Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

© 2007 Open Grid Forum OGSA and OGF Reference Model OGSA-WG General Session OGF19 OGSA-WG session #2 29 January, 2007 4-5:30pm Chapel Hill, NC.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "© 2007 Open Grid Forum OGSA and OGF Reference Model OGSA-WG General Session OGF19 OGSA-WG session #2 29 January, 2007 4-5:30pm Chapel Hill, NC."— Presentation transcript:

1 © 2007 Open Grid Forum OGSA and OGF Reference Model OGSA-WG General Session OGF19 OGSA-WG session #2 29 January, 2007 4-5:30pm Chapel Hill, NC

2 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 2 OGF IPR Policies Apply I acknowledge that participation in this meeting is subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy. Intellectual Property Notices Note Well: All statements related to the activities of the OGF and addressed to the OGF are subject to all provisions of Appendix B of GFD-C.1, which grants to the OGF and its participants certain licenses and rights in such statements. Such statements include verbal statements in OGF meetings, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to: the OGF plenary session, any OGF working group or portion thereof, the OGF Board of Directors, the GFSG, or any member thereof on behalf of the OGF, the ADCOM, or any member thereof on behalf of the ADCOM, any OGF mailing list, including any group list, or any other list functioning under OGF auspices, the OGF Editor or the document authoring and review process Statements made outside of a OGF meeting, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an OGF activity, group or function, are not subject to these provisions. Excerpt from Appendix B of GFD-C.1: Where the OGF knows of rights, or claimed rights, the OGF secretariat shall attempt to obtain from the claimant of such rights, a written assurance that upon approval by the GFSG of the relevant OGF document(s), any party will be able to obtain the right to implement, use and distribute the technology or works when implementing, using or distributing technology based upon the specific specification(s) under openly specified, reasonable, non- discriminatory terms. The working group or research group proposing the use of the technology with respect to which the proprietary rights are claimed may assist the OGF secretariat in this effort. The results of this procedure shall not affect advancement of document, except that the GFSG may defer approval where a delay may facilitate the obtaining of such assurances. The results will, however, be recorded by the OGF Secretariat, and made available. The GFSG may also direct that a summary of the results be included in any GFD published containing the specification. OGF Intellectual Property Policies are adapted from the IETF Intellectual Property Policies that support the Internet Standards Process.

3 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 3 Agenda OGSA and OGF Reference model (Paul and Hiro, 1 hour) HPC cluster use case Glossary unification (Jem) GWD-I: overview and ToC OGSA General session (Hiro, 30 minutes) Document status update Tasks and priority review March F2F meeting logistics Telecon schedule

4 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 4 OGSA HPC cluster HPC cluster is set of computational servers connected high-speed network It is not grid in general sense Administrator deploy multiple applications on computing nodes Users submit computational jobs to cluster (management host) Each job runs on one or more computing nodes exclusively More than one job can run on each node in turns EPS (scheduler) prioritize submitted jobs based on administers policy EPS monitors and logs note usage for accounting and billing Data Network 2.5Gbps Management Network 100Mbps Computing Node × 16 To external Network Management Host InfiniBand TM Switch Ethernet HUB

5 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 5 Workload Non interactive batch workload User may submit multiple jobs E.g. workload consists of 100 jobs Each job last several seconds to several days Single job (run on single node) or parallel job (run on multiple nodes) Each job is abstract application: top level entity of Grid Component tree diagram Job is different form transactions of online shopping application

6 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 6 Physical Virtualized Operating Environment Abstract Application Definition HPC Cluster Index Server Management Node Query Server Compute Node Operating System Boot Device Server Installation Media Patches Cluster Software CHARMM Service CHARMM Service CHARMM Binary CHARMM Binary BLAST Service BLAST Service BLAST BINARY BLAST BINARY Pauls BLAST Instance Pauls BLAST Instance Pauls BLAST Data Pauls BLAST Data Hiros CHARMM Instance Hiros CHARMM Instance Hiros CHARMM Data Hiros CHARMM Data Batch job: grid component mapping Each node is shared by multiple jobs, even though job runs exclusively

7 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 7 HPC profile, JSDL, and BES only covers here EGA reference model defines these usecases OGSA HPC usecase diagram Provision node Provision OS Deploy Application Submit Job Manage job Undeploy application Decommission OS Decommission node User Administrator Provision server pool Decommission server pool EGA reference model defines these usecases HPC cluster

8 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 8 Manage Service for enterprise apps Create Configure Start Update Notify Monitor Control Stop Unconfigure Destroy

9 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 9 Reference models general life cycle Unconfigured Inactive Active CreateDestroy Configure Unconfigure StopStart

10 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 10 BESs basic state model Pending Running Finished Canceled Failed TerminateActivity request System error/failure event Successful termination of activity

