Data storage

[tdowrick]

In GitLab by @DavidPerez-Suarez on Nov 23, 2018, 16:00

Options:

• XNAT
• RDS
• DSH

[tdowrick]

In GitLab by @JonathanShapey on Nov 30, 2018, 09:45

I think we decided on XNAT but Matt was going to confirm which XNAT server we were going to use (There is discussion about creating CMIC-wide data storage)

[tdowrick]

In GitLab by @JonathanShapey on Nov 30, 2018, 09:45

closed

[tdowrick]

In GitLab by @MattClarkson on Dec 5, 2018, 12:44

reopened

[tdowrick]

In GitLab by @MattClarkson on Dec 5, 2018, 12:51

assigned to @MattClarkson

[tdowrick]

In GitLab by @MattClarkson on Dec 5, 2018, 12:51

I re-opened this, as there is a project underway to get a new XNAT setup. I'll follow up.

[tdowrick]

In GitLab by @MattClarkson on Dec 10, 2018, 11:42

@JonathanShapey - should this be moved to a different milestone?

[tdowrick]

In GitLab by @JonathanShapey on Dec 10, 2018, 11:48

Agreed. Moved to XNAT milestone and have placed due date of late Feb 2019 to coincide with revised clinical study start date.

Including @TomVercauteren so aware of changes made

[tdowrick]

In GitLab by @JonathanShapey on Dec 10, 2018, 11:49

changed due date to February 15, 2019

[tdowrick]

In GitLab by @ThomasDowrick on Feb 18, 2019, 12:43

@MattClarkson - we were discussing this issue in the meeting this morning. @MianAhmad had mentioned to me last week that he will start working on some XNAT stuff recently - will this be related to data storage for Jonathan's project?

[tdowrick]

In GitLab by @MattClarkson on Feb 18, 2019, 20:11

No. Its not. At the moment Mian has other tasks.

[tdowrick]

In GitLab by @JonathanShapey on Feb 19, 2019, 09:00

@MattClarkson - Thanks for clarifying. Please could you suggest the best way forward? I thought that we decided that XNAT would be the most suitable platform to use for data storage. Would @ThomasDowrick be able to assist me setting this up or is this something that @DavidPerez-Suarez could assign to the RSDG team to work on?

[tdowrick]

In GitLab by @JonathanShapey on Feb 19, 2019, 09:01

@DavidPerez-Suarez @ThomasDowrick - I think we should place this as a higher priority.

[tdowrick]

In GitLab by @JonathanShapey on Feb 19, 2019, 09:01

closed

[tdowrick]

In GitLab by @JonathanShapey on Feb 19, 2019, 09:01

reopened

[tdowrick]

In GitLab by @JonathanShapey on Feb 19, 2019, 09:02

assigned to @DavidPerez-Suarez and unassigned @MattClarkson

[tdowrick]

In GitLab by @JonathanShapey on Feb 19, 2019, 09:02

assigned to @MattClarkson and unassigned @DavidPerez-Suarez

[tdowrick]

In GitLab by @JonathanShapey on Feb 19, 2019, 09:03

changed due date to March 01, 2019

[tdowrick]

In GitLab by @MattClarkson on Feb 19, 2019, 10:54

Hi Jonathan, I'll try to clarify, as I now have more information.

• We agreed XNAT was a good way to go
• But this SBN project has no XNAT people available, or any funds for them that Im aware of, other than taking it out of the RSDG budget.
• While Im sure that Tom Dowrick and RSDG are capable, I'm guessing that it is not an efficient use of their time. On the one hand its simple enough just to create a new instance of an XNAT server, but then we end up with something that is operated and run by this project, or is set up in a different format than a central CMIC-wide server that is essentially then a maintenance burden going forward.
• CMIC are setting up a more CMIC-wide XNAT strategy that will be better supported in the longer term.
• A contractor is starting next week, with a view to resolving XNAT issues by end April.

So my current preference is to still pursue the above mentioned contractor/standard route, and try to speed that up, rather than try our own solution.