Fwd: resource-agnostic vs. resource aware - Re: Admela Jukan's presentation
This thread continues to fall off of the GHPN reflector ;-) Hereafter Bill's elaboration on Admela's point. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bill St.Arnaud <bill.st.arnaud@canarie.ca> Date: Apr 7, 2005 8:52 AM Subject: RE: resource-agnostic vs. resource aware - Re: Admela Jukan's presentation To: Admela Jukan <jukan@uiuc.edu>, travos@ieee.org Cc: "Masum Z. Hasan" <masum@cisco.com>, Gigi Karmous-Edwards < gkarmous@mcnc.org>, Cees de Laat <delaat@science.uva.nl>, imonga@nortel.com, Leon Gommans <lgommans@science.uva.nl>, chyoun@icu.ac.kr, ebslee@ntu.edu.sg Admela: I think the fundamental issue is the concept of "resources". There are two type of markets - "fungible" where everything is a shared resource -buses, public transport, bandwidth etc. A lot of the focus on grids has been on this market where everything including storage, networking and computation is seen as a fungible resource But there is another market - "asset based" - where everything is seen as an asset and not treated as a shared "resource". Your PC computer, your home, your car, manufacturing plants are examples of this type of market assets. Our focus at CANARIE is developing grid/web service solutions for the later market, in the belief that storage, computation and networking in particular is becoming so cheap that the opex cost of managing these as a shared fungible resource will be much greater than their inherent capex value. As a result what used to be fungible resource will be treated as an asset Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Admela Jukan [mailto:jukan@uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 3:42 PM To: travos@ieee.org Cc: Masum Z. Hasan; <bill.st.arnaud@canarie.ca>; Gigi Karmous-Edwards; Cees de Laat; imonga@nortel.com; Leon Gommans; chyoun@icu.ac.kr; ebslee@ntu.edu.sg Subject: resource-agnostic vs. resource aware - Re: Admela Jukan's presentation
Follow up on Franco's comment. Franco, - if I understand correctly, and please correct me if I am wrong, since "storage is equal storage" it implies that "bandwidth should be equal bandwidth". In other words, the separation of, for example optical bandwidth pipes from any other pipes (with the same performance), may not be future-proof (even if bandwidth is cheap) and schedulers should be better designed with the resource-agnostic considerations in mind. Architecturally, this is a "clean" approach, as it separates applications from networks (and type of resources). Bill on the other hand suggests to link (pipe) networks into the applications' software processes, - an attractive proposition. The way I understand it, that concept is resource aware (albeit it could be resource agnostic). If for example the linked network resource has to be a wavelength ("because is cheap"), the application is free to "link the wavelength" (as opposed to linking the "bandwidth of other kind"). This is the case where application is resource-aware. At the same time, however, there maybe be other applications to "link" networks in a resource-agnostic fashion (Franco's proposition). Architecturally, this is a more flexible approach, but it does "couple" applications with network (resources) in its basic form. Is that correct, Bill?
On Mar 31, 2005, at 9:42 PM, Franco Travostino wrote:
With regard to the 20k x 10Gbps argument eroding the usefulness of scheduling:
the cost may be that low until you hit a discontinuity and run out of something --- PHYs, cards, NE's backplane, lambdas, software licenses, OpEx contracts --- and need to go issue a new procurement.
also, there appears to be a "virtuous cycle" at play, with more bandwidth enabling new services that enable new applications that demand new bandwidth.
we have seen this phenomenon occurring in computing many times over.
we're seeing it with wireless (who would have thought that we would be watching mobisodes when it all started)
if we want Grids to be a somewhat future-proof and versatile infrastructure (beyond circuits), we need to take this virtuous cycle of expansion into consideration and toy with (resource-agnostic!) schedulers.
-franco
On Mar 31, 2005 7:12 PM, Admela Jukan <jukan@uiuc.edu> wrote:
Thanks a lot Bill for your feedback. My specific responses are given below in detail. I look forward to further discussions - Admela
On Mar 31, 2005, at 2:13 PM, Bill St.Arnaud wrote:
I enjoyed Admela's presentation on control plane issues. I think it is a good summary of most of the issues. However I would suggest there are some areas that may be worth further exploring:
(a) in addition to applications needing to interact with the network physical layer for large data flows, there are some situations where it would be advantageous to bring the network into the application. This is a lot different than the network being "aware" of the application. There is a lot of work going on in the HPC community to "decompose" large data applications into smaller modules which then can be relocated anywhere on the network. However in some cases the application modules may still be on the same physical machine interconnected by a "virtual" network or pipeline. Extending HPC pipeline architectures into network pipes would be clearly advantageous.
I agree with you. Not sure however what would be the best way to incorporate that view into the three dimensional diagram I gave in the presentation, without explaining virtualization, soft switches,...etc. (I wish you can be there next time and talk about the extension of networks into applications, or point us to some good docs.) In the three dimensional space between apps, Grid resources and networks, the applications can nevertheless pick up networks, or part of networks and fully incorporate (link or pipe) them - to be their own very part in the whole distributed application. I think this in line with your thinking. It is in my opinion a great research area. Hence, I do agree with you that networks, as much as they will extend into the physical layer, will also extend into the applications.
