1. 1 DataTAG-WP4 and GLUE www.cern.ch/datatag ( mainly from A.Ghiselli II INFN-Grid workshop) Mirco Mazzucato Gridstart meeting at HPC 2002 24-6-2002 Cetraro

2. 2 DataTAG-WP4  main focus:  Interoperability between DataGrid in EU and GriPhyN and PPDG in US US partnership: iVDGL project

3. 3 Common EU-US activities: GLUE Acquire and define software, configuration guidelines and policies to allow Middleware Services developed by the participating Grid Projects to Interoperate. Results must be independent of the particular Data Grid Architecture implementation. –But to succeed will need agreement on Principles What does Interoperate mean ? –Someone in US/EU can run on the EDG/US Grid using their US/EU obtained credentials. –Someone in EU/US can submit a Job in the EU/US that will be scheduled on Resources that span EU and US sites. –Someone in US/EU can move Data from/to US and EU sites without specific knowledge of which continent the Site is on – the knowledge of the Site Resources, Performance, and Policies is sufficient.

4. 4 The interoperability issues 1) Certificates. This issue is almost closed. It should be made operational. –Need to agree on management of revocation lists –Distribution of Certificate files not consistent or automated 2) GSI security. Some people do not consider the error reporting satisfactory for an LCG/EGEE production infrastructure. Globus is aware of this problem. A discussion is needed and probably an effort should be set to follow and define fully the requirements of the improvement plan 3) Authorization and VO management. A joint subproject has been set up. A work plan for a September recommendation should be put in place. 4) Schema. Here the work plan exists, the work is progressing well. CE schema agreed. Working now on SE. 5) GIIS structure and hierarchies. This sub-project is on the GLUE pipeline. There is the general issue of the different vision of the information system based on LDAP or on R-GMA. Probably this could be another sub-project but EDT would leave to Grid projects to decide.

5. 5 The interoperability issues(cont) 6) Scheduling, use of JDL and experiment interface. Regular meetings are taking place between EDG WP1 and Condor/ PPDG people. This should be acknowledged as an official GLUE activity and produce a recommendation for September.The issue is to allow experiment to have a unique interface e.g.: DG-submit vs Globus run or Condor-submit…. MOP vs EDG Resource Broker 7) Data management. A good collaboration on these topics already exist between EDG WP2 and Globus/PPDG teams. Again this collaboration should be transformed in an official GLUE activity and make a common recommendation on the usage of GDMP, Replica Catalog and Replica Manager 8) Packaging. LCG/Grid projects should have common release, packaging and installation tools to favour integration and deployment The interest for these topics goes beyond the Grid projects and the release of the LCG middleware since it includes the software of the LHC experiment. An LCG application effort is being initiated by Torre Wenaus to define a common LHC solution. The time frame for this activity is not yet clear. Other Grid projects should be integrated Now EDG has RPM and LCFG and US (VDT) has PACMAN There is the need to distribute EDG components in US and viceversa

6. 6 DataTAG project WP4.1-3 service interoperability WP4.4 application interoperability WP4.1 activity report (resource discovery)

7. 7 GLUE test layout for CE,SE People DataTAG EU Schema Test and layout setup : Cristina Vistoli (coordinator) EDG Resource Broker integration : Massimo Sgaravatto Information provider : Olof Barring, (iVDGL Globus) SE schema definition : John Gordon, ( iVDGL Arie Shoshani ) GRIT A TestBed solely for the purposes of testing interoperability across the Grid Projects – without impacting progress of each End User, Project or Experiment. Set up by EDT and iVDGL

8. 8 CE Schema implementation status Schema logical structure is stable

9. 9 CE Schema implementation status Ongoing LDAP implementation from both EU and US side The EU prototype one ready for the end of next week The US one ready in a couple of weeks Main goals: take the best ideas from both and agree on a common LDAP schema a common LDAP DIT that will be delivered with the next Globus Toolkit and adopted by EDG (Release1.4?)

10. 10 DataTAG project WP4.2 and GLUE program (security authorization)

11. 11 GLUE – VO Authorization Management Basic Steps (GLUE phase I) –Agreeing on supported CAs (Certificate Authorities) –User and VO (Virtual Organization) authorization based on the subject of the certificates (following Globus implementation). –Access Authorization on the CE (for ex. gridmap file Globus based, evolving to LCAS in phase III (Local Community Auth. Server) ) –CE-User association, readable by grid tools or applications (for ex. Glue CE schema with the accepted VOs id. published).

