<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<link href="chrome://translator/skin/floatingPanel.css"
type="text/css" rel="stylesheet">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi all,<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:martin.juckes@stfc.ac.uk">martin.juckes@stfc.ac.uk</a> wrote, On 08/07/2011 11:09:
<blockquote
cite="mid:E21FBC3F00D7304687CB46529F9676D712D5CB@EXCHMBX01.fed.cclrc.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Estani,
I agree with you that this is an important issue and that we want to have a clean implementation.
Unfortunately, given where we are now, I don't think there is going to be any support for withdrawing data nodes which don't meet this implementation standard -- so enforcement by the gateway won't work. So I think the only way forward is to work on simplifying the installation and then persuade the node managers to adopt the standard. Making it the default would, as you suggest, be a huge help.
I keep telling our users in the UK that the archive is currently in a very early stage, with a significant chance that data will be replaced. The same applies to the level of service. I think we need to work on demonstrating best practise as far as data node deployment goes.
At the moment I see the PKI security as a higher priority, since most of our users want scripting access rather than clicking through the gateways, and this only works when the PKI security is enabled.
For the versioning implementation, it would help to have a step by step guide on esgf.org (or if it is already there, it would help me to understand the issues if I knew where it is) -- but I guess this will have to wait until Stephen has worked through some other priorities.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Regarding CNRM data node, what prevented us to turn to the
"recommended" directory structure (it is not coined as "standard" in
CMIP5 documents), was the lack of such a guide<br>
<br>
I agree with Martin that it is important to ease an OpenDAP-enabled
scripted access for data users; if it appears that this version issue
is the only obstacle for computing datafiles addresses (not quoting the
issue of data node name), then we can consider changing the directory
structure (assuming we have the guide). <br>
<br>
Alss, I note that the first part of HTTPServer URL's also show a part
which may vary on a datanode basis,and even on an experiment or realm
basis (such as the boldface part in
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://esg.cnrm-game-meteo.fr/thredds/fileServer/">http://esg.cnrm-game-meteo.fr/thredds/fileServer/</a><b>esg_dataroot1</b>/CMIP5/output/CNRM-CERFACS/CNRM-CM5/historicalGHG/mon/land/evspsblsoi/r1i1p1/evspsblsoi_Lmon_CNRM-CM5_historicalGHG_r1i1p1_190001-194912.nc)
. Would this be cured by applying drslib ?<br>
<br>
On a very close subject, may I quote Sébastien Denvil ( 9 june 2011),
with whom I agree :<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I would like to remind us all that having a
clear add/remove/update procedure is a requirement together with
add/remove/update impact on versions (dataset version, file version).
<br>
<br>
It's clear we do our best to publish the right dataset. It's clear too
that QC process, and scientific process will spot issues (acceptable or
not) and will trigger add/remove/update actions.
<br>
<br>
I can't remember if a clear document describing publish/unpublish
procedure exist. That should describe from both perspective (data
provider/those in charge of replication) how to:
<br>
<br>
- add file(s) within existing datasets
<br>
- remove file(s) from existing datasets
<br>
- update files(s) from existing datasets (is that just add/remove? not
if we want easy life for replication. Yes if we want easy life for data
provider)
<br>
<br>
If such document doesn't exist yet I think it is a priority (given
where we are) to produce one.
<br>
<br>
Can someone points me that document?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Stéphane<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E21FBC3F00D7304687CB46529F9676D712D5CB@EXCHMBX01.fed.cclrc.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
It should be possible to get all this fixed in time, but I think people are working through a large number of issues in parallel at present.
Cheers,
Martin
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:go-essp-tech-bounces@ucar.edu">go-essp-tech-bounces@ucar.edu</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:go-essp-tech">mailto:go-essp-tech</a>-
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bounces@ucar.edu">bounces@ucar.edu</a>] On Behalf Of Estanislao Gonzalez
Sent: 07 July 2011 16:46
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:go-essp-tech@ucar.edu">go-essp-tech@ucar.edu</a>
Subject: [Go-essp-tech] DRS, version number & Co
Hi,
What's the current stand regarding DRS and dataset version number?
I've seen too many data nodes with too many different configurations.
>From invalid datasets name to invalid DRS structure, names, missing
version numbers, etc.
The version number is a particular interesting one, since in some
cases
the only way to find it is by parsing the TDS Catalogs themselves,
since
the Gateway is not providing this info (AFAICT) and if the DRS is not
followed can neither be implied from the directory structure of its
files.
Obviously neither the publisher nor the Gateway is enforcing those
constraints. I think this should be changed ASAP.
Both Node and Gateway publishing steps should enforce this when
publishing for cmip5. I think is the most direct way to get to the
publisher at the right time.
If we keep drifting away from what we already agreed on, we won't be
able to do anything useful with the data at all, since we won't be
able
to handle it properly.
I'll urge the data node managers to check DRS compliance.
I've only seen BADC publishing according to the DRS structure. I know
PCMDI, BCC, CNRM and NCCS are not. I haven't checked others.
Thanks,
Estani
--
Estanislao Gonzalez
Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie (MPI-M)
Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum (DKRZ) - German Climate Computing Centre
Room 108 - Bundesstrasse 45a, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany
Phone: +49 (40) 46 00 94-126
E-Mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gonzalez@dkrz.de">gonzalez@dkrz.de</a>
_______________________________________________
GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu">GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech">http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Stéphane Sénési
Ingénieur - équipe Assemblage du Système Terre
Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques
Groupe de Météorologie à Grande Echelle et Climat
CNRM/GMGEC/ASTER
42 Av Coriolis
F-31057 Toulouse Cedex 1
+33.5.61.07.99.31 (Fax :....9610)</pre>
<div
style="display: none; bottom: auto; left: 145px; right: auto; top: 283px;"
class="translator-theme-default" id="translator-floating-panel">
<div title="Cliquer pour traduire" id="translator-floating-panel-button"></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>