January 2015 - Admins - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [JLSE-Admins] What did we agree on?
by Allen, Benjamin S. 20 Jan '15

20 Jan '15

> On Jan 20, 2015, at 6:35 PM, David E. Martin <dem(a)alcf.anl.gov> wrote: > > That sounds like a good plan, except we need to let the vendor decide if people can attend. We can collect names of non-Argonne people that say they have an NDA and let the vendor decide if their particular NDA covers what they want to talk about. I would just default to: people not covered by ANL's NDA shouldn't be invited. Otherwise we're inviting a lot of confusion. Ben

1 0

Re: [JLSE-Admins] What did we agree on?
by David E. Martin 20 Jan '15

20 Jan '15

On 1/20/15 4:45 PM, Allen, Benjamin S. wrote: >> On Jan 20, 2015, at 9:09 AM, Kalyan Kumaran <kumaran(a)anl.gov> wrote: >> >> Not all users on the JLSE users list are Argonne employees, correct? They could be collaborators from other institutions. > Correct. I'd guess at least 25% or more of our users are not ANL affiliated. > >> Intel likes to set up monthly calls with us. I’m trying to arrange something similar with other vendors too. If these vendors present NDA information how do we handle it? I send an announcement to the users list saying that NDA information is going to be presented and please make sure you have an NDA with xxxx company? > We planned on having invite-only mailing lists per vendor used for NDA specific conversation, or to use explicit emails out of a mailing list. > > The users and discuss mailing lists are for non-NDA information. It's OK for you to send out a general announcement to those lists saying there's an upcoming NDA meeting. However I would ask people to respond directly to you about further details. David or you can then verify if they're allowed to attend such a meeting before giving out an actual invite to the meeting and applicable NDA mailing lists. > > Ben That sounds like a good plan, except we need to let the vendor decide if people can attend. We can collect names of non-Argonne people that say they have an NDA and let the vendor decide if their particular NDA covers what they want to talk about. > >> Thanks, >> Kumar >> _______________________________________________ >> Admins mailing list >> Admins(a)lists.jlse.anl.gov >> https://lists.jlse.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/admins > _______________________________________________ > Admins mailing list > Admins(a)lists.jlse.anl.gov > https://lists.jlse.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/admins

1 0

[JLSE-Admins] JLSE Confluence
by Allen, Benjamin S. 20 Jan '15

20 Jan '15

I'm going to ask Ti and John to create an opt-in Confluence userbase resource, where all existing JLSE Confluence users will be removed. When people go to request the new Confluence resource they'll be added back in. Is this OK? This should be the lowest overhead to cleanup userbase accounts. I'm also thinking that we could open read-only access to the majority of the documentation like the hardware status list, etc, so people don't necessarily needs accounts to browse documentation. Thoughts? Ben

1 0

Re: [JLSE-Admins] Any Haswell-EP systems in JLSE?
by John Valdes 20 Jan '15

20 Jan '15

> We're more than happy to help out. We do request that you put in a project request here: http://press3.mcs.anl.gov/jlse/projects/project-request-form/, so we can track who is using JLSE and what people are using the hardware for. Will do; actually, some of the existing projects involve topics I'm interested in exploring (Linux Containers for HPC; Campus Storage Service). > If you end up requiring specific hardware to be purchased, we may be able to accommodate depending on cost, and how much use the testbed would see beyond your own project. If LRCR has budget for test hardware and wants JLSE to host it, thats likely something we can accommodate as well. That's good to know, thanks. Do you guys get vendor no-cost-loans? Do you do storage system evaluations as well, by which I'm mainly mean commercial storage products (arrays and storage software) rather than home-built storage systems. John

1 0

Re: [JLSE-Admins] Any Haswell-EP systems in JLSE?
by Kazutomo Yoshii 20 Jan '15

20 Jan '15

Yes, I know how to enable that option, but I haven't run any bench on COD yet. I'm working on other stuff this week. I think I can run some NUMA bench sometime next week. - kaz On 01/20/2015 04:56 PM, Allen, Benjamin S. wrote: > Hi John, > > Kaz evidently has found the Cluster on Die BIOS option with this hardware. He hasn't reported back on any testing results with it however. I haven't had time to test it directly. > > We're more than happy to help out. We do request that you put in a project request here: http://press3.mcs.anl.gov/jlse/projects/project-request-form/, so we can track who is using JLSE and what people are using the hardware for. > > If you end up requiring specific hardware to be purchased, we may be able to accommodate depending on cost, and how much use the testbed would see beyond your own project. If LRCR has budget for test hardware and wants JLSE to host it, thats likely something we can accommodate as well. We do generally like to make hardware available to all our users (within reason) but can accommodate dedicated access. > > Ben > >> On Jan 20, 2015, at 4:42 PM, John Valdes <valdes(a)anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> We have 8 E5-2699v3 systems, >> Nice. Do those have the "Cluster on Die" feature? If so, have you >> played w/ that out of curiosity? >> >>> We have two hardware lists: >>> >>> http://jlse.anl.gov/resources/hardware/ >>> >>> If/once you have a JLSE account, the list I directly maintain: >>> >>> https://wiki.jlse.anl.gov/display/JLSEdocs/JLSE+Hardware >> Thanks. I don't think I have a JLSE account, now that I think of it; >> I'll request one. LCRC has many of the same goals as ALCF (just a >> different budget/funding source and target audience) and can benefit >> from JLSE's work. >> >> John > _______________________________________________ > Admins mailing list > Admins(a)lists.jlse.anl.gov > https://lists.jlse.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/admins

