Hi all,
I share Douglas' sentiment - these machines have been and will
continue to be extremely useful for debugging and development.
Douglas - the machines appear to be up. I've updated both the node
and empty chunk lists and brought qserv back up for more debugging.
Since we have < 64 nodes now, we should reclaim 5 of the 6 supervisor
nodes we have (at least, maybe all 6?) and turn them into workers. I
have not done anything related to that.
Thanks,
Serge
On Sep 25, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Douglas Smith wrote:
> Thank you very much for this, it will continue to be a help
> in the dev. of qserv. We will update our lists, and restart
> things.
>
> Are these machines up now? Or is there still some downtime
> before we should continue testing and dev.?
>
> Douglas
>
>
> On 09/25/2013 05:43 AM, Rachid Lemrani wrote:
>>
>> Please find below the list of machines that have been kept running
>> (ccqserv058 missing)
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Rachid
>>
>>
>> ccqserv001
>> ccqserv002
>> ccqserv003
>> ccqserv004
>> ccqserv005
>> ccqserv006
>> ccqserv007
>> ccqserv008
>> ccqserv009
>> ccqserv010
>> ccqserv011
>> ccqserv012
>> ccqserv013
>> ccqserv014
>> ccqserv015
>> ccqserv016
>> ccqserv017
>> ccqserv018
>> ccqserv019
>> ccqserv020
>> ccqserv021
>> ccqserv022
>> ccqserv023
>> ccqserv024
>> ccqserv025
>> ccqserv026
>> ccqserv027
>> ccqserv028
>> ccqserv029
>> ccqserv030
>> ccqserv031
>> ccqserv032
>> ccqserv033
>> ccqserv034
>> ccqserv035
>> ccqserv036
>> ccqserv037
>> ccqserv038
>> ccqserv039
>> ccqserv040
>> ccqserv041
>> ccqserv042
>> ccqserv043
>> ccqserv044
>> ccqserv045
>> ccqserv046
>> ccqserv047
>> ccqserv048
>> ccqserv049
>> ccqserv050
>> ccqserv051
>> ccqserv052
>> ccqserv053
>> ccqserv054
>> ccqserv055
>> ccqserv056
>> ccqserv057
>> ccqserv059
>> ccqserv060
>> ccqserv061
>> ccqserv062
>> ccqserv063
>> ccqserv064
>> ccqserv065
>> ccqserv066
>> ccqserv067
>> ccqserv068
>>
>>
>> On 23 sept. 2013, at 18:08, Douglas Smith
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, that is great news! There are some debugging developments
>>> that haven't really finished, that might be good to continue.
>>>
>>> We would like the first set, ccqserv001-ccqserv050. We especially
>>> need the first master machine ccqserv001, since all the dev. work
>>> has been done on that one.
>>>
>>> Let me take a look at the "first" set of machines again, I might
>>> want
>>> to get something off the master there, but probably not. But after
>>> that I don't see us needing that set of machines.
>>>
>>> Thanks -
>>>
>>> Douglas
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09/23/2013 01:06 AM, Fabrice Jammes wrote:
>>>> Hello Daniel, Douglas, Jacek, and Serge,
>>>>
>>>> Good news ! CC-IN2P3 agree to keep 50 machines running
>>>> permanently for
>>>> Qserv development purpose.
>>>> Here's two questions from Rachid Lemrani about these remaining
>>>> machines
>>>> at CC-IN2P3 :
>>>>
>>>> - Do you havea preference on the set of machines to keep (in
>>>> ccqserv set
>>>> {001 .. 320}), or can the CC-IN2P3 engineers choose it
>>>> themselves(depending on racks for example)?
>>>> - Do you still need the"first" installed qserv machines (ccqserv
>>>> {01 ..
>>>> 15})?Can it be stopped ?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Fabrice
>>>>
>>>> ###################################################################
>>>> #####
>>>> Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe from the QSERV-L list, click the following link:
>>>> https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=QSERV-L&A=1
>
> ######################################################################
> ##
> Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
>
> To unsubscribe from the QSERV-L list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=QSERV-L&A=1
########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
To unsubscribe from the QSERV-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=QSERV-L&A=1