11 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 11 Job Life Cycle

12 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 12

13 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 13 Pauls Comments on BES (1) 1.Why are there 2 client focused interfaces (3 interfaces in total)? It is very natural for there to be 2 interfaces to a service/component, one focused on delivering client functionality and one for manageability. It is also natural to minimize the number of interfaces and the calls across them so as to aid maintainability. It would appear to me that the difference between the two BES client interfaces is that one allows activities to be created and for collections of activities to be monitored and managed. The other is focused on individual activities, but includes very similar functionality. There seems to be a lot of commonality. What are the reasons for them not being combined? Indeed as I read further I note that BES- Activity exposes no operations, so perhaps this interface is being deprecated and the document is in the process of being edited? 2.Why does the state model not end in one terminated state? Are there any real differences between the 3 enumerated end states other than how the activity ended up in the state? 3.Also it seems somewhat counter intuitive that if one is going to have three termination states, one should end up in the one state which reflects both success and failure (Finished) and a separate one for failures that prevent the activity from exiting in a controlled fashion. It seems like the transitions to the terminated state should be something like – Completed Successfully Failed Cancelled

14 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 14 Pauls Comments on BES (2) 4.Is there any notion of a retry, given that the state machine captures failure? Or perhaps rescheduling? For example one could imagine additional useful transitions – Pending to Pending – i.e. rescheduling Running to Pending – i.e. failed/retrying Having these in the base profile or basic model would enable greater flexibility in implementing future profiles where one could request that the BES container implement retries or allow rescheduling. Or are you categorically stating that users will never be able to reschedule or request automatic retries. Again if this is the case, it should probably be explicitly stated. I would actually urge you to make the base specification as broad as possible in terms of the acceptable state changes at this level to avoid unnecessarily constraining yourself down the line. I think this is especially important given what is stated in 4.2. 5.Labeling of the state transitions would be most helpful, together with the adoption of standard UML state chart representation. Included is a state transition diagram which includes a few additional transitions which may, or may not be helpful/appropriate. :o) 6.4.2 - State Specialization really seems to be indicating that this specification makes no assumptions with respect to sub-states that may be incorporated within an implementation but that such sub-states are acceptable as long as they do not introduce new state transitions between the standard, specified states. It would be very helpful to simply state this before all of the examples. 7.Do you expect to extend the BES model to activities that are not binaries running on operating systems?

15 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 15 CDDLM component Lifecycle Model

16 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 16 OGSA HPC binary status ?? Initialized CreateDestroy Initializeterminate ?? V02: Separate job and binary Application binary does not have running state. Instantiatedterminated

17 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 17 Reference models vs. services and information models The subject is really about the linkage between the services we define in OGSA (of course as guided by the reference model) and the information model that is exposed through those services In general this has been addressed in the way that SNIA and DMTF build Profiles. Terminology is a bit overloaded here... The way we (OGSA) use profiles is in the WS-I sense. Profiles in the SNIA and DMTF are about refining information models to instance based models (cardinality restrictions on relationships, required and optional properties, etc) and the tie of those instances to tasks (service interfaces). We should consider how we are going to accomplish the same thing in OGSA. Tom Maguire, 24 Oct., 2006

18 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 18 More Pervasive Service Lifecycle Planning System Integration Operation Maintenance Feature addition Termination

19 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 19 Agenda OGSA and Reference model (Paul and Hiro, 1 hour) HPC cluster use case Glossary unification (Jem) GWD-I: overview and ToC OGSA General session (Hiro, 30 minutes)

20 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 20 Agenda OGSA and Reference model (Paul and Hiro, 1 hour) HPC cluster use case Glossary unification (Jem) GWD-I: overview and ToC OGSA General session (Hiro, 30 minutes)

21 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 21 GWD-I: overview and ToC Title Reconciling OGSA and EGA Reference Model Abstract OGSA is SoA and web services based instantiation of OGF Reference Model. Appling OGF Reference Model to current OGSA specs bring forth multiple useful findings including extensive use cases, revealing dependencies among components, and well- defined state transition. Proposed schedule First draft: July 2007 Editor Submission: Oct. 2007 GFD Publication: Dec. 2007 Editor Hiro Kishimoto, Paul Strong, and Dave Snelling OGSA-WG reference-model design-team or emerging reference- model WG

22 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 22 OGSA and Reference Model ToC Background of this work Interpretation OGSA is an instantiation of EGA Reference Model Example: HPC cluster Benefits extensive use cases revealing dependencies among components well-defined state transition … Future plan Reference model v2.0 Apply reference model to OGSA spec development including OGSA v2.0 …

23 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 23 Reference Model BOF Thursday, February 6:00 pm - 7:30 pm at Azalea This session will focus on re-constituting and continuing the efforts of the EGA Reference Model working group within OGF. In order to ensure that we share a common language when describing grids, what they are comprised of, how those entities interact and so forth, we need an agreed upon glossary and set of terms. When defining standards, protocols and interfaces for grid computing, the sets of components (both services and resources) that comprise a grid, their relationships and their life- cycles need to be more formally described. Providing this formal description and associated terminology is the goal of the Reference Model working group. Whilst extant standards capture aspects of what is required, they are either incomplete or lack a Grid context and so need to be pulled together into a coherent whole. It is not the purpose of this group to replicate the work of established standards that in general meet our needs. Rather the work of this group will be to pragmatically develop the broader model that brings together, references and extends where appropriate.

