1 / 8

Update from EGI Operations

Summary of past requirements overview, new security requirements for EMI and IGE, survey for SLURM, and IPv6 outcome. Tickets awaiting response from EMI, endorsed requirements, and modified tickets. Survey on SLURM and IPv6. Future steps for EGI network support.

kbeebe
Download Presentation

Update from EGI Operations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Update from EGI Operations Peter Solagna – EGI.eu

  2. Summary • Past requirements overview • New set of security requirements for EMI and IGE • Upcoming survey for SLURM requirement • IPv6 survey outcome

  3. Waiting for an answer The following tickets are waiting for an answer from EMI: • 1186: New features for UNICORE Target System • 1384: DOS attack • 881: Requirement for VO renaming / migration The following requirements have been officially endorsed by the technology provider, but no timeline has been provided • 1388: Better documentation on services migration • 1386: EMI Data clients should be able to offer the file:// protocol to SRM services

  4. Tickets modified The following tickets have been modified changing their scope: • 1381: Improving automatic service configuration (Was: Improving yaim configuration) • 1236: generic Information system for EGI

  5. Security Tickets The following tickets have been presented in the security session @ EMI AH Oct2011, but they apply to Globus middleware as well • 3079: Default key size for any generated proxy • 3080:RPDNC constrains • 3078: Support for SHA2 proxies • 3076: Support for OCSP • 3081: Support drop-in trust anchor distribution • 3075: Common Authentication Library to configure the accepted proxy lifetime • 3074: Unit test for CRL refresh

  6. Survey for the support of SLURM In a survey run across the sites six month ago SLURM resulted not to be largely deployed • The survey asked for the LRMS currently deployed, or plannedto be deployed in the near future Recently the interest in SLURM has increased • It was reported in our community to be a viable replacement of PBS/Torque especially in large stes, thanks to its scalability and good functional capabilities. • In the next days we will start a new survey in order to assess the need for support of SLURM in CREAM • The survey will be addressed to sites deploying the CREAM CE, because SLURM is supported by ARC and UNICORE • The survey will be open for few weeks • If the results will be relevant, they will be forwarded to EMI as a requirement.

  7. IPv6 - survey results Outcome of the survey • 27 NGIs answered (~70%) • One NGI is planning to set up an IPv6-Only site • 16 NGIs available to join a distributed IPv6 testbed • Testbed for: UMD components, operational tools and other tools • Can support and complement similar Technology Providers’ activities

  8. IPv6 – proposed steps ahead • Tech Providers and EGI Network Support could begin to focus on core site services for the UMD • Site Resources Information System • Computing Element ( ARC, gLite, UNICORE) • IGE site components • Storage Elements • EGI NetSup coordinates with NGIs for assigning tasks on general purpose testing • For ARC SWITCH/SWING gave some availability • For gLite GARR • Need to identify volunteering NGIs for UNICORE, IGE and dCache • Many NGIs gave their principle availability • Requires further coordination • Tech Providers start thinking/prototyping what should be done to include IPv6 in their certification process • EGI Network Support further investigate integration options: • Protocol translation at the site level ? • Gateway towards IPv6-resources in the IPv4 infrastructure (and vice versa)? IPv6 testbed planned for Dec/Jan 2011-12 • The proposal needs to be re-assessed and updated by Feb 2012

More Related