[Go-essp-tech] QC and replication

[martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk]

Hello Estani,

I think that if the files are the same as those published by NCC to PCMDi (which can be verified with the checksums), you should re-publish as a replica.

We do have a significant degree of standardisation -- at least we will have for data that gets through QC L2 -- so we shouldn't let the obvious gaps hold us up. On the other hand, no harm in letting people know how it should be done,

cheers,
Martin 
________________________________________
From: go-essp-tech-bounces at ucar.edu [go-essp-tech-bounces at ucar.edu] on behalf of Estanislao Gonzalez [gonzalez at dkrz.de]
Sent: 27 July 2011 16:36
To: go-essp-tech at ucar.edu
Subject: [Go-essp-tech] QC and replication

Hi all,

We are currently getting NCC data for QCL2 here at DKRZ. The data was
published in a NCC datanode linked to PCMDI's Gateway in a non-DRS
conform structure.

I´m getting the data "as is", but I'll need to version it in order to
validate it for QC (QC needs a version for this).

I'm not sure how to proceed now, and would like to get some feedback
regarding:
1) I can't separate output1 from output2 without any knowledge of the
model run, should I trust the separation already in place? (It was
assigned somehow to those groups, but I have no information on how, the
directory structure doesn't reflecct this)
2) I´ll have to version it and move it to a proper DRS structure. This
will break the relation to the original files. Is it still possible to
mark it as a replica? (the dataset id should be the same one.. I think).
Is it desiderable to have replicas whose directory structure doesn't
match the original file?
3) The original files are not vesioned, so any change will overwrite
the previous file. That means that our "replicas" will have no further
"original" to be attached to. Is this also a problem?

As usual I'm against such workarounds, but this is what we have now and
I have no possibility to force/motivate people to follow the standard
procedure which was already agreed on.

I can't seem to find a way to solve this inconsistencies without adding
more confusion to the curent problem.

Any ideas?

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:  gonzalez at dkrz.de
_______________________________________________
GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
GO-ESSP-TECH at ucar.edu
http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech
-- 
Scanned by iCritical.