24 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 24 Agenda OGSA and Reference model (Paul and Hiro, 1 hour) OGSA General session (Hiro, 30 minutes) Document status update Tasks and priority review March F2F meeting logistics Telecon schedule

25 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 25 Document schedule (1) Document nameFirst draft available Ready for PC GFD publication OGSA Basic Security Profile 1.0 – Core Sept. 2005 Feb. 2006 Dec. 2006 Jan. 2007 OGSA Security Profile 1.0 – Secure Channel Sept. 2005 Feb. 2006 Jan. 2007 Feb. 2007 OGSA roadmap v1.1Nov. 2006 Dec. 2006 Mar. 2007? March 2007 June 2007 Plan date Actual date New plan completed delayed

26 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 26 Document schedule (2) Document nameFirst draft available Ready for PC GFD publication OGSA EMS Architecture scenarios 1.0 July 2006 Nov. 2006 Jan. 2007 April 2007 OGSA EMS Architecture scenarios capability TBD (3~6 month) OGSA EMS ArchitecturePending Plan date Actual date New plan completed delayed

27 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 27 Document schedule (3) Document nameFirst draft available Ready for PC GFD publication Guidelines for Information Modeling for OGSA Entities (explain necessary process) GFD-I Jan. 2006 Feb. 2007 March 2007 Feb. 2007 April 2007 July 2007 April 2007? container information model GFD-I Jan. 2006 Oct. 2006 Jan. 2007 Feb. 2007 March 2007 April 2007? Information Modeling in OGSA XML schema and semantics Best practices GFD-R.P Also wiki page Nov. 2006 Jan. 2007 Mar. 2007? Feb. 2007 March 2007? April 2007 Aug. 2007? Information model profile document (BES container) Proof of concept Dec. 2006 Mar. 2007? TBD

28 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 28 Document schedule (4) Document nameFirst draft available Ready for PC GFD publication Reconciling OGSA and EGA Reference Model Mar. 2007 July 2007 June 2007 Oct. 2007 Sept. 2007 Dec. 2007 Plan date Actual date New plan completed delayed

29 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 29 Tasks and priority Security David Snelling (and Alan or Andrew) Resource Management Ellen Stokes and Fred Maciel OGSA EMS Steven Newhouse and Andreas Savva Reference Model Paul Strong, Hiro Kishimoto, and Jem Treadwell OGSA workflow Andrew Grimshaw Roadmap Chris Jordan

30 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 30 March F2F Meeting March 12 (Mon) noon to 14 (Wed) 5pm March 13 (Tue) 9am to 15 (Thu) 5pm March 14 (Wed) 9am to 16 (Fri) noon March 27 (Tue) 9am to 29 (Thu) 5pm date venue San Diego Supercomputer Center Oracle Conference Center in Redwood City Most preferable

31 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 31 Agreed teleconferences restructuring The start times, frequency (twice a week) and overall duration (2 hours each) of the calls stay the same. We subdivide each two hour call into 1 hour slots, for a total of 4 slots a week. Of these 4 one-hour slots (at most) 1 slot a week will be for logistics/administration with the remaining slots for technical discussion. The logistics slot will alternate between Monday and Thursday each week. Only a single technical topic may be scheduled to a slot. A topic may not exceed its slot duration. If discussion on a topic finishes early or is canceled then the next topic does not start until its scheduled slot time. In other words the slots are independent of each other.

32 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 32 Telecon Topics Monday EGA reference model (Hiro, Paul) Roadmap (Chris) Information modeling (Ellen, Fred) Thursday Security (Alan) Workflow (Andrew) 2 nd half EMS Arch scenarios (Andreas)

33 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 33 Telecon Schedule (1) 2007/2/5Mon 4-6pm CT No-call 2007/2/8Thur 7-9am No-call 2007/2/12Mon 4-6pm CT EGA reference model Logistics 2007/2/15Thur 7-9am Security Workflow (Meciel) 2007/2/19Mon 4-6pm Roadmap Information modeling 2007/2/22Thur 7-9am EMS Arch scenarios Logistics

34 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 34 Telecon Schedule (2) 2007/2/26Mon 4-6pm EGA reference model Logistics 2007/3/1Thur 7-9am EMS Arch scenarios Workflow (Steven) 2007/3/5Mon 4-6pm Roadmap Information modeling 2007/3/8Thur 7-9am Security (OGSA-AuthZ joint) Logistics

35 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 35 OGF19 OGSA sessions #DayTimeTitle 1Mon3-3:30pm OGSA security session 2Mon4-5:30pm OGSA and EGA reference model General session 3Tue9-10:30am OGSA EMS session 4Tue11am- 12:30pm OGSA Information & data modeling 5Tue2-3:30pm OGSA workflow Location: Bellflower

36 © 2007 Open Grid Forum 36 Full Copyright Notice Copyright (C) Open Grid Forum (2007). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the OGF or its successors or assignees.

Download ppt "© 2007 Open Grid Forum OGSA and OGF Reference Model OGSA-WG General Session OGF19 OGSA-WG session #2 29 January, 2007 4-5:30pm Chapel Hill, NC."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google