1. Grid Interoperability Shootout GridPP and NGS UK e-Science All Hands Meeting, Nottingham 2007 J Jensen, G Stewart, M Viljoen, D Wallom, S Young (contact j.dot.jensen.at.rl.dot.ac.dot.uk)

2. Two National Grids GridPP – UK Grid for particle physics –And others NGS – National Grid Service –Everybody Different audience, middleware, aims… Interoperability is beneficial (isn’t it?)

3. Differences Physics Built for physics UCs SL4 (SLC4) gLite SRM ssh Non-physics Built for non-p UCs Various OS Globus, Condor,… SRB GSISSH

4. Differences Command line Supported by specialised groups V. big data volumes No need for secrecy Own or free sw. Portals & cmd line Supported by a single (loose) group Not so big data vol. Some confidential Licensed software

5. Differences – dteam vs. ETF “deployment team” Deployment & ∫ Ops and experts Meeting “user” reps. (large expts or UB rep). “Engineering Task Force” Evaluations Ops and support No users?

6. The UI Site UIs “User installable UI” OS dependent Portals –Specialised portals –Workflow Or use GSISSH OS independent

7. Common stuff The CA MyProxy VOMS (sort of) BDII & GLUE schema The big VO, small VO problem

8. Authentication Both using e-Science CA –NGS has made further progress with login –Training CAs (low assurance certificates) –Celebrated GSISSH Terminal Portable, using certificates to log in –SSO integration, via site MyProxy –Shibboleth (prototype portals)

9. RB and LB NGS “recently” started using RB –Submit to at least core sites –Depends on information system Also tested GridWay

10. RB gLite RB You probably can’t read this (how to lie with statistics)

11. Computing Element GridPP: LCG CE  gLite CE gLite CE –Submits jobs to Torque, LSF, SGE, … –BLAHP support (parameter passing to batch)

12. MPI NGS providing MPI –Needed, jobs are less embarrassingly parallel –Took some effort –NGS benefited from (and worked with) GridIreland –Select MPI jobs via globus-job-submit –Still need support in gLite RB

13. Monitoring NGS TG GridPP LCG gstat, SAM MonAMI INCA, GITS

14. Storage Elements GridPP using DPM, dCache, CASTOR –DPM for “smaller” sites (up to 200 TB…?) –dCache for larger or more complex infra. –DPM has been evaluated by ETF –Recommended (but like many parts of gLite not very portable (VOMS dep.))

15. Storage – SRM and SRB SESRB globus-url-copy gridftp (Argonne)

16. Storage – SRM and SRB SESRB SRM gLite FTS gridftp

17. Storage – SRM and SRB SESRB SRM gLite FTS gridftp Pretend SRB is a “Classic SE” (GridFTP server with information interface) Still supported via FTS Transfer files instead of developing interfaces! Interoperability with no add’l effort !!

18. Storage – SRM and SRB? SESRB SRM lcg-* info

19. Storage – SRM and SRB? SRMSRB SRMSRM2.2 This time an ASGC (Taiwan) project Aiming for “a demo” at SC 2007 Interfacing once again brought up

20. The big(ger) picture NGS OSG TG GridPP LCG OMII Grid Ireland Astro Grid EGI? Other National Grids

21. The big(ger) picture NGS OSG TG GridPP LCG OMII Grid Ireland Astro Grid EGI? Other National Grids

22. The big(ger) picture NGS OSG TG GridPP LCG OMII Grid Ireland Astro Grid EGI? Other National Grids

23. Another big(ger) picture gin-data gin-jobs gin-auth gin-info OGF

24. Opportunities

25. “Need for capability computing” –GridPP has high priority for ops Data catalogues, file transfers Documentation

26. Portal work GSISSH “Research of the month” ETF (or ETF’s experience) Documentation, Training User group meeting

27. How to make grids interoperate Standards Strong Expertise in UK(I) Influence external projects (priorities)

28. Externalities –EGEE –OMII UK/Europe –EGI and suchlike Standards –OGF –W3C –OASIS –Specialised industry or academic stds (e.g. archives)

29. National DisciplinaryTechnology Boundaries

30. National DisciplinaryTechnology Broken by GridPP (LCG) and NGS (TeraGrid) Boundaries TRUST

31. National DisciplinaryTechnology Broken within Grids (to some extent) Boundaries

32. National DisciplinaryTechnology Focus for interoperability Boundaries

33. Recommendations Job subm. Mgmt Storage Establish links when it makes sense – stronger in some areas than others

34. RB monitoring L&B Recommendations CE Job subm. Catalogues Infosys Note differences in software stack – link when it makes sense RB data transfer Infosys Storage Job subm. monitoring L&B

35. Conclusions Opportunities for collaboration Build on common areas –Many individual areas –Strong expertise in UK in many fields Sometimes there are differences for a reason – permit site and grid differences