Hi guys, I was wondering what it the current status of the proposed cloud extensions to GLUE 2.0? Are there any documents (wiki pages, etc) that have the current status? Cheers, Paul.
Hi Paul, AFAIU there is no status, we dropped it because EGI did not come back to us about it anymore and they seemed to be the only interested ones. I personally hardly think that anybody in the cloud world would find GLUE2 appealing. If you have some use for it I recommend you talk directly to Salvatore Pinto who contributed a lot to it, and if you have ideas to carry it on, we can rediscuss how to integrate it in the existing schemas. Cheers, Florido On 2015-08-12 10:27, Paul Millar wrote:
Hi guys,
I was wondering what it the current status of the proposed cloud extensions to GLUE 2.0?
Are there any documents (wiki pages, etc) that have the current status?
Cheers,
Paul. _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
-- ================================================== Florido Paganelli ARC Middleware Developer - NorduGrid Collaboration System Administrator Lund University Department of Physics Division of Particle Physics BOX118 221 00 Lund Office Location: Fysikum, Hus A, Rum A403 Office Tel: 046-2220272 Email: florido.paganelli@REMOVE_THIShep.lu.se Homepage: http://www.hep.lu.se/staff/paganelli ==================================================
While I think it is worth exploring new paradigms in this area, it is definitely the case that the EGI Federated Cloud makes explicit mention of using GLUE in all of its public talks, so keeping discussion and support going with them in this area would seem to be a good idea. More troubling to me is that the Open Science Grid has apparently abandoned use of BDII and seems to be going in a new direction for its related tasks. OGF's role and interest in these areas is always just to provide a forum and arena to document and to encourage exchange of information among participants on best practices and methods, including development and support of standards where appropriate. Is a discussion underway with OSG about its needs and current approach? Can we understand what led them to stop using BDII and GLUE (or did I misunderstand their current approach and get this wrong)? At a somewhat higher level, should we restart or recommission a community or working group to look at overall practices in this area, with a focus on new technologies? Alan
On Aug 12, 2015, at 4:14 AM, Florido Paganelli <florido.paganelli@hep.lu.se> wrote:
Hi Paul,
AFAIU there is no status, we dropped it because EGI did not come back to us about it anymore and they seemed to be the only interested ones. I personally hardly think that anybody in the cloud world would find GLUE2 appealing. If you have some use for it I recommend you talk directly to Salvatore Pinto who contributed a lot to it, and if you have ideas to carry it on, we can rediscuss how to integrate it in the existing schemas.
Cheers, Florido
On 2015-08-12 10:27, Paul Millar wrote: Hi guys,
I was wondering what it the current status of the proposed cloud extensions to GLUE 2.0?
Are there any documents (wiki pages, etc) that have the current status?
Cheers,
Paul. _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
-- ================================================== Florido Paganelli ARC Middleware Developer - NorduGrid Collaboration System Administrator Lund University Department of Physics Division of Particle Physics BOX118 221 00 Lund Office Location: Fysikum, Hus A, Rum A403 Office Tel: 046-2220272 Email: florido.paganelli@REMOVE_THIShep.lu.se Homepage: http://www.hep.lu.se/staff/paganelli ================================================== _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
While I think it is worth exploring new paradigms in this area, it is definitely the case that the EGI Federated Cloud makes explicit mention of using GLUE in all of its public talks, so keeping discussion and support going with them in this area would seem to be a good idea. More troubling to me is that the Open Science Grid has apparently abandoned use of BDII and seems to be going in a new direction for its related tasks. OGF's role and interest in these areas is always just to provide a forum and arena to document and to encourage exchange of information among participants on best practices and methods, including development and support of standards where appropriate. Is a discussion underway with OSG about its needs and current approach? Can we understand what led them to stop using BDII and GLUE (or did I misunderstand their current approach and get this wrong)? At a somewhat higher level, should we restart or recommission a community or working group to look at overall practices in this area, with a focus on new technologies? Alan
On Aug 12, 2015, at 4:14 AM, Florido Paganelli <florido.paganelli@hep.lu.se> wrote:
Hi Paul,
AFAIU there is no status, we dropped it because EGI did not come back to us about it anymore and they seemed to be the only interested ones. I personally hardly think that anybody in the cloud world would find GLUE2 appealing. If you have some use for it I recommend you talk directly to Salvatore Pinto who contributed a lot to it, and if you have ideas to carry it on, we can rediscuss how to integrate it in the existing schemas.
