Yes, we had feedback from Yvan there, that all machines
are up and ready for use.
Yes, I think we should reclaim the supervisors, and
make them into workers. We could take all of them,
but Daniel had suggested that we have one more
supervisor than needed. I think we should keep one
as a supervisor, and then the rest can be workers.
I'll look into doing something with that.
Douglas
On 09/25/2013 02:41 PM, Serge Monkewitz wrote:
> 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
