EMI INFSO-RI Project Overview NA1 – Administrative and Technical Coordination Alberto Di Meglio (CERN) Project Director 1 st EMI Periodic Review Brussels, 22 June 2011

EMI INFSO-RI Outline What is EMI? Co-operation with other projects and programs Project Management 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 2

EMI INFSO-RI What is EMI? 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 3

EMI INFSO-RI Early AdoptionProduction Services Consolidation Evolution EMI Positioning 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review Infrastructures Middleware

EMI INFSO-RI EMI Mission Statement 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 5 The European Middleware Initiative (EMI) project represents a close collaboration of the major European middleware providers - ARC, gLite, UNICORE and dCache - to explore and implement sustainable models to harmonise, evolve and support the distributed computing and data management middleware for deployment in EGI, PRACE and other distributed e-Infrastructures

EMI INFSO-RI Primary Objectives Simplify the middleware services by delivering a streamlined, coherent, tested and standard compliant distribution meeting the requirements of EGI, PRACE and other distributed computing infrastructures and their user communities. Increase the interoperability, manageability, usability and efficiency of the services by developing or integrating new functionality following existing and new requirement Support DCIs operations by reactively and proactively supporting and maintaining the middleware distribution Strengthen the participation and support for user communities in the definition and evolution of middleware services by promoting the EMI achievements, objectives and plans in collaboration with diverse programs and partners 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 6 Consolidate Evolve Support Collaborate

EMI INFSO-RI EMI Baseline Services Applications Integrators, System Administrators EMI Middleware Evolution 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 7 Users and Infrastructure Requirements, Standards, New technologies 3 yearsBefore EMIAfter EMI Specialized services, professional support and customization Standard interfaces

EMI INFSO-RI First Year Objectives Standardize the software development and release management to adopt established best practices from mainstream open source operating system providers Start the process of interface standardization implementation by implementing what exists and reach wide agreements on what has to be done. Address requirements. Support EGI and the NGIs without disruption from previous projects, work on an SLA and define agreed retirement calendars for older services Implement dedicated collaboration programs with DCIs and VRCs, establish the EMI identity and make it known to existing communities, start approaching new communities outside the typical grid users, define exploitation and sustainability strategies 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 8 Consolidate Evolve Support Collaborate

EMI INFSO-RI Achievements Highlights Release of the EMI 1 (Kebnekaise): – For the first time components from 4 providers in a single repository, better compliance with open source operating systems and guidelines – Common Quality Assurance policies and software engineering tools based on industry standards (ISO/IEC 12207, ISO/IEC 9126, ITIL V3) Implementation of new functionality following stated user requirements: – Compliance with standard security protocols (SSL), info system models (GLUE 2), data access protocols (WebDAV, NFS4.1/pNFS), security profiles (SAML) – First implementation of WMS on SL5 64bit operating system, initial integration of the Argus authorization system with the grid services – Agreement on Execution Services and Storage Accounting specs Continuous support for EGI production sites – GGUS as single entry point, dedicated Support Units for all EMI Products – SLA to define service levels and monitor performance Established EMI identity – Created a growing network of collaboration with concrete MoUs, “Works with EMI” program for technical partners – Clear name recognition (talks, posters, codename strategy) 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 9 Consolidate Evolve Support Collaborate

EMI INFSO-RI Co-operation with other projects and programs 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 10

EMI INFSO-RI DCI Roadmap Collaborations 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 11 EMI EGI, PRACE, WLCG,OSG, etc. ESFRI, VRCs ESFRI, VRCs StratusLab VENUS-C EDGI Requirements Releases Requirements Collaborations IGE SLAs & Support Standards, Industry Standards, Industry Requirements Collaborations EGI- InSPIRE

EMI INFSO-RI Current Relationships 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 12 SLA + MoU MoU Common initiatives TheSyrrus, Ltd

EMI INFSO-RI New Communities and ESFRI Requirements from new communities and ESFRI projects have been addressed through participation in common events – EEF workshop in November 2010 – Federated Identity Management Workshop in June 2011 Already addressed: – Consolidation of support channels In the work plan: – Simplification of AAI – Persistent storage IDs – Integration with clouds and volunteer computing 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 13

