GridPP5 Tier2 plans
From GridPP Wiki
Revision as of 10:04, 21 March 2017 by Winnie Lacesso 88726f9380 (Talk | contribs)
Other links
Sites batch system status
This page has been set up to collect information from GridPP sites regarding their batch, middleware and storage system plans. The information will help with wider considerations and strategy. The table seeks the following:
- Site name
- Batch/CE system (the main batch system and CE you are intending to use in GridPP5. This might be one that you are testing as a replacement for, say, Torque/CREAM)
- Shared, non-CE? Yes/No (Is the batch system shared with users who don’t access it through the grid CE?)
- Shared filesystem? No/Name (Do users rely on a shared filesystem? e.g. Lustre. i.e. that couldn’t be replaced with local filesystems on worker nodes. Which one?)
- Non-LHC, non GridPP DIRAC VOs? No/Top3 (Do you support VOs, e.g. from EGI, that aren’t LHC experiments and don't use the GridPP DIRAC service. Please list the top 3.)
- Storage system? No/Name (dCache, DPM, StoRM)
- Non-LHC storage? No/Top3 (Do you provide storage to non-LHC projects? Please list the top 3.)
- Local storage? Yes/No (Does your grid storage also provide space for local users, that they access interactively or in non-grid batch jobs?)
| Site | Batch/CE system | Shared, non-CE? | Shared filesystem? | Non-LHC, non GridPP DIRAC VOs? | Storage system | Non-LHC storage? | Local storage? | . | Notes |
| UKI-LT2-Brunel | Arc/HTCondor | No | No | ILC,Pheno, Biomed | DPM | yes | . | ||
| UKI-LT2-IC-HEP | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
|
| UKI-LT2-QMUL | SLURM/Cream | NO(1) | YES(Lustre) | Biomed, ILC, Icecube, CEPC, Pheno, enmr.eu | StoRM | Yes (SNO+, T2K) | Yes | . | (1) very limited local usage of batchsystem for special workloads |
| UKI-LT2-RHUL | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
|
| UKI-NORTHGRID-LANCS-HEP | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | |
| UKI-NORTHGRID-LIV-HEP | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | |
| UKI-NORTHGRID-MAN-HEP | HTCondor/ARC | No | No | Biomed, ILC, Icecube | DPM | LSST, biomed, pheno | Yes | . |
|
| UKI-NORTHGRID-SHEF-HEP | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
|
| UKI-SCOTGRID-DURHAM | SLURM/ARC | YES | YES | Pheno, ILC | DPM | YES | YES | . | A Local Group has direct submission to SLURM, Local Pheno users have NFS Available as Home Space.
|
| UKI-SCOTGRID-ECDF | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
|
| UKI-SCOTGRID-GLASGOW | HTCondor/ARC | No/Maybe | Yes/NFS | Pheno,ILC,NA62 | DPM | Yes | Yes | . | Local University users use direct ARC submission, but have local storage provided via NFS. Usage is low (not in top 3) but does happen. Investigating allowing local user to directly submit to HTCondor pool. |
| UKI-SOUTHGRID-BHAM-HEP | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
|
| UKI-SOUTHGRID-BRIS | HTCondor/ARC | Yes | No but partly Yes(1) | ILC & soon LZ | DmLite+HDFS | ThinkSo, DrK will confirm/deny | Yes | . | (1) they prefer to have NFS-mounted /users/$user & /software but can live without it. I think.
|
| UKI-SOUTHGRID-CAM-HEP | HTCondor/ARC | No | No | ILC | DPM | No | No | . | Batch/CE decision could change depending on what is the least effort to maintain |
| UKI-SOUTHGRID-OX-HEP | HTCondor/ARC | No | No | ILC, SNO+, Pheno | DPM | No | No | . |
|
| UKI-SOUTHGRID-RALPP | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
|
| UKI-SOUTHGRID-SUSX | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
|
