April 2008 - glue-wg - lists.ogf.org

Quotas and accounting
by Burke, S (Stephen) 15 Apr '08

15 Apr '08

Hi, Expanding on a couple of the things from today's meeting ... on quotas my feeling is that we should just ignore them for the time being. We currently have no quota system anyway, and to represent one we would be likely to need some dedicated attributes/objects, I don't think we should try to force it in to existing things, e.g. restricting the FreeSize. Apart from anything else the quotas could well operate at a different level from the MappingPolicy, e.g. maybe that just says VO:atlas but the quotas are implemented per group, or even per user. Also quotas are often over-allocated so you lose the normalisation. On accounting, I think we should be careful that it isn't a main objective for Glue, and we can't possibly hope to do detailed accounting. However, on the specific question of publishing a per-VO UsedSize for Shares which are shared between VOs it does seem like something we should try to meet. Personally I'm not entirely convinced that the right way to go is to publish shared Shares multiple times - it results in a large amount of information being published many times purely to convey one attribute (UsedSize) which varies. However, I'll wait to have a look at the updated draft and then see if I think there's a simple alternative - I agree that technically the proposal should work as long as you can tell which Shares are shared. Stephen

4 4

DENY rules
by Burke, S (Stephen) 15 Apr '08

15 Apr '08

Hi, Just as a comment on the discussion about DENY rules in policies, my alternative suggestion was to have "allow" rules with a more complex syntax, e.g. something like: VOMS:/atlas/*:EXCEPT:/atlas/higgs which would match against any subgroup of atlas except higgs. That would be a bit harder to parse, but maybe still easier than a generic DENY rule. Stephen

5 22

modelling users
by Timo Baur 15 Apr '08

15 Apr '08

Hi list, in order to map running Globus-jobs to VOs, we now try to model user information with GLUE 2.0. From GRAM-Audit, we get (local user id, user DN, job). From another source, we will hopefully get (user DN, user name, VO). Should we best encode the user information in an composed UserDomain like UserDomain (Name: VO) composed by UserDomain(UniqueID: user DN, name: user name) or is there another solution ? Does anybody think it would make sense to introduce an additional or specialized entity for users ? Cheers, Timo -- Dipl-Inf. Timo Baur Leibniz Rechenzentrum Kommunikationsnetze/Netzplanung Boltzmannstr. 1 D-85748 Garching Telefon +49 89 35831-8729 Fax +49 89 35831-5729 timo.baur(a)lrz-muenchen.de

3 4

Update of relational rendering of Glue 2.0 draft 33
by Felix Nikolaus Ehm 15 Apr '08

15 Apr '08

Dear all, please find the latest rendering for the relational model (ref 33) here: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/EGEE/ExampleGlue20SQL Unfortunatly, I didn't find time to update the examples on the page - but its on my list. Comments/Questions are appreciated. Cheers, Felix --- Felix Ehm IT-GD tel : +41 22 7674580 CERN, Switzerland -----------------------------------------

2 4

Next telecon: 15 Apr - 4 PM CEST - Implementation
by Sergio Andreozzi 14 Apr '08

14 Apr '08

Dear all, I'm summarizing the next telecons: # 15 Apr 2008 - 4 PM CEST - 1,5h - implementation # 17 Apr 2008 - 2 PM CEST - 1,5h - storage # 21 Apr 2008 - 2 PM CEST - 1,5h - computing Talking to you tomorrow at 4 PM CEST Cheers, Sergio -- Sergio Andreozzi INFN-CNAF, Tel: +39 051 609 2860 Viale Berti Pichat, 6/2 Fax: +39 051 609 2746 40126 Bologna (Italy) Web: http://www.cnaf.infn.it/~andreozzi

1 0

GLUE 2.0 - draft 36
by Sergio Andreozzi 14 Apr '08

14 Apr '08

Dear all, draft 36 is online: http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/projects.glue-wg/docman.root.drafts here a summary set of changes: * fixed storage part according to today telecon * changed policy modeling in order to allow to have multiple policy instances associated to the same pair; (in UML I'm not using anymore the association class) * removed management policy since it was mainly conceptual and not meant to be instantiated... now we have aggregation between adminDomain and Service Cheers, Sergio -- Sergio Andreozzi INFN-CNAF, Tel: +39 051 609 2860 Viale Berti Pichat, 6/2 Fax: +39 051 609 2746 40126 Bologna (Italy) Web: http://www.cnaf.infn.it/~andreozzi

