Monday 9th February 2015, 15.00 GMT
Other VO Nagios Results
At the time of writing the only site showing red that aren't suffering an understood problem was RALPP with org.nordugrid.ARC-CE-submit and SRM-submit test failures for gridpp, pheno, t2k and southgrid for both its CEs and its SE. The failures are between 1 and 12 hours old, so it doesn't seem to be a persistent failure, but it seems to be quite consistent. They all seem to be failing with "Job submission failed... arcsub exited with code 256: ...ERROR: Failed to connect to XXXX(IPv4):443 .... Job submission failed, no more possible targets". Anyone seen something like this before?
Only 20 Open UK tickets this week.
Biomed tickets:
111356 (Manchester)
111357 (Imperial)
Biomed have linked both these tickets as children of 110636, being worked on by the cream blah team. AFAIKS no sign of Cream 1.16.5 just yet.
TIER 1
111347 (22/1)
CMS consistency checks for January 2015. It looks like everything that was asked of RAL has been done by RAL, so hopefully this can be successfully closed. In progress (3/2)
111120 (12/1)
Another ticket, this time concerning a period of Atlas transfer failures between RAL and BNL, that looks like it can be closed as the failures seem to have stopped (and might well have been at the BNL end). Waiting for reply (22/1)
108944 (1/10/14)
CMS AAA test failures at RAL. Federica can't connect to the new xrootd service according to the error messages. No news for a while. In progress (29/1)
100IT
108356
111333
Both of these 100IT tickets are looking a bit crusty - the first is waiting for advice, the second was just put "In progress".
QMUL
110353 (25/11/14)
Dan has set up se02.esc.qmul.ac.uk to test out the latest https-accessible version of storm for dteam and atlas. As a cherry on top this node is also IPv6 enabled. I'm not sure if Dan wants others in the UK to "give it a go"? In progress (6/2)
LANCASTER
100566 (27/1/14)
(Blatantly scounging for advice) Trying to figure out why Lancaster's perfsonar is under-performing. Ewan kindly gave us access to a iperf endpoint and it's been very useful in characterising some of the weirdness - although I'm still confused. Ewan also gave us a bunch of suggestions for testing that have been useful - next stop, window sizes. If anyone else wants to throw advice to me all wisdom donations are thankfully accepted. My advice for others in be careful trying to connect to the default iperf port on a working DPM pool node.... In Progress (9/2)
|