EMI INFSO-RI SA1 – Maintenance and Support Francesco Giacomini (INFN) EMI First EC Review Brussels, 22 June 2011

EMI INFSO-RI Outline SA1 - F. Giacomini - 1st EMI Review 2 SA1 Objectives and Tasks in Y1 Key Performance Indicators Lessons learned Y2 Outlook

EMI INFSO-RI SA1 Objectives and Tasks SA1 - F. Giacomini - 1st EMI Review 3 Software Maintenance: Ensure the efficient and transparent management of the maintenance process providing software problems analysis and resolutions Release Management: Ensure customers receive certified software releases of middleware services and components according to agreed release policies and quality of service attributes Quality Control: Increase the quality levels of the EMI software by contributing to the implementation of the Quality Control procedures defined by the project QA activity User Support: Establish the EMI User Support function and integrate it with the overall EGI, PRACE and VRCs user support channels

EMI INFSO-RI SA1 in EMI SA1 - F. Giacomini - 1st EMI Review 4 Common picture to be included…

EMI INFSO-RI EMI Release and Software Timeline SA1 - F. Giacomini - 1st EMI Review 5 01/05/2010 Start EMI 1 EMI 2 EMI 3 Support & Maintenance Supp. & Maint. 30/04/201130/04/201228/02/2013 Major releases

EMI INFSO-RI Software Maintenance SA1 - F. Giacomini - 1st EMI Review 6 Keep the stability of the software currently in production, introducing only the changes that are needed to keep the infrastructure running – Bug fixes or requested improvements – No backwards-incompatible changes Waiting for EMI 1 the Software Maintenance plan was applied as much as possible to existing software distributions – Following procedures inherited from previous projects Constant flow of updates with no discontinuity between projects Security vulnerabilities addressed following the recommendations of the Risk Assessment Team of the EGI Security Vulnerability Group

EMI INFSO-RI Release Management SA1 - F. Giacomini - 1st EMI Review 7 EMI 1 – Kebnekaise Released on May 12th, products from ARC, dCache, gLite, UNICORE Scientific Linux 5 (augmented with EPEL5), 64 bit, fully supported platform – Selected products for SL5, 32 bit, available – Porting to SL6 starting soon 333 binary packages – 86% of source packages – Digitally signed 192 external dependencies – 165 from SL5/EPEL5, 27 managed by EMI

EMI INFSO-RI EMI 1 Preparation SA1 - F. Giacomini - 1st EMI Review 8 Required a huge integration effort to put together in a coherent way all the existing software components – Common tools (ETICS, Savannah) – Common procedures Tools and procedures provided by SA2 – Common external dependencies, same versions Globus libraries by IGE, taken from EPEL Coordination of many people from different experiences – Engineering Management Team (EMT) – Weekly phone conferences + discussions EMI 0 and four EMI 1 Release Candidates, with increasingly strict criteria, towards the final release – Integration builds run multiple times a day

EMI INFSO-RI User Support SA1 - F. Giacomini - 1st EMI Review 9 Organization based on the EGEE experience, following reviewers' recommendations SUs are automatically monitored through GGUS No discontinuity between projects

EMI INFSO-RI Quality Control SA1 - F. Giacomini - 1st EMI Review 10 The activity performed by the Software Maintenance, Release Management and User Support tasks was reviewed by the Quality Control task – Following policies and check-lists contained in the Software Quality Assurance Plan by SA2 – Feedback was returned to SA2 to improve the SQAP itself, about: Alignment between SA2-defined metrics and KPIs Tools to use to measure metrics and KPIs Introduction of thresholds for metrics Introduction of tolerance ranges for the checklists Coordination of the EMI 1 QC Verification – Joint activity with JRA1 and SA2

EMI INFSO-RI Security Assessment Plan SA1 - F. Giacomini - 1st EMI Review 11 Under the responsibility of the SA1 QC task Novelty wrt previous projects Plan available and being implemented starting from security-related software components – Based on the “First principles vulnerability assessment” methodology Collaboration with the EGI Software Vulnerability Group and the University of Wisconsin

EMI INFSO-RI Service Level Agreements SA1 - F. Giacomini - 1st EMI Review 12 One SLA signed so far, with EGI, in April 2011 It covers Software Development and Support services needed for EGI – Provide clear description of roles and responsibilities – Provide a measurable description of the offered services E.g. target response time for GGUS tickets, depending on their priority Covered services – Software Releases – Requirements Analysis – Requirements and Software testing reports – Web-based support

EMI INFSO-RI Key Performance Indicators SA1 - F. Giacomini - 1st EMI Review 13 User Support KSA1.1 – Number of incidents (i.e. tickets) KSA1.2 – Incident resolution time Software Maintenance KSA1.3 – Number of problems (i.e. bugs) KSA1.4 – Number of urgent changes KSA1.5 – Change application time Release Management KSA1.6 – Number of releases KSA1.7 – Number of release rollbacks Difficult to collect raw data in a uniform way for existing software – Some KPIs were postponed to after EMI 1 release from GGUS from RfC trackers from Release tracker

EMI INFSO-RI KSA SA1 - F. Giacomini - 1st EMI Review 14

EMI INFSO-RI KSA SA1 - F. Giacomini - 1st EMI Review 15

EMI INFSO-RI KSA SA1 - F. Giacomini - 1st EMI Review 16

EMI INFSO-RI Issues, Mitigation, Lessons Learned Putting together software developed in very different contexts is hard – EMI 1 represents the starting point Putting together the people who developed the above software is harder – Build consensus among project members before approving plans and policies – It took a lot of time and patience – Agreed plans and policies are now available from SA2 Application of Quality Assurance methods is not straightforward – Improve communication SA1 - F. Giacomini - 1st EMI Review 17

EMI INFSO-RI Issues, Mitigation, Lessons Learned /2 Difficult/impossible to measure the performance of heterogeneous procedures in a uniform way – No KPIs for existing software – It is now easier, after the EMI 1 release Relationship with EGI Unified Middleware Distribution – We find their procedures overly complex but we’ll do our best to comply with them Not much effort/experience available within the project for security assessments – Internal training – External collaborations SA1 - F. Giacomini - 1st EMI Review 18

EMI INFSO-RI Outlook SA1 - F. Giacomini - 1st EMI Review 19 Contribute EMI software to EGI UMD – According to the agreed procedures Support and maintain EMI 1 Continue support and maintenance of pre- existing distributions – With diminishing effort and according to the service end-of-life policy Establish support relationships with other DCIs (e.g. PRACE) Work towards EMI 2 - Matterhorn EMI 1 Apr 2011Apr 2012Jun 2011Feb 2012 Jan 2012 Nov 2011 Mar 2012 RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4 EMI 2 Development plans ready ETICS infrastructure ready Development plans ready ETICS infrastructure ready

EMI INFSO-RI Thank you EMI is partially funded by the European Commission under Grant Agreement INFSO-RI