WIL Conf call 21 Feb 2007

From GEANT2-JRA1 Wiki

Date and Time: Wednesday, the 21 February 2007, 10:00-12:00 CET, 09:00-11:00 BST.

Skype

Contents

[edit]

Actions

[edit]

Last Meeting Actions

  • NS to investigate if there is a snapshot: a file with the code that can be installed + installation procedures (similar to the one of the LS and MA).
  • NS check if Candido is on the mailing list.
  • ST: how to create a new service document before the end of Y3.
  • Roll Out Manager: document describing how many different version of schema can be deployed by the NRENs. Too many will cause a problem for the visualisation tools.
  • LK: investigate with Dante if the TopS can be deployed. AH to deploy it.
  • NS: contact Eric about the perfsonar.net workflow.
  • SK Ask NRENs to have two interfaces for the HAdes/BWCTL boxes.
  • NS to mention to EB that the mLS will most likely not be part of the next release.
  • NS to chase VJ and NJ about AA
  • LK update agenda on ISS for Wednesday
  • AH: coordiate the integration with URL so that it is easy to use by the NOC and PERT for the Pilot.
  • MM, NS and ST to create a workplan for AA.
  • ST to send their workplan
  • LK to create a workplan for its activity (jpx)
[edit]

Actions

  1. ST and SK to double check the list of people to attend the Salvador meeting.
  2. ST and SK to specify who will attend the Salvador meeting
  3. AH to make sure that BWCTL on-demand is integrated in pSUI for early April so that it can be showed during the training.
  4. LK to make a proposal for the training schedule for the next WIL conf call (ideal one, but should be around 1.5 day to 2 days) and propose who should be present (minimum number of people).
  5. NS to send the existing notes on the training agenda - DONE
  6. NS to refine the list of topics based on the existing ones listerd + some from Salvador. Send them to WIL.
  7. WIL to refine the JRA1 next meeting discussion topics/to suggest new ones. WILs to identify who should attend those different session and drop an email to those people asking them to register to it.
  8. NS to ask about SWITCH experience and about Ruth experience and report. Also ask about the preparatory work necessary by those leader.
  9. WIL to discuss about the JRA1 meeting frequency at the next WIL conf call.
  10. NS and LK to read Andreas document on visualisation release for the next WIL conf call.
  11. AH to find out about the utilisation of the LS by visualisation tools.
  12. NS and AH to discuss about the TopS.
  13. LK to raise the following point at the next pS meeting: if you want to have your tools released in perfSONAR, you need to agree to support them. If you cannot support it after a while, then it should be removed from the release.
  14. ST and SK to present a brief update about the status of their WI.
  15. NS to investigate with Candido about the need of having re-inforcement on the AA front.
  16. SK and ST to provide a list of areas where manpower is missing.
  17. SK and ST to mention if there are specific pbjectives to be added to the Y4 objective tables for WI-5 or WI-3.
  18. LK: to have a list of priorities for SA3 WI-15.
  19. SK: Next meeting and Y4 planning session, SK to be there on Wednesday morning at 9:00 for a one hour WIL meeting.
  20. AH: investigate the needs to enhancing the visualisation tools: usability and look and feel. Also identify the skills (advices or implementation as well).

Next WIL: 12th of March 10:30 CET- 09:30 CET (1 hour)

[edit]

Attendee

Andreas Hanemann, Loukik Kudarimoti, Nicolas Simar

[edit]