Cheers, Florido
On 2015-08-12 10:27, Paul Millar wrote: Hi guys,
I was wondering what it the current status of the proposed cloud extensions to GLUE 2.0?
Are there any documents (wiki pages, etc) that have the current status?
Cheers,
Paul. _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
-- ================================================== Florido Paganelli ARC Middleware Developer - NorduGrid Collaboration System Administrator Lund University Department of Physics Division of Particle Physics BOX118 221 00 Lund Office Location: Fysikum, Hus A, Rum A403 Office Tel: 046-2220272 Email: florido.paganelli@REMOVE_THIShep.lu.se Homepage: http://www.hep.lu.se/staff/paganelli ================================================== _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
Alan, BDII is an implementation based on a (I believe) old standard: GLUE 1.2. I don’t think it really matters what implementation anyone uses and whether internally it is standards based. The important question is whether they have interoperability requirements, and if so whether they use (GLUE) standards for interoperability. In other words, do they have an interoperability interface in their implementation. I don’t know if they have interoperability requirements, and if they do how they will satisfy them. I am curious and have contacts in OSG so I will try to find answers. JP
On Aug 28, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Sill, Alan <alan.sill@ttu.edu> wrote:
While I think it is worth exploring new paradigms in this area, it is definitely the case that the EGI Federated Cloud makes explicit mention of using GLUE in all of its public talks, so keeping discussion and support going with them in this area would seem to be a good idea.
More troubling to me is that the Open Science Grid has apparently abandoned use of BDII and seems to be going in a new direction for its related tasks. OGF's role and interest in these areas is always just to provide a forum and arena to document and to encourage exchange of information among participants on best practices and methods, including development and support of standards where appropriate.
Is a discussion underway with OSG about its needs and current approach? Can we understand what led them to stop using BDII and GLUE (or did I misunderstand their current approach and get this wrong)?
At a somewhat higher level, should we restart or recommission a community or working group to look at overall practices in this area, with a focus on new technologies?
Alan
On Aug 12, 2015, at 4:14 AM, Florido Paganelli <florido.paganelli@hep.lu.se> wrote:
Hi Paul,
AFAIU there is no status, we dropped it because EGI did not come back to us about it anymore and they seemed to be the only interested ones. I personally hardly think that anybody in the cloud world would find GLUE2 appealing. If you have some use for it I recommend you talk directly to Salvatore Pinto who contributed a lot to it, and if you have ideas to carry it on, we can rediscuss how to integrate it in the existing schemas.
Cheers, Florido
On 2015-08-12 10:27, Paul Millar wrote: Hi guys,
I was wondering what it the current status of the proposed cloud extensions to GLUE 2.0?
Are there any documents (wiki pages, etc) that have the current status?
Cheers,
Paul. _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
-- ================================================== Florido Paganelli ARC Middleware Developer - NorduGrid Collaboration System Administrator Lund University Department of Physics Division of Particle Physics BOX118 221 00 Lund Office Location: Fysikum, Hus A, Rum A403 Office Tel: 046-2220272 Email: florido.paganelli@REMOVE_THIShep.lu.se Homepage: http://www.hep.lu.se/staff/paganelli ================================================== _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
Hi all, A correction to what JP said and a few comments about GLUE2 adoption and its use for integration: On 2015-08-28 15:16, navarro wrote:
Alan,
BDII is an implementation based on a (I believe) old standard: GLUE 1.2.
BDII runs fully all glue schemas, including GLUE2.
I don’t think it really matters what implementation anyone uses and whether internally it is standards based. The important question is whether they have interoperability requirements, and if so whether they use (GLUE) standards for interoperability. In other words, do they have an interoperability interface in their implementation.
