[ogsa-bes-wg] [ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for <DATE> call
hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com
Mon Jan 9 00:24:57 CST 2006
I hope you and your family had a good holiday break and are
looking forward to the new year.
The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Jan. 9th
Monday from 4pm to 6pm (CST).
The dial-in number for Monday;
Screen share service will be provided.
Session key: 0109
See more explanation:
1) Early discussion (10 min)
Note taker assignment
Telecon minutes approval (Dec. 19)
Do we have Jan. 11th telecon, since several people will be at
GFSG F2F meeting?
2) CDDLM-WG joint call (60 min)
Jem has uploaded the revised version to the GridForge.
Look forward to proofread and tracker verification.
(1) Deployment and configuration section break-down
> == Proposed list of sections ==
> 3.1 Provision (Deploy) an application on an existing BES container
> (The application can then be used to instantiate a BES activity.
> Mostly what is now 3.2 in EMS Architecture composition.)
> 3.2 Provision a BES container
> (What is now 3.1 in EMS Architecture composition)
> [Both 3.1 and 3.2 assume that the 'level' of the BES container is
> pre-determined and fixed. See below.]
> 3.3 Using ACS do 3.1
> 3.4 Using ACS do 3.2
> [Both 3.3 and 3.4 assume that the 'level' of the BES container is
> pre-determined and fixed. See below.]
> 3.5 Add time predictions to provision 3.1 and 3.2 by a deadline
> Using a deployment estimation service (perhaps based on
> historical data, etc, but how the estimation is done is
> out-of-scope.) Possibly requiring reservations.
> [3.5 assumes that the 'level' of the BES container is pre-determined
> and fixed. See below.]
> 3.x Determine dynamically the optimal level of 'BES container' in the
> system and provision containers appropriately depending on
> workload etc
> may depend on analysis of the entire application CDL (down to
> hardware) for the entire workload of the system; use
> deployment time predictions; etc
> <<Version 1 of the document could just cover scenarios 3.1-3.5 and
> discuss 3.x as future work. Otherwise need to breakdown 3.x further.>>
(2) - Deployment versus provisioning requirements
> (Or, where to 'cut' the CDL tree. Above the 'cut' point is
> deployment---assumed to be a relatively 'light' operation---and
> below is provisioning---assumed to be more heavy-weight.)
> - Deciding the cut point is orthogonal to CDDLM---it is policy or
> best practices and is therefore a system choice
> - Information (metadata) to help in making the choice could be
> added to the CDL as mark up
> - CDDLM implementations have walked the tree fairly far down (to
> the hardware) for deployment
> - CDL may be sufficient to express both deployment and
> provisioning. But it is an open issue if these two activities
> can, or should be unified in this way in OGSA. In particular CDL
> may not be going to the full extent of supporting costing, etc.,
> that maybe needed to address all requirements
> - Resources beneath the cut point can be considered as
> pre-provisioned: they either exist or they don't. They are not
> going to be deployed themselves; but they can be used to
> deploy on.
> - Which resource to choose for deployment? It is the choice of
> the EMS architecture (EPS, CSG) and not of CDDLM.
> - Discussion on how CDL may be viewed as a hierarchy of scripts;
> and that one could have a history of costs associated with
> each node. In other words the tree could be decorated with
> other information (cost, etc, as metadata)
(3) - JSDL and CDL relation and can one cover the requirements for the
> - A JSDL submission may be associated with a deployment
> description or request, and the deployment portion could be
> described in CDL. [I.e., CDL could be a more specific
> sub-type in a JSDL document.]
> - JSDL is not intended to describe the configuration of the
> software that will be used by the job. The aim is to describe
> things at a higher level. There may be similarities between the
> languages (perhaps around resource description) but it does not
> mean that one language can, or should, replace the other because
> they serve different purposes.
> - Jay wants to pursue the issue further among a smaller group of
3) OGSA F2F meeting update (30 min)
Session leaders: Please provide your goals and detailed agenda.
4) Wrap up (10 min)
OGSA-WG F2F Jan. 16-20.
More information about the ogsa-bes-wg