Hello All, Below is text for the BOF proposal for OGF26 and Charter. Proposal ++++++++ Within the data centre there is currently a very limited manner in which workload management systems are able to physically connect the tasks that they are managing with the underlying physical infrastructure that they are using. This group proposes a standard information interchange format between a physical asset management system and a workload management service. This will allow for greater visibility of the underlying physical infrastructure to WMS and hence the submitter of tasks, essential if we are to enable informed choices to be made by those that use resources against the backdrops of carbon credits and other policy tools. In the longer term it is intended that this could be the first step in an information chain that will include Usage Records etc. Charter & 7 Questions +++++++++++++++++++++ 1. Is the scope of the proposed group sufficiently focused? We are aiming to define a simple interchange schema between WMS (both HPC style and VM management systems) and the underlying physical asset management systems. 2. Are the topics that the group plans to address clear and relevant for the Grid research, development, industrial, implementation, and/or application user community? This is part of the wider consideration about the importance of being able to ascertain with certainty the end resources on which a task was run, the physical characteristics of the system etc. 3. Will the formation of the group foster (consensus-based) work that would not be done otherwise? It is not know currently that this work would be done elsewhere. 4. Do the group's activities overlap inappropriately with those of another OGF group or to a group active in another organization such as IETF or W3C? Not currently known 5. Are there sufficient interest and expertise in the group's topic, with at least several people willing to expend the effort that is likely to produce significant results over time? We have 60+ attendees at the workshop at Catania and at least 8 members are signed up to provide into to the BOF from both the commercial and academic spaces. 6. Does a base of interested consumers (e.g., application developers, Grid system implementers, industry partners, end-users) appear to exist for the planned work? Yes we have a number of OGF participants that are running very large infrastructures that would be users of the output from this work. 7. Does the OGF have a reasonable role to play in the determination of the technology? ??? Please comment on the above so that we can get the BOF proposal written and submitted ASAP. As PC Chair I would like someone to take ownership of this (BOF proposal) in the longer term. Regards David
David, My talk took a broader view of the requirements than your proposal and looked at the arguments for presenting the information to users of the resources i.e. an API for the resource manager to present CO2 information as well as gather it. Something like the below encapsulates these ideas: In the light of environmental concerns (and carbon credits and other policy tools) users of computer resources will, in the near future, need to be able to make informed choices about the use of CO2 by these resources. This requires visibility of the properties of the underlying physical infrastructure to workload management systems and hence the users of resources. Currently within the data centre the information exchange between users, workload management systems and the underlying physical infrastructure that they are using for these properties is very limited. This group seeks to enhance this visibility of CO2, and other physical properties, by proposing a standard information interchange format between users, physical asset management system and a workload management service. The information chain will build on existing mechanisms such as Usage Records, Resource Usage Service and GRAAP. Sven Sven.vandenBerghe@uk.fujitsu.com Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe +44 208 606 4651 On 11 Mar 2009, at 11:45, David Wallom wrote:
Hello All,
Below is text for the BOF proposal for OGF26 and Charter.
Proposal ++++++++ Within the data centre there is currently a very limited manner in which workload management systems are able to physically connect the tasks that they are managing with the underlying physical infrastructure that they are using. This group proposes a standard information interchange format between a physical asset management system and a workload management service. This will allow for greater visibility of the underlying physical infrastructure to WMS and hence the submitter of tasks, essential if we are to enable informed choices to be made by those that use resources against the backdrops of carbon credits and other policy tools. In the longer term it is intended that this could be the first step in an information chain that will include Usage Records etc.
Charter & 7 Questions +++++++++++++++++++++
1. Is the scope of the proposed group sufficiently focused? We are aiming to define a simple interchange schema between WMS (both HPC style and VM management systems) and the underlying physical asset management systems.
2. Are the topics that the group plans to address clear and relevant for the Grid research, development, industrial, implementation, and/or application user community? This is part of the wider consideration about the importance of being able to ascertain with certainty the end resources on which a task was run, the physical characteristics of the system etc.
3. Will the formation of the group foster (consensus-based) work that would not be done otherwise? It is not know currently that this work would be done elsewhere.
4. Do the group's activities overlap inappropriately with those of another OGF group or to a group active in another organization such as IETF or W3C? Not currently known
5. Are there sufficient interest and expertise in the group's topic, with at least several people willing to expend the effort that is likely to produce significant results over time? We have 60+ attendees at the workshop at Catania and at least 8 members are signed up to provide into to the BOF from both the commercial and academic spaces.
6. Does a base of interested consumers (e.g., application developers, Grid system implementers, industry partners, end-users) appear to exist for the planned work? Yes we have a number of OGF participants that are running very large infrastructures that would be users of the output from this work.
7. Does the OGF have a reasonable role to play in the determination of the technology? ???
Please comment on the above so that we can get the BOF proposal written and submitted ASAP. As PC Chair I would like someone to take ownership of this (BOF proposal) in the longer term.
Regards
David
_______________________________________________ Co2-bof mailing list Co2-bof@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/co2-bof
______________________________________________________________________ Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Limited Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE Registered No. 4153469 This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of addressee(s) and may contain information which is privileged and confidential. Unauthorised use or copying for disclosure is strictly prohibited. The fact that this e-mail has been scanned by Trendmicro Interscan and McAfee Groupshield does not guarantee that it has not been intercepted or amended nor that it is virus-free.
participants (2)
-
David Wallom
-
Sven van den Berghe