1 0

Re: [JLSE-Admins] Any Haswell-EP systems in JLSE?
by Allen, Benjamin S. 20 Jan '15

20 Jan '15

Hi John, Kaz evidently has found the Cluster on Die BIOS option with this hardware. He hasn't reported back on any testing results with it however. I haven't had time to test it directly. We're more than happy to help out. We do request that you put in a project request here: http://press3.mcs.anl.gov/jlse/projects/project-request-form/, so we can track who is using JLSE and what people are using the hardware for. If you end up requiring specific hardware to be purchased, we may be able to accommodate depending on cost, and how much use the testbed would see beyond your own project. If LRCR has budget for test hardware and wants JLSE to host it, thats likely something we can accommodate as well. We do generally like to make hardware available to all our users (within reason) but can accommodate dedicated access. Ben > On Jan 20, 2015, at 4:42 PM, John Valdes <valdes(a)anl.gov> wrote: > >> We have 8 E5-2699v3 systems, > > Nice. Do those have the "Cluster on Die" feature? If so, have you > played w/ that out of curiosity? > >> We have two hardware lists: >> >> http://jlse.anl.gov/resources/hardware/ >> >> If/once you have a JLSE account, the list I directly maintain: >> >> https://wiki.jlse.anl.gov/display/JLSEdocs/JLSE+Hardware > > Thanks. I don't think I have a JLSE account, now that I think of it; > I'll request one. LCRC has many of the same goals as ALCF (just a > different budget/funding source and target audience) and can benefit > from JLSE's work. > > John

1 0

Re: [JLSE-Admins] What did we agree on?
by Allen, Benjamin S. 20 Jan '15

20 Jan '15

> > On Jan 20, 2015, at 9:09 AM, Kalyan Kumaran <kumaran(a)anl.gov> wrote: > > Not all users on the JLSE users list are Argonne employees, correct? They could be collaborators from other institutions. Correct. I'd guess at least 25% or more of our users are not ANL affiliated. > > Intel likes to set up monthly calls with us. I’m trying to arrange something similar with other vendors too. If these vendors present NDA information how do we handle it? I send an announcement to the users list saying that NDA information is going to be presented and please make sure you have an NDA with xxxx company? We planned on having invite-only mailing lists per vendor used for NDA specific conversation, or to use explicit emails out of a mailing list. The users and discuss mailing lists are for non-NDA information. It's OK for you to send out a general announcement to those lists saying there's an upcoming NDA meeting. However I would ask people to respond directly to you about further details. David or you can then verify if they're allowed to attend such a meeting before giving out an actual invite to the meeting and applicable NDA mailing lists. Ben > > Thanks, > Kumar > _______________________________________________ > Admins mailing list > Admins(a)lists.jlse.anl.gov > https://lists.jlse.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/admins

1 0

Re: [JLSE-Admins] What did we agree on?
by Kenneth Raffenetti 20 Jan '15

20 Jan '15

On 01/20/2015 04:21 PM, Kalyan Kumaran wrote: > No one has answered my first question - are all users on JLSE have Argonne affiliation? I think no as I know the ParaTools guys are on the list. You are correct. Things are setup to allow outside collaborators access to JLSE. There was talk of using additional userbase resources, requiring approval, for things that needed more restricted access. Ken

1 0

Re: [JLSE-Admins] What did we agree on?
by Kalyan Kumaran 20 Jan '15

20 Jan '15

I think the onus is on too as we are sending out a message to the JLSE users inviting them to the meeting. No one has answered my first question - are all users on JLSE have Argonne affiliation? I think no as I know the ParaTools guys are on the list. -Kumar > On Jan 20, 2015, at 3:21 PM, David E. Martin <dem(a)alcf.anl.gov> wrote: > > We could announce that during a certain part of the call, NDA information will be presented, but it's up to the vendor to make that only covered people are on the call. We can only speak to Argonne's NDA status. > > -David > > > On 1/20/15 9:09 AM, Kalyan Kumaran wrote: >> Not all users on the JLSE users list are Argonne employees, correct? They could be collaborators from other institutions. >> >> Intel likes to set up monthly calls with us. I’m trying to arrange something similar with other vendors too. If these vendors present NDA information how do we handle it? I send an announcement to the users list saying that NDA information is going to be presented and please make sure you have an NDA with xxxx company? >> >> Thanks, >> Kumar >> _______________________________________________ >> Admins mailing list >> Admins(a)lists.jlse.anl.gov >> https://lists.jlse.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/admins > > _______________________________________________ > Admins mailing list > Admins(a)lists.jlse.anl.gov > https://lists.jlse.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/admins

1 0

Re: [JLSE-Admins] What did we agree on?
by David E. Martin 20 Jan '15

20 Jan '15

We could announce that during a certain part of the call, NDA information will be presented, but it's up to the vendor to make that only covered people are on the call. We can only speak to Argonne's NDA status. -David On 1/20/15 9:09 AM, Kalyan Kumaran wrote: > Not all users on the JLSE users list are Argonne employees, correct? They could be collaborators from other institutions. > > Intel likes to set up monthly calls with us. I’m trying to arrange something similar with other vendors too. If these vendors present NDA information how do we handle it? I send an announcement to the users list saying that NDA information is going to be presented and please make sure you have an NDA with xxxx company? > > Thanks, > Kumar > _______________________________________________ > Admins mailing list > Admins(a)lists.jlse.anl.gov > https://lists.jlse.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/admins

1 0