1 0

telecon reminder
by Felix Nikolaus Ehm 14 Apr '08

14 Apr '08

Dear all, this is a reminder for our today telecom on Storage (2 PM CEST ): http://forge.ogf.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.glue-wg/wiki/PhoneMeet ing20080414_1 Cheers, Felix --- Felix Ehm IT-GD tel : +41 22 7674580 CERN, Switzerland -----------------------------------------

4 3

Publishing annotations
by Burke, S (Stephen) 11 Apr '08

11 Apr '08

Hi, I don't know if this has been discussed already, or is considered in scope, but I was just thinking about whether you could have a way for a third party to publish "annotations" to glue schema objects. The specific thing I was considering was the EGEE "freedom of choice" tool, which currently edits the published data by removing AcessControlBaseRule attributes for CEs which are failing defined tests. That works, but it isn't entirely satisfactory in that it isn't transparent, you can't tell that the published data has been modified or who did it (or indeed why). On the face of it it would be better to do this kind of thing explicitly, so you could see where the modifications were coming from and choose whether to use them or not. Another thing that occurs to me on similar lines is the downtime information. I see that this is now embedded in the Endpoints, but for EGEE that wouldn't be usable because our downtime information is in a central database (GOC DB), so if we wanted to publish it it would again need to be done by modifying/annotating published information from a different place. This could maybe also feed into our CESEBind discussion, e.g. rather than the CE and SE publishing disconnected pieces of information the CE could in effect add/modify things published by the SE, i.e. we could separate the schema structure from the question of who publishes it. What do people think? Maybe it's too complicated to fit in at this stage, but it might be worth a bit of thought - at the abstract schema level it wouldn't necessarily mean huge changes. Just thinking about it quickly I suspect the problems would come at the implementation level, e.g. in LDAP the annotations would still be in a different part of the tree so it would take some extra effort in queries to find them. Stephen

3 5

telecon reminder
by Sergio Andreozzi 11 Apr '08

11 Apr '08

Dear all, this is a reminder for our today telecom on Storage (11 AM CEST ): http://forge.ogf.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.glue-wg/wiki/PhoneMeeting… please, check the calling details just updated. Sergio -- Sergio Andreozzi INFN-CNAF, Tel: +39 051 609 2860 Viale Berti Pichat, 6/2 Fax: +39 051 609 2746 40126 Bologna (Italy) Web: http://www.cnaf.infn.it/~andreozzi

1 0

Re: [glue-wg] FW: Meeting up during WLCG workshop?
by Felix Nikolaus Ehm 11 Apr '08

11 Apr '08

Dear all, I would like to suggest these times for meeting up at the WLCG workshop: * Monday 11:00-12:30 * Wednsday 14:00-16:00 * Thursday 13:00-15:00 * Thursday 14:00 -16:00 Friday (?) Please let me know your preferences. Thanks, Felix --- Felix Ehm IT-GD tel : +41 22 7674580 CERN, Switzerland ----------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Flavia Donno Sent: Mittwoch, 9. April 2008 00:03 To: Felix Nikolaus Ehm Cc: Maarten Litmaath Subject: Re: FW: [glue-wg] Meeting up during WLCG workshop? That's a good idea. With Paul we setup another session on SRM for Wednesday 9:00-11:00am. Therefore, that slot is out. Anything else excluding Storage sessions and lesson learned should be fine with me. Flavia Felix Nikolaus Ehm wrote: > Hi Flavia, Maarten, > > Paul suggested to meet up for Glue during the WLCG workshop. Do you > have any preferences for the time schedule? > > Cheers, > Felix > > --- > Felix Ehm > IT-GD tel : +41 22 7674580 > CERN, Switzerland > ----------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: glue-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On > Behalf Of Burke, S (Stephen) > Sent: Dienstag, 8. April 2008 23:46 > To: Felix Nikolaus Ehm; Paul Millar; GLUE WG > Subject: Re: [glue-wg] Meeting up during WLCG workshop? > > Felix Nikolaus Ehm [mailto:Felix.Ehm@cern.ch] said: > >> Paul, thanks for suggesting this. I'm happy to take this meeting as a >> chance for f2f discussions. But the schedule seems to be quite full. >> I >> > > >> can only imagine to utilize the only non-working time (lunch/coffee >> breaks) to talk about the schema. But I'm not sure if you are in >> favour of this? >> > > There may be sessions that people are less interested in, but I guess > it may be hard to find a common time. Also things may not run right to > the end of their slot, e.g. on Wednesday. And of course there are the > evenings :) > > Stephen > _______________________________________________ > glue-wg mailing list > glue-wg(a)ogf.org > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg >

5 6