I don’t know if they have interoperability requirements, and if they do how they will satisfy them. I am curious and have contacts in OSG so I will try to find answers.
I think the question is whether GLUE managed to foster such interoperability or not. BDII is LDAP based and pros and cons have been discussed in this mailing list before. I believe OSG just wants to drop that technology, but doesn't really need Glue in general. The claim I've heard in meetings is that they explicitly do NOT want to migrate to GLUE2, so I guess they don't even need the schema. As for interoperability, the only existing interoperable systems based on GLUE2 I know are dCache, BDII, ARC and GOCDB to some extent. However, GLUE2 does not define aggregation, which makes interoperability loosely defined. I am following the discussions in a working group at CERN about the next generation information system (read: for CERN experiments) and GLUE2 is rarely mentioned there. Some of the concepts also fail to be defined in GLUE2 without a different interpretation of some of the attributes, which actually takes us far from integration. Remember the discussion on how to identify a data transfer protocol on this mailing list? We even failed to have an agreement here....
JP
On Aug 28, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Sill, Alan <alan.sill@ttu.edu> wrote:
While I think it is worth exploring new paradigms in this area, it is definitely the case that the EGI Federated Cloud makes explicit mention of using GLUE in all of its public talks, so keeping discussion and support going with them in this area would seem to be a good idea.
More troubling to me is that the Open Science Grid has apparently abandoned use of BDII and seems to be going in a new direction for its related tasks. OGF's role and interest in these areas is always just to provide a forum and arena to document and to encourage exchange of information among participants on best practices and methods, including development and support of standards where appropriate.
Is a discussion underway with OSG about its needs and current approach? Can we understand what led them to stop using BDII and GLUE (or did I misunderstand their current approach and get this wrong)?
At a somewhat higher level, should we restart or recommission a community or working group to look at overall practices in this area, with a focus on new technologies?
Alan
On Aug 12, 2015, at 4:14 AM, Florido Paganelli <florido.paganelli@hep.lu.se> wrote:
Hi Paul,
AFAIU there is no status, we dropped it because EGI did not come back to us about it anymore and they seemed to be the only interested ones. I personally hardly think that anybody in the cloud world would find GLUE2 appealing. If you have some use for it I recommend you talk directly to Salvatore Pinto who contributed a lot to it, and if you have ideas to carry it on, we can rediscuss how to integrate it in the existing schemas.
Cheers, Florido
On 2015-08-12 10:27, Paul Millar wrote: Hi guys,
I was wondering what it the current status of the proposed cloud extensions to GLUE 2.0?
Are there any documents (wiki pages, etc) that have the current status?
Cheers,
Paul. _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
-- ================================================== Florido Paganelli ARC Middleware Developer - NorduGrid Collaboration System Administrator Lund University Department of Physics Division of Particle Physics BOX118 221 00 Lund Office Location: Fysikum, Hus A, Rum A403 Office Tel: 046-2220272 Email: florido.paganelli@REMOVE_THIShep.lu.se Homepage: http://www.hep.lu.se/staff/paganelli ================================================== _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
-- ================================================== Florido Paganelli ARC Middleware Developer - NorduGrid Collaboration System Administrator Lund University Department of Physics Division of Particle Physics BOX118 221 00 Lund Office Location: Fysikum, Hus A, Rum A403 Office Tel: 046-2220272 Email: florido.paganelli@REMOVE_THIShep.lu.se Homepage: http://www.hep.lu.se/staff/paganelli ==================================================
On Sep 1, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Florido Paganelli <florido.paganelli@hep.lu.se> wrote:
think the question is whether GLUE managed to foster such interoperability or not. BDII is LDAP based and pros and cons have been discussed in this mailing list before. I believe OSG just wants to drop that technology, but doesn't really need Glue in general. The claim I've heard in meetings is that they explicitly do NOT want to migrate to GLUE2, so I guess they don't even need the schema.
As for interoperability, the only existing interoperable systems based on GLUE2 I know are dCache, BDII, ARC and GOCDB to some extent. However, GLUE2 does not define aggregation, which makes interoperability loosