[Go-essp-tech] CMIP5 Web interface requirements matrix

[Cecelia DeLuca]

Could we take an additional hour - say go 8-10MT or 9-11MT - and do 
both?  They both seem pretty
important.
- Cecelia

On 1/20/2012 9:41 AM, stephen.pascoe at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
> Hi Luca,
>
> I really don't think this is a good use of time.  I know P2P is improving all the time but I've seen a number of demos now.  It would be more effective to go through the matrix and you describe how P2P meets the requirements or how you plan to meet them.
>
> Depending on who's on the call, we may be in a position to discuss the GW2/P2P deployment strategy for CMIP5 in more detail.  Therefore, I wouldn't want to schedule something that is likely to take up most of the hour.
>
> Stephen.
>
> ---
> Stephen Pascoe  +44 (0)1235 445980
> Centre of Environmental Data Archival
> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Oxford, Didcot OX11 0QX, UK
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cinquini, Luca (3880) [mailto:Luca.Cinquini at jpl.nasa.gov]
> Sent: 20 January 2012 14:29
> To: Eric Nienhouse
> Cc: Pascoe, Stephen (STFC,RAL,RALSP); go-essp-tech at ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [Go-essp-tech] CMIP5 Web interface requirements matrix
>
> Hi Stephen,
> 	thanks for the matrix...
> I would like to suggest that we start with a full demo of the P2P system on Tuesday. The gateway 2.0 demo took a full hour - we will try to make the P2P demo shorter, but if it ends up taking a full hour, we can always discuss the matrix at the next call.
>
> thanks, Luca
>
> On Jan 20, 2012, at 7:23 AM, Eric Nienhouse wrote:
>
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> Thank you for this latest version of the matrix.  It will be good to
>> discuss it further on Tuesday.  I would like to understand the ranking
>> numbers and planned evaluation process and hope this is something we can
>> address on the call.
>>
>> Attached is an update to the previous version I was just about to send
>> as your recent email arrived.  Please note 4 highlighted rows.  (2 fall
>> in the non-functional category.)  I trust they can be incorporated and
>> discussed.
>>
>> Indeed the CMIP5 system(s) are under continued development and
>> enhancement and the matrix inherently has some relation to the
>> architectural choices up to this point.  Sticking with the current
>> replication section for the time being seems appropriate.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Eric
>>
>> stephen.pascoe at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have merged Luca's suggestions into the CMIP5 GUI requirements
>>> matrix and reorganised it substantially.  Apart from those items that
>>> are architecture-specific I include most of them, sometimes under a
>>> different section.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm aware there are some architectural assumptions embedded in this
>>> sheet.  For instance, there has been a recent discussion about whether
>>> master/replica is the right model for depicting replicas.  It's a pity
>>> we're having this discussion now!  For the moment I've kept the
>>> replication section as-is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All scores are my opinion based on variable information.  Sometimes
>>> I've assumed something works or is planned in P2P without verifying
>>> it, sometimes I've assumed it doesn't after a quick test.  Where there
>>> is a "?" anywhere it would be really useful for the developers to
>>> contribute.  To this end I'd like to go through the sheet on Tuesday,
>>> or make a start at least, so that I can clarify what some items mean.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I know a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since I started this
>>> process.  No matter what strategic decisions the CMIP5 cores centres
>>> take on our future deployments I hope this matrix will be useful in
>>> focusing on the core CMIP5 requirements.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Stephen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Stephen Pascoe  +44 (0)1235 445980
>>>
>>> Centre of Environmental Data Archival
>>>
>>> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Oxford, Didcot OX11 0QX, UK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Pascoe, Stephen (STFC,RAL,RALSP)
>>> *Sent:* 10 January 2012 14:32
>>> *To:* go-essp-tech at ucar.edu
>>> *Subject:* CMIP5 Web interface requirements matrix
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To help the CMIP5 centres plan our upgrade to the next major release
>>> of the CMIP5 archive system BADC has been collating a
>>>
>>> spreadsheet of web interface requirements with input from PCMDI, DKRZ
>>> and MOHC (see attached).  We hope to use this sheet as a tool to plan
>>> migration of the CMIP5 web interface at the main CMIP5 centres: PCMDI,
>>> BADC and DKRZ.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The sheet is still work in progress and there is lots to discuss and
>>> clarify.  I have begun to suggest scores for the three systems being
>>> considered, Gateway 1.3.4, Gateway 2.0 and P2P, but these are
>>> speculative at this stage, particularly for the P2P system with which
>>> I have the least experience.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If there is time I'd like to briefly introduce the sheet at the
>>> GO-ESSP telco today and schedule a time for a more thorough discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Stephen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Stephen Pascoe  +44 (0)1235 445980
>>>
>>> Centre of Environmental Data Archival
>>>
>>> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Oxford, Didcot OX11 0QX, UK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Scanned by iCritical.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
>>> GO-ESSP-TECH at ucar.edu
>>> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech
>> <CMIP5_GUI_Requirements_v20120110_ejn.xlsx>_______________________________________________
>> GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
>> GO-ESSP-TECH at ucar.edu
>> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech