Talk:Using the IRIDIA Cluster - Revision history

Mmanfrin: /* Max' comment -- part 2 */

2006-04-26T08:04:47Z

Max' comment -- part 2

Mmanfrin: /* Max's comments */

2006-04-26T08:02:00Z

Max's comments

Mmanfrin: /* Max' comment -- part 2 */

2006-04-26T08:00:16Z

Max' comment -- part 2

Mmanfrin: Max' comment -- part 2

2006-04-26T07:55:39Z

Max' comment -- part 2

Mmanfrin: /* Max's comments */

2006-04-26T07:49:56Z

Max's comments

Mmanfrin: /* Max's comments */

2006-04-26T07:47:35Z

Max's comments

Mmanfrin: /* Max's comments */

2006-04-26T07:47:05Z

Max's comments

Mmanfrin: /* Max's comments */

2006-04-26T07:46:32Z

Max's comments

Roderich: /* Discussion on who is supposed to use the cluster, and abuse */

2006-04-25T20:26:07Z

Discussion on who is supposed to use the cluster, and abuse

Acampo: /* Max's comments */

2006-04-25T20:13:53Z

Max's comments

@@ Line 98: / Line 98: @@
 == Max' comment -- part 2 ==
-For what concerne the "fairness" of Cluster usage the policy was designed around the instruments we have at the moment. I guess that the same problem can be raised for the usage of the printers (and consumption of paper and ink), the CDs, the DVDs, and all the other shared resources... how to ensure that IRIDIA member have equal access to them and nobody abuses them? (Maybe I'm naive, but I believe that the simple answer to this is: "We trust the maturity of IRIDIA members")
+For what concerne the "fairness" of Cluster usage the policy was designed around the instruments we have at the moment. I guess that the same problem can be raised for the usage of the printers (consumption of paper and ink), the CDs, the DVDs, and all the other shared resources... how to ensure that  nobody abuses them? (Maybe I'm naive, but I believe that the simple answer to this is: "We trust the maturity of IRIDIA members")
 The queueing system we use does not allow a fine-grained control (or if it does we don't know how to do it ;) ): in the configuration panel there is only a generic "max number of jobs a user can concurrently run", but no way of defining classes of users with different numbers.
 I think that, as Halva suggested, we should consider the possibility of buying a more "powerful" queueing system (maybe even the same one, Sun Grid Engine, but the commercial version that has more features).

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 :: yes that's one thing. the other one is that the things you suggest are extremely constraining. I would agree with you if you can come up with integrated solutions, SSH tunnels and similar methods that still allow any authorized user to check in, work remotely and so on. Sometimes one try to make a lot of things to improve security but that mainly makes the users life get worse instead. Anyway in our case, I believe that the very first security action we have to take is backup. Additionally the focus is not security, but fairness of use. The point is that some of us would like that members of IRIDIA have more facilities with the use of the cluster than non members. [[User:Acampo|Acampo]] 22:13, 25 April 2006 (CEST)
-::: Halva, you got the idea... if you decide to collaborate with somebody and you accept code from him/her to run on a shared resource in IRIDIA, you are responsible if it does any damage. If you  don't trust the guy, either you check his/her code before launching it, or you write the code yourself. Alex, for what concerne the access for users the proposed idea was exactly the one you suggested...the use of an SSH tunnel on the IRIDIA firewall. [[User:Mmanfrin|Max]] 09:47, 26 April 2006
+::: Halva, you got the idea... if you decide to collaborate with somebody and you accept code from him/her to run on a shared resource in IRIDIA, you are responsible if it does any damage. If you  don't trust the guy, either you compile and launch it first on your machine to see what happens, either you check his/her code before launching it on the cluster, or you write the code yourself. Alex, for what concerne the access for users the proposed idea was exactly the one you suggested...the use of an SSH tunnel on the IRIDIA firewall. [[User:Mmanfrin|Max]] 09:47, 26 April 2006
 == Rodi's two cents ==

