https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira This file is an XML representation of an issue en-us 8.3.4 803005 13-09-2019 https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/browse/INSTRM-812 Instrument control development <p>[ Provisional ticket, please confirm <a href="https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=cloomis" class="user-hover" rel="cloomis">cloomis</a> ]</p> <p>Similarly to <a href="https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/browse/INSTRM-806" title="Provision rack5-ics host" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="INSTRM-806"><del>INSTRM-806</del></a> where a host for the roughing- and enuActors is needed, we also need to have another host at the CB2F for the above actors.</p> INSTRM-812

CB2F host for spsActor, spsAitActor, testsActor etc

Story Normal Done Done Yoshida, Hiroshige hassan SPS Subaru subaru-personnel Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:07:09 +0000 Fri, 22 Nov 2019 14:59:18 +0000 Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:51:17 +0000 0 3 <p>Please suggest hostname (spsait-ics?) and spec. of the guest VM (1 socket, 2 cores, 1 thread, 8 GB memory, 16 GB disk, similar to shell-ics?).</p> <p>I suggest we basically have three instrument VMs at CB2F: <tt>shell-ics</tt> for development; one VM for the core essentials: tron, the archiver, alertsActor, and maybe gen2Actor; and for now just one VM for all the other actors: iic, fps, sps, spsait, etc. I don't think we understand how (or whether) to partition actors yet, in the meanwhile simplicity feels like the right goal. Oh, "tron-ics" and "actors-ics", say? <span class="error">&#91;why are we adding &quot;-ics&quot;? Do we like that convention?&#93;</span></p> <p>Two or four cores (how many are on the hardware?) would be nice. </p> <p>Both VM host servers, "rca1-vm" and "rfa4-vm", have 2/4/2 processors/cores/threads. "rca1-vm" has 64 GB memory, while "rfa4-vm" has 32 GB.</p> <p>Done. actors-ics.</p> Relates INSTRM-806 Development Rank 0|zzey00: Sprint SM1PD-2019 C Story Points 2.0