Minutes

  1. Who is to attend the next perfSONAR meeting? Final list so that people can book their flights.
    • Salvador Agenda
      • AA - hot topic - Poeple related to the topic: Candido, Loukik
      • NM-WG/cNIS - MS will be there - Mark, Andreas
      • Multi-LS - Maciej
      • Release management - lessons learned from last release, how to release visualisation tools: LK, LM, developers (JR or VV).
      • visualisation -AH
      • Services performances - RL or MG
      • LK: Not entirely sure about functional testing.
      • wiki pages restructured
    • Who to attend:
      1. Candido - AA
      2. Andreas
      3. Maciej
      4. Szymon? or Roman
      5. Erlangen - Verena or Jochem
      6. Mark (JRA4)
      7. Loukik
      8. Nicolas?
  2. Update about the Pilot and when to have the pilot training.
    1. Update
      • Mailing list set-up. We are gathering equipment information and locations. We plan to have the services installed in May early June. So the installation training should be around mid-April. A webpage has been set-up.
    2. What is the training scope?
      • For installation for sure. Do we need to train the people to train their own staff? AH and LK, it is sufficient to train them to use the tools and provide them with some slides materials and hand-outs (can re-use former material). Alternating between demo and having the people following an handout would be ideal. AH: for some tools, training is not really needed.
      • Attendance: 10 people, at least 6 from NRENs to install the tools, up to 4 from other NRENs (e.g. Heanet who showed some interest). So the attendance varies from people having already installed pS services and used visualisation to people who haven't used one.
      • pSUI and CNM covers all the metric but BWCTL. It is mandatory to have BWCTL integrated within pSUI by early April, so that the training cover it too.
      • Visualisation tools to cover: psUI, Looking glass and CNM - missing BWCTL)
      • LK to make a proposal for the training schedule for the next WIL conf call.
      • For using the visualisations?
    3. Who should attend the training from our side? Should the pilot training include a visualisation part?
  3. Next JRA1 meeting agenda
    • Review the scope.
      • Not in a starting phase anymore, people know what is being worked on. Better use of time to put people together in small group to work on specific topics and report them at the end of the meeting (5 min per group).
    • How to get topics for discussion?
      • SWITCH, for its national meeting is suggesting a list of topics for which people have to register. Only the topics with enough people registered at them goes ahead. The group should be between 4 and 10 people as the participation is inversely proportional to the number of participants.
      • The topics can be coming from From existing // sessions topics, on some hop topics as AA, multi-LS, based on common needs (developers FAQs), based on WILs topics identification.
      • For the next meeting topic selection: NS to refine the list of topics based on the existing ones listed + some from Salvador + based on last meeting feedback. Send them to WIL for refinement, to suggest new. WILs to identify who should attend those different session and drop an email to those people asking them to register to it. Participants will register to the sessions and a schedule will be established a week before the meeting.
      • LK: it can be expected that some topics are attended by nobody.
    • How to organise the meeting (attending it all together per groups, session drivers) (s.o. to make a proposal)
      • The session will have to be lead by someone. A WIL, a task leader, a key developer? Difficult to know who is best.
      • NS to ask about SWITCH experience and about Ruth experience and report. Also ask about the preparatory work necessary by those leader.
    • Meetings frequency.
      • Number of activity meeting still the same than Y1 and Y2 (4 JRA1 + one perfSONAR).
      • Training meetings and cross activity meetings have increase the load for some of the key participants.
      • GN2 workshop longer than the JRA1, so an increase of time away. One JRA1 meeting has been coupeled with a perfSONAR meeting, so it become longer.
      • GN2 workshop too close (January-June), so the March JRA1 meeting is a bit squeeed in between.
      • ST input would have been welcomed. This topic will be brought during the next WIL conf call.
  4. End of Y3 objectives
    • Please summarise your Work-Item Objectives (in term of technical annexe - Milestones and Deliverables: http://intranet.geant2.net/upload/pdf/GN2-06-100v5-Technical_Annex_Main_Body-Year3%2B6Months-Sep06_to_Mar08.pdf
      • AH: would wish to have the commitment from the developers to provide support for the tool. At least until the end of Y4.
      • Visualisation objectives: CNM: Inclusion of the dashboard; pSUI: plug-in design; visualisation release process
      • NS: No mention of LS. AH: not sure about its used by the visualisation. NS: no mention of AA. AH not ready within few months so not working on it. NS: what about using TopS? AH: are working on cNIS schema extention and we are missing the auto-upate for it to be useful. Some part of the TopS should be re-usable on the cNIS. NS: could already work on the interfacing withthe cNIS.
      • SA3 WI-15 objectives: Auto-upate bundles over the internet, Strengthen the handover documentation, Testing: set-up process of testing more clearly defined (e.g. to tests earlier on a product that the few weeks before the release) and extend to performance testing.
    • Define criteria for being "operational".
      • What is operational for the JRA1/perfSONAR products? It is released (including documented, tested and installable) and supported.
      • AH: better to not invent a new term. Rather than using operational, rather use released and supported.
      • AH: if you want to have your tools released in JRA1, you need to agree to support them. This should also be true for perfSONAR. If you cannot support it anymore, then it should be removed from the release.
      • MDM is currently in pilot but using perfSONAR release and supported services.
      • Not mentioned during the call: over the time, we will have to raise the entry level for a tool to be released, it should also be capable of registering to the LS, of having AA, etc. The performances of the services are also expected to increase over time.
  5. Identification of missing ressources
    • We might have an additional NREN joining the developments. Before getting in touch with them, we need to have a clear picture about the areas where we are missing ressources.
    • AH: AA service is quite complex? Does it requires additional ressource? NS to investigate with Candido about the opportunity.
    • LK: performance testing
    • documentation: wiki maintenance (restructuring)
    • developer in charge of base: hello, scheduler, etc (check with ST, who is in charge) + s.o. in charge of the schema
    • services might need additional help (RRD MA, etc) - check with ST
    • geographical coordinates SW
  6. Y4 + 6M plans.
    • High level Objectives.
      • LK: Not sure about the assumption on AA being implemented on the web-services of ps2.0 by the end of Y3. (this is a potential risk)
      • What project could be tackeled? Maybe L3 view for LHC? (following Joe Metzger's email). NS: Otherwise express.
      • NS asked to go over the priorities and tell if agreement. AH: visualisation OK. LK are missing SA3-WI15 objectives. LK to add them. AH: there might be additional specific objectives to WI-5 or WI-3.
      • AH: what about the visualisation enhancements. NS Need someone to look through the visualisation and make advise on utilisation and look and feel. We can also someone for doing that implementation?
    • Next steps as listed in the document sent.
  7. WIL conf call format
    • AH: no more than 1h30.
    • LK: I was not prepare and need to be done. More frequent meeting, but shorter.
    • Was the information provided sufficient? Yes it was OK.
    • Useful to clarify things.

Next WIL: 12th of March 10:30 CET- 09:30 CET

Retrieved from "http://wiki.perfsonar.net/jra1-wiki/index.php/WIL_Conf_call_21_Feb_2007"
Personal tools