@@ Line 98: / Line 98: @@
 == Max' comment -- part 2 ==
-For what concerne the "fairness" of usage of the shared resources the policy was designed around the instruments we have at the moment.
+For what concerne the "fairness" of Cluster usage the policy was designed around the instruments we have at the moment. I guess that the same problem can be raised for the usage of the printers (and consumption of paper and ink), the CDs, the DVDs, and all the other shared resources... how to ensure that IRIDIA member have equal access to them and nobody abuses them? (Maybe I'm naive, but I believe that the simple answer to this is: "We trust the maturity of IRIDIA members")
 The queueing system we use does not allow a fine-grained control (or if it does we don't know how to do it ;) ): in the configuration panel there is only a generic "max number of jobs a user can concurrently run", but no way of defining classes of users with different numbers.
 I think that, as Halva suggested, we should consider the possibility of buying a more "powerful" queueing system (maybe even the same one, Sun Grid Engine, but the commercial version that has more features).

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:55, 26 April 2006
Line 95:		Line 95:

	Concerning what Halva wrote: this is indeed a nice comment, and I can already see how it will be used to automatically pillories the most elaborate researchers in the context of the "Monthely report on IRIDIA Cluster CPU usage" :-)		Concerning what Halva wrote: this is indeed a nice comment, and I can already see how it will be used to automatically pillories the most elaborate researchers in the context of the "Monthely report on IRIDIA Cluster CPU usage" :-)
		+
		+	== Max' comment -- part 2 ==
		+
		+	For what concerne the "fairness" of usage of the shared resources the policy was designed around the instruments we have at the moment.
		+	The queueing system we use does not allow a fine-grained control (or if it does we don't know how to do it ;) ): in the configuration panel there is only a generic "max number of jobs a user can concurrently run", but no way of defining classes of users with different numbers.
		+	I think that, as Halva suggested, we should consider the possibility of buying a more "powerful" queueing system (maybe even the same one, Sun Grid Engine, but the commercial version that has more features).

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 :: yes that's one thing. the other one is that the things you suggest are extremely constraining. I would agree with you if you can come up with integrated solutions, SSH tunnels and similar methods that still allow any authorized user to check in, work remotely and so on. Sometimes one try to make a lot of things to improve security but that mainly makes the users life get worse instead. Anyway in our case, I believe that the very first security action we have to take is backup. Additionally the focus is not security, but fairness of use. The point is that some of us would like that members of IRIDIA have more facilities with the use of the cluster than non members. [[User:Acampo|Acampo]] 22:13, 25 April 2006 (CEST)
-::: Halva, you got the idea... if you decide to collaborate with somebody and you accept code from him/her to run on a shared resource in IRIDIA, you are responsible if it does any damage. If you  don't trust the guy, either you check his/her code before launching it, or you write the code yourself. [[User:Mmanfrin|Max]] 09:47, 26 April 2006
+::: Halva, you got the idea... if you decide to collaborate with somebody and you accept code from him/her to run on a shared resource in IRIDIA, you are responsible if it does any damage. If you  don't trust the guy, either you check his/her code before launching it, or you write the code yourself. Alex, for what concerne the access for users the proposed idea was exactly the one you suggested...the use of an SSH tunnel on the IRIDIA firewall. [[User:Mmanfrin|Max]] 09:47, 26 April 2006
 == Rodi's two cents ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:46, 26 April 2006
Line 89:		Line 89:
	:: yes that's one thing. the other one is that the things you suggest are extremely constraining. I would agree with you if you can come up with integrated solutions, SSH tunnels and similar methods that still allow any authorized user to check in, work remotely and so on. Sometimes one try to make a lot of things to improve security but that mainly makes the users life get worse instead. Anyway in our case, I believe that the very first security action we have to take is backup. Additionally the focus is not security, but fairness of use. The point is that some of us would like that members of IRIDIA have more facilities with the use of the cluster than non members. [[User:Acampo\|Acampo]] 22:13, 25 April 2006 (CEST)		:: yes that's one thing. the other one is that the things you suggest are extremely constraining. I would agree with you if you can come up with integrated solutions, SSH tunnels and similar methods that still allow any authorized user to check in, work remotely and so on. Sometimes one try to make a lot of things to improve security but that mainly makes the users life get worse instead. Anyway in our case, I believe that the very first security action we have to take is backup. Additionally the focus is not security, but fairness of use. The point is that some of us would like that members of IRIDIA have more facilities with the use of the cluster than non members. [[User:Acampo\|Acampo]] 22:13, 25 April 2006 (CEST)

		+	::: Halva, you got the idea... if you decide to collaborate with somebody and you accept code from him/her to run on a shared resource in IRIDIA, you are responsible if it does any damage. If you don't trust the guy, either you check his/her code before launching it, or you write the code yourself.