12. 12 Useful Mechanisms GLUE phase I –Securing VO server implementation (eg. more restrictive access to LDAP server). –Let users specify VO membership during authentication (multiple VO membership management). –Simple VO management mechanism (web user interface for VO registration) GLUE phase III –CAS/LCAS (aggregate user management)

13. 13 DataTAG experiment grid integration plan and GLUE tasks 4.3-4.4 Flavia Donno, INFN-Pisa

14. 14 Outline Goals People and HW resources Working plan with experiments (ALICE, ATLAS, CDF, CMS, D0, VIRGO) Organization and Conclusions

15. 15 Goals Goals:  Interoperability between EU and US Grid services from DataGrid, GriPhyN, PPDG and in collaboration with iVDGL, for the HEP applications as seen from these(LHC experiments as reference but open to others) Difference: Grid projects manpower are part of experiments in US Steps:  Produce an assessment of interoperability solutions  Provide test environment to LHC Applications to extend existing use-cases to test interoperability of the grid components  Provide input to a common Grid LHC architecture  Provide input to plan EU-US Integrated grid deployment for experiments

16. 16 People and HW resources PEOPLE: DataTAG/WP4.3-4 people : INFN (7fte), PPARC (1fte) Coordinator:Flavia Donno- Flavia.Donno@pi.infn.itFlavia.Donno@pi.infn.it INFN Milano:David Rebatto- David.Rebatto@mi.infn.itDavid.Rebatto@mi.infn.it Luca Vaccarossa- Luca.Vaccarossa@mi.infn.itLuca.Vaccarossa@mi.infn.it INFN Padova:F. Fanzago- Federica.Fanzago@pd.infn.itFederica.Fanzago@pd.infn.it S. Fantinel- Sergio.Fantinel@lnl.infn.itSergio.Fantinel@lnl.infn.it N. Smirnov- N.Smirnov@pd.infn.itN.Smirnov@pd.infn.it INFN CNAF :Cristina Vistoli- Cristina.Vistoli@cnaf.infn.itCristina.Vistoli@cnaf.infn.it Vincenzo Ciaschini- Vincenzo.Ciaschini@cnaf.infn.itVincenzo.Ciaschini@cnaf.infn.it Antonia Ghiselli- Antonia.Ghiselli@cnaf.infn.itAntonia.Ghiselli@cnaf.infn.it PPARC :Simone Ludwig- Simone.Ludwig@brunel.ac.ukSimone.Ludwig@brunel.ac.uk Human resources come also from partecipating experiments. Contact points established with experiments. Contact points established with iVDGL. HW Resources: Alice in progress (Italy, NiKhef, OCS, BNL) Atlas test layout in Milan, Argonne CDF test layout in Trieste, Bologna, FNAL CMS test layout in CNAF,Padova, Ecole politecnique, Russia, … Virgo test layout in CNAF, Rome and Naples DataTAG test layout at CNAF for common services.

17. 17 Working plan with experiments - 2002  Plans established with Alice, Atlas, CMS, main focus for EDT, but also D0, CDF, Virgo (/LIGO) through unfunded efforts  CMS (and CDF/D0 US counterpart) already involved in integration plans (LIGO is coming).  First integration attempts for CMS on-going. EU involved in job submission (Impala interfaced with EDG-RB), US involved in data management (Virtual Data) and interactive jobs.  First integration attempt for Virgo on going.

18. 18 Working plan with experiments - 2002  Packaging and Distribution Group  Study core HW and software to be used.  Study existing distribution tools. Experimental distribution  Recommendation for convergence.  Job Scheduling and Management Services Group  Study of middleware used (EDG/WP1,DAGMAN, Condor-G, etc.)  Study of middleware used (EDG/WP1, DAGMAN, Condor-G, etc.)  Experimental integration activities (CMS/Impala-Boss, Alice/AliEn, CDF/SAM)  Data Management Group  Study of middleware used (EDG/WP2, GDMP, GridFTP, etc.)  Experimental integration activities (ATLAS/Magda, CDF/SAM Virgo/GDMP) 5 areas of interoperability work:

19. 19 Working plan with experiments - 2002  MetaData Catalogues Group  Study of requirements and middleware (EDG/Spitfire, PPDG/Virtual Data Catalogue)  Prototype activities (Alice, CMS)  Experiment integration support group  Following experiment activities outlining special needs  First integration tests 5 areas of work:

20. 20 DataTAG-WP4 and GLUE program phase I Task 4.1 Resource Discovery –Common resource schema definition (CE,SE) –MDS schema implementation –MDS-GIIS hierarchy test on GLUE layout Task 4.2 Security Authorization –VO based authorization management –Requirements definition for CAS Task 4.3-4.4, high level grid services interoperability –Common Packaging tools for Grid kits –Scheduling jobs on GLUE test layout

21. 21 DataTAG-WP4 and GLUE program phase II Task 4.1 Resource Discovery –Test of EDG-GMA(Grid Monitoring Arch.) information service Task 4.2 Security Authorization –Common CAS implementation Task 4.3-4.4, high level grid services interoperability –Data movement infrastructure –Scheduling and data replication

22. 22 DataTAG-WP4 and GLUE program phase III Task 4.1 Resource Discovery –Others information services, web services? Task 4.2 Security Authorization –Common CAS test Task 4.3-4.4, high level grid services interoperability –Complete interoperable computational service validation