1. Virtual Batch Queues A Service Oriented View of “The Fabric” Rich Baker Brookhaven National Laboratory April 4, 2002

2. 4 April, 2002 R. Baker US ATLAS Grid Testbed Workshop 2 Fabrics Session of LCG Launch Workshop  Strict Uniformity is Impossible  Multiple Implementations Will Exist Even Within a Single Site  Different Economics Drive Different Choices at Different Sites  Expose Services, Not Facilities  Users Should Expect Uniform Interfaces to Services  Define Boundaries  Site Can’t be a Black Box  Internal View May Vary From Site to Site

3. 4 April, 2002 R. Baker US ATLAS Grid Testbed Workshop 3 LHC/iVDGL Facilities Workshop  Prototype Batch Queues to be Implemented  BNL, FNAL, UCSD, JHU  ATLAS, CMS, SDSS  First (Trivial) Implementation – Fully Preconfigured  Queue is Described only by Name – Advertise via MDS  Requires User Pre-Knowledge of Queue Details  Evolve Towards More Abstract Implementation  Advertise Enough Information to Fully Describe Queue  Requires No User Pre-Knowledge

4. 4 April, 2002 R. Baker US ATLAS Grid Testbed Workshop 4 Job Manager’s View of Computing Element T … Computing Elements, distributed in possible different administrative domains, can be very different and can rely on different mechanisms, policies, implementations: they can be different in hardware, they can run different operating systems, they can be managed by different local resource management systems, they can use different authentication and authorization mechanisms, etc… T These issues will be addressed relying on standard protocols: “forcing” the Computing Elements to use standard protocols...  (From EDG JSS Architecture and APIs document, July 2001)

5. 4 April, 2002 R. Baker US ATLAS Grid Testbed Workshop 5 Various Views of a Compute Element  Pre-Grid Paradigm:  User Aware of All Local Resources  Jobs Can (Must) Use Local Configuration/Resources  Condor Standard Universe  Just a CPU – Local Resources Irrelevant  Jobs Can Not Use Local Resources – Inefficiency  Virtual Batch Queue  Advertise CPU Plus Local Resources  Jobs Can Take Advantage – Improved Efficiency

6. 4 April, 2002 R. Baker US ATLAS Grid Testbed Workshop 6 Some Thoughts  Local Administration of Hardware  Remote Job Manager Can Not Reinstall OS  Local Monitoring and Security Must Be Respected  Must Advertise Enough Information for Job Manager to Determine Suitability  Unchangeable Configuration (OS, etc.)  Licensed Products  Minimum Scratch Space Available  Access Methods for Local Storage

7. 4 April, 2002 R. Baker US ATLAS Grid Testbed Workshop 7 Additional Considerations  Typical Job Sets Dozens of Environment Variables  All of these Must be Abstracted and Discoverable  Some Can be Discovered At Job Initiation  Input and Output “Sandboxes” Are Local Directories  Setting “PATH” Requires Information  What Defines a Single “VBQ”?  Same Unchangeable Environment  Same View of Local (Non-WAN) Storage  APIs for Interactions Between Job and Remote Manager  APIs for Interactions Between Job and Local Manager

8. 4 April, 2002 R. Baker US ATLAS Grid Testbed Workshop 8 For Example  Site May Have Two Different libC Versions  Virtual Queue 1 Advertises libC-x  Set Path to Use /usr/libC-x directory  Virtual Queue 2 Advertises libC-y  Set Path to Use /usr/libC-y directory  Job Manager “Knows” Which Version User Needs  If x or y, Use Local Installation  If libC-z, no problem! Bring it with you and set path

9. 4 April, 2002 R. Baker US ATLAS Grid Testbed Workshop 9 “The Big Picture”  Fully Integrated Compile Through Results  User Builds Application – Dependencies Tracked (CMT)  Simple User I/F With Portal (Grappa)  Job Manager Learns Job Dependencies  Available VBQs Discovered – “Best” Match Selected  User Environment Deployed (PacMan)  Abstract Job Parameters Mapped to Local Reality  Job Interactions with Local and Remote Managers  Error Handling  Local Clean Up

10. 4 April, 2002 R. Baker US ATLAS Grid Testbed Workshop 10 Immediate Work for US ATLAS  Develop AFS Free Run-Time Environment  Deploy and Test at US ATLAS Test Bed Sites  Use Trivial Implementation of Queue Description  Use FNAL, UCSD and JHU for Proof of Portability  Start to Define/Enumerate Details  What Info is Needed to “Fully” Describe a Queue?  How to Take Advantage of Local Resources?