	== Rodi's two cents ==		== Rodi's two cents ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:26, 25 April 2006
Line 88:		Line 88:

	:: yes that's one thing. the other one is that the things you suggest are extremely constraining. I would agree with you if you can come up with integrated solutions, SSH tunnels and similar methods that still allow any authorized user to check in, work remotely and so on. Sometimes one try to make a lot of things to improve security but that mainly makes the users life get worse instead. Anyway in our case, I believe that the very first security action we have to take is backup. Additionally the focus is not security, but fairness of use. The point is that some of us would like that members of IRIDIA have more facilities with the use of the cluster than non members. [[User:Acampo\|Acampo]] 22:13, 25 April 2006 (CEST)		:: yes that's one thing. the other one is that the things you suggest are extremely constraining. I would agree with you if you can come up with integrated solutions, SSH tunnels and similar methods that still allow any authorized user to check in, work remotely and so on. Sometimes one try to make a lot of things to improve security but that mainly makes the users life get worse instead. Anyway in our case, I believe that the very first security action we have to take is backup. Additionally the focus is not security, but fairness of use. The point is that some of us would like that members of IRIDIA have more facilities with the use of the cluster than non members. [[User:Acampo\|Acampo]] 22:13, 25 April 2006 (CEST)
		+
		+
		+	== Rodi's two cents ==
		+	I would propose to delete the accounts on the cluster 3-6 month after the person left. I think Anders is right when he argues that IRIDIA is probably the only place where people that left years ago have still access by default. Before deleting accounts for the first time, I would propose to backup the material (as the users will be shocked by this sudden change of policy).
		+
		+	Concerning what Halva wrote: this is indeed a nice comment, and I can already see how it will be used to automatically pillories the most elaborate researchers in the context of the "Monthely report on IRIDIA Cluster CPU usage" :-)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:13, 25 April 2006
Line 87:		Line 87:
	: let's exercise a bit in a conspirancy theory: you closed the cluster in a local network; someone gives you some code to run the experiments with your account; the code contains malicious lines that jopardize the cluster => closing the cluster in a local network does not help, and you become the bad guy who hacked the cluster :)--[[User:Hlabella\|haiax]] 10:07, 25 April 2006 (CEST)		: let's exercise a bit in a conspirancy theory: you closed the cluster in a local network; someone gives you some code to run the experiments with your account; the code contains malicious lines that jopardize the cluster => closing the cluster in a local network does not help, and you become the bad guy who hacked the cluster :)--[[User:Hlabella\|haiax]] 10:07, 25 April 2006 (CEST)

−	:: yes that's one thing. the other one is that the things you suggest are extremely constraining. I would agree with you if you can come up with integrated solutions, SSH tunnels and similar methods that still allow any authorized user to check in, work remotely and so on. Sometimes one try to make a lot of things to improve security but that mainly makes the users life get worse instead. Anyway in our case, I believe that the very first security action we have to take is backup. Additionally the focus is not security, but fairness of use. The point is that some of us would like that members of IRIDIA have more facilities with the use of the cluster than non members.	+	:: yes that's one thing. the other one is that the things you suggest are extremely constraining. I would agree with you if you can come up with integrated solutions, SSH tunnels and similar methods that still allow any authorized user to check in, work remotely and so on. Sometimes one try to make a lot of things to improve security but that mainly makes the users life get worse instead. Anyway in our case, I believe that the very first security action we have to take is backup. Additionally the focus is not security, but fairness of use. The point is that some of us would like that members of IRIDIA have more facilities with the use of the cluster than non members. [[User:Acampo\|Acampo]] 22:13, 25 April 2006 (CEST)