EMI INFSO-RI Standardization Collaborations EMI has a strong involvement with international standardization bodies and initiatives OGF – Several chairs of important working groups – Submission of proposals for new or improved standards SIENA – Membership in the Roadmap Editorial Board (REB) – Contribution to the definition of the roadmap document – Participation to common events to present the EMI strategy 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 14

EMI INFSO-RI Involvement of commercial partners Very challenging activity – The sharing model that makes grid essential for research is not very suitable for industry – Current business focus is on clouds Identify services that can be exploited on their own or integrated within clouds Initial contacts with Google, Red Hat, Canonical, TheSyrrus, Ltd – To get advice on market analysis, branding, identification of services of potential interest for collaboration 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 15

EMI INFSO-RI Copyright and Licensing Clear assessment of copyright and licensing is required to make sure there are no constraints to exploitation by third parties The assessment has started in year 1, but it’s still in progress – Copyright assessment yet to be done, several different models used by various partners depending on national laws (IP can belong to developers, Institutes, Collaborations) – Licensing is in better shape vast majority of the components is licensed under Apache 2.0 or BSD, both commercially friendly options some components licensed under or using GPL have to be addressed dCache has a proprietary license, with some limitations 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 16

EMI INFSO-RI Project management 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 17

EMI INFSO-RI Partners (26) 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 18

EMI INFSO-RI Project Structure 19 1st EMI Periodic Review 22/06/2011 NA1 Administrative and Technical Coordination NA2 Outreach and Collaborations SA1 Maintenance and Support JRA1 - Development, Integration and Evolution SA2 Quality Assurance

EMI INFSO-RI Project Governance 20 1st EMI Periodic Review 22/06/2011 Project Director Technical Director Technical Director Project Executive Board (PEB) Project Technical Board (PTB) NA2 SA2 SA1 JRA1 Collaboration Board (CB) ECB Tech. Areas Engineering Management Team (EMT) PT RM European Commission

EMI INFSO-RI Project Management WP Responsibilities 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 21 Requirements Technical Plans Development and Test Plans Development Testing Certification Validation Release Maintenance Support NA1, JRA1 JRA1 SA1 SA2 Software & Services Requirements Defines ImplementsCertifies Release Candidate Process definition Process monitoring NA2 NA1, NA2 Collaborations, exploitation, sustainability Training Dissemination & Out-Reach In-Reach NA1

EMI INFSO-RI Performance Drivers and KPIs Main drivers – “merge” the activities and cultures of 4 different MW providers – increase efficiency and reduce costs, while delivering software and services to EGI without discontinuity from previous projects How to measure “value for money”? – COCOMO and actual costs and effort – Empirical approach due to the lack of any previous benchmark What does it mean? – Change very dramatic, too steep. Why? – What part is increase of efficiency and what is people overload? – Differences in salary between industry and academia 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 22 EMI P1COCOMOPre-EMI SLOC (M) Effort (p/y)648393* Cost (MEUR) * *estimated

EMI INFSO-RI Deliverables and Milestones Deliverables: – 36 planned and delivered Milestones: – 23 planned and delivered Some issues during the year with delays in submitting – A contingency action has been implemented to enforce better compliance with deadlines – Situations has improved in the second half of the year 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 23

EMI INFSO-RI Budget and Effort Stats 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 24 Budget: – 7,168,079 € or 88.7% of planned budget – 3,482,465 € or 87.6% of the planned requested contributions Effort: – 847 PM or 110.4% of the planned effort

EMI INFSO-RI Budget and effort Stats 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 25

EMI INFSO-RI Budget and Effort Stats 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 26

EMI INFSO-RI Budget and Effort Distribution 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 27

EMI INFSO-RI Conclusions 22/06/2011 1st EMI Periodic Review 28 EMI had a very intense year focused on merging technologies, processes and people from 4 middleware providers into a coherent project with a common vision It has achieved important goals, culminating in the EMI 1 release and its recognition and planned adoption within the DCI community A first important step in the consolidation and simplification has been made and represents a solid foundation for the work to be done in the next years

EMI INFSO-RI Thank you 22/06/ st EMI Periodic Review EMI is partially funded by the European Commission under Grant Agreement INFSO-RI