(b) I remain skeptical about reservation and scheduling of bandwidth or lightpaths. The cost of wavelengths continues to plummet - and it is now cheaper to nail up the bandwidth and leave it there sitting idle, rather than paying the high OPEX costs for scheduling, reservation, billing etc. For example I have been informed by reliable sources that the annual cost of a 10 Gbps wavelength on the new Geant network will be in the order of 20K Euros. You couldn't hire a graduate student for that price to do the scheduling and reservation. The counter argument is that there will be applications where data transfers are infrequent, and buying nailed up wavelengths, even at 20k Euros, can't be justified - in that case I say use a general purpose routed network. Given that the data transfers are so infrequent, I suspect the slightly longer delays of using the routed network can be tolerated. But I suspect most large data flow applications will be from well known and often used sources and sinks - so the need for scheduling and reservation will be very limited
I share your concerns given the recent trends, price of bandwidth etc. However, there maybe at least two good reasons why scheduling may be an issue we do not want to completely neglect, at least not for a while. First: network local grid scheduler, just like other Grid resources' schedulers, is represented in the corresponding hierarchical architecture within the scheduling working group in GGF (https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/gsa-rg). They look forward to our input to that issue. If we, as "networkers", can provide Grid network services for "no waiting time" (i.e. no scheduling) - that is a wonderful message to the scheduling group that no longer has to worry about that.
*** Soapbox: Given that network resource management is far from the "on the fly" provision, at least not at a grander scale and not for complex application composition, I am not sure if the community is ready to make the statement. For example, one part of a complex dynamic application has to wait that the related other part of the same applications finishes. So, do you schedule the "second part" after the first part is done, and how (1)? Or, do you just set up continuous communication patterns for the whole duration of application (2)? Or, you integrate dynamic control plane processes into the application ("extend") and dynamically allocate network resources as the applications evolve (3)? I understand that if bandwidth is cheap we can waste it and do the (2). On the other hand, you suggest to "extend" into application (corresponds to (3), since the SW processes pipe to each other.) - this is more elegant but does not per se exclude the need for (advance) scheduling. Etc. Your input is a very valuable starting point to this line of discussions. ***
Second, - I admit less intriguing, - network is still a shared resource. While I agree with you that network resources have to be provided with no waiting time to applications, bandwidth may not be the only requirement - it may be "guaranteed performance" . So, your comment is also here a good start of the discussion whether we have "cheap guaranteed performance" yet to be provided "with no waiting time". And, if so, how do we deal with the scale (number of bandwidth pipes, scale in implementation of network control plane software, etc,...) As a researcher, I could also imagine that scheduling can be interesting in some specific situations (recovery, failure, etc) or when the network topologies make it difficult to design reliable connections (connectivity, and min cut problem). However, I do agree that the prices can diminish the practical importance of all these possible scenarios.
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ghpn-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-ghpn-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Franco Travostino Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 2:44 PM To: ghpn-wg@gridforum.org Cc: chyoun@icu.ac.kr; ebslee@ntu.edu.sg; Masum Z. Hasan; Leon Gommans; imonga@nortel.com; Admela Jukan; Gigi Karmous-Edwards; Cees de Laat Subject: [ghpn-wg] Fwd: Seoul material is on-line
I've been informed that Admela's presentation could not be opened with PowerPoint. It turns out that the handoff between Admela and me has altered the file's content somehow. I have now replaced the file in forge.gridforum.org <http://forge.gridforum.org>.
For further reference:
/cygdrive/D/GGF13 (19) sum Admela* 59184 2731 Admela Correct File.ppt 11383 2731 Admela Damaged File.ppt
-franco
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:08:06 -0500 To: ghpn-wg@gridforum.org From: Franco Travostino <travos@ieee.org> Subject: Seoul material is on-line Cc: chyoun@icu.ac.kr, ebslee@ntu.edu.sg, "Masum Z. Hasan" <masum@cisco.com>, Leon Gommans <lgommans@science.uva.nl>, "inder [BL60:418:EXCH] Monga" <imonga@AMERICASM06.nt.com>, Admela Jukan <jukan@uiuc.edu>, Gigi Karmous-Edwards <gkarmous@mcnc.org>, Cees de Laat <delaat@science.uva.nl>
The whole GHPN production for GGF13 is available at: https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php? group_id=53&category_id=941
We've had a lively meeting (we went 10' past the end of our slot actually). I hope you will take the time to peruse the minutes and the material.
The State of the Drafts that I prepared is thought to be up to date (alert me if not) ... it also covers a couple of drafts that have been announced even though they didn't make the GGF13 cutoff date. See https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewProperties.php? group_id=53&category_id=941&document_content_id=3603
The GGF13 program featured a couple of interesting BOFs with strong network connotation. Kindly enough, both referenced GHPN material.
One was the Firewall and NAT BOF. The room consensus was that it should be chartered as a RG.
The other one was the VPN BOF.
On behalf of the GHPN, I invite these groups to use the GHPN community as a sounding board for their work. If they don't get the nod from the GFSG, they can also consider using the GHPN as the temporary home where to incubate their work further.
-franco
-- Admela
-- Admela
participants (1)
-
Franco Travostino