned” by LCFG, and cannot be changed directly). Marco has also worked with them, using the inetd object. He will be provide the documentation (for WP2) tonight. WP1: still working on their configuration and hopefully they send something today to Marco who will then try to understand if we can re-use the filecopy object or if a more complicated object is needed. Marco will present the m/w configuration part with LCFG on the testbed site-admin meeting next Monday. (Lex) very interested in how this was done and would like to get a copy of the documentation (it will be circulated as the official document). Keep action open until the WP1 configuration has been clarified. Evaluation procedure should include Globus configuration for future use.
• 39: ZIB (mail prior to meeting) “Started, but not yet finished.” (David) still pending
• 40: open
• 41: some of the ALICE testbeds would require Condor but not immediately. 6-8 after the first weeks. David will provide Florian and Thomas with an account on their Condor test pool
• 42: ZIB (mail prior to meeting) “If a written report exists, please mail its address.” (Jan) this will be done for the deadline (31/10) next week
• 43: ZIB (mail prior to meeting) “Should be done. It only needs some minor work (adapting the external documentation, CVS tag). If a person of the testbed integration team could provide values for the static attributes of the ‘testbed queues’ we could add a configuration file to the repository as a reference.” (Maite) they are working with Fabio for access to the testbed. The status is unchanged. Maite to check with Fabio.
• 44: Lyon will partition his testbed and install 6 using LCFG. LCFG over WAN is unwise (it was considered a possibility to install the small testbed sites). The image installation could maybe be used. (Lex) yes, what Jan said is correct; there is a security issue. Closed

Task/institute status report

• David: not much since last week. Progress on the review of the D4.2. Will send the corrections today.
• Frank: haven’t made much progress. Have implemented “trivial” FT, measuring temperature and shutdown if it goes above limit.
• Lex: no major developments. Quite some work on restructuring LCFG (adaptors etc.) and CVS, making sure that all the LCFG components follow the naming guidelines.
• Jan: quite since last week. Jaudet is writing a new object to install CCM via LCFG. Could be related to the new release of CCM.
• Marco: will finalize the work for the integration team. Start the evaluation for LCFG. Something ready for the next week.

New actions

• German: two new actions:
• Reviews of D4.2: would like the to have the input from tasks on task specific questions for today (for Fed’s comments) and Friday (for the other two reviews).
• WP2 asked for a status section for each subsystem. Deadline tomorrow.
• Release planning: Marco: is this schedule also for validation? Evaluation should be included in the plan.
• New action on everybody to read Bob Jones’ document “Sw release planning” and send comments via e-mail to the whole WP4 list.

AOB

• Olof: to help the testbed evaluation of WP4 middleware, it would be useful if we prepare a questionnaire for testbed site admin? This has to be done now (before the integration site-admin meeting on Monday (29/10). INFN could help.