1. ECGI meeting on job priorities on May 15th 2006, CNAF Bologna How LHCb thinks to use/integrate g-PBox (or single components) and when Gianluca Castellani INFN/CNAF/LHCb

2. Outlines What we would like to have from g-PBox What we have done so far How we would like to use g-PBox Which are the advanges of using g-Pbox Conclusions and prospectives

3. What we would like to have from g-PBox A tool to obtain a priority number once a set of policies (parameters) are feed An user friendly interface to add or change policies on flight The possibility to have a g-Pox decouple from the RB

4. What we have done so far G.Rubini gave us an introductory presentation on g-PBox We reproduced “Atlas test”  Define two user G. Castellani (production), R.Santinelli (Analisys)  Production can submit its jobs everywhere  Analisys can submit its jobs only to queue at low priority

5. Some details about the test UI: cert-ui-01.cnaf.infn.it CE Mask:  gri47xl.to.infn.it  pre-ce-01.cnaf.infn.it  cclcgceli01.in2p3.fr  gridit-ce-001.cnaf.infn.it  prod-ce-01.pd.infn.it RB: cert-rb-04.cnaf.infn.it JDL: “sleep 3600” Each user submitted 500 jobs.

6. Outcomes of the “Atlas test” I 1. g-PBox correctly “enrouted” the jobs according to the owner’s group. 2. At the beginning of the submission (about in the first hour) the ratio between Production and Analisys job was about 3/1 (as expected) 1. Production uses 100% of high-priority queues and 50% of low-priority ones. 2. Analysys sees only 50% of low-priority queue 3. 3/1 = (CPU slots for Production)/(CPU slots for Analisys) = (100 + 50) %/(50)%

7. Outcomes of the “Atlas test” II 1. g-PBox influences on submission time: about 3% 2. Problems: 1. Some minor configuration issues at CE or g-PBox level 2. A few critical gLite RB bugs were discovered and reported to the developers, at least a Savannah’s bug was opened: https://savannah.cern.ch/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=16708 3. It seemed that the CE were not only dedicated to our test (this not really a big issues…) 3. Costumer Support: 1. Mon/Fri 8h/19h 2. Cesini/Selmi were very cooperatives to fix any problem (also those caused by myself)

8. ECGI meeting on job priorities on May 15th 2006, CNAF Bologna UI VO G-Pbox POLICIES The Grid Work flow VOMS groupsJob lenght Dirac Accounting Site G-Pboxes Job Receiver JobDB PEP optimizer 1 3 Request 4 Decision 5 6 Priority Number + Site “obligations” 7 Matcher 8 Agent Director Pilot agents TASK QUEUEs 2 Pilot Per DN/group Site Obligations: Agent submission will also take into Account site policies (not only data) LFC Priority Number: It summarizes the VO wishes …….used For Task Queues reshuffling

9. Motivations for G-PBOX Extremely portable and modular system (easy to plug in). Dirac-WMS decoupled by the Policies repository and management system: dynamism. XACML extremely powerful and suitable for defining policies (whatever complexity) Offered facilities for editing/handling policies GSI compatible Strategically worth : VO policies automatically will take into account site policies in a transparent way. Dirac (for free) will be site-decision aware. VO policies are back propagated to the site. If a malicious user (willing to by pass Dirac) goes directly through LCG he will have always to face centrally defined policies

10. Conclusions and Prospectives Time Line  DC06: There is no way to implement g- PBox in DIRAC by June (2 weeks)  Build the infrastructure in DIRAC to be able to implement a policy enforcement  This will permit to plug in even an external policy decision box  Having and understanding the g-Pbox API will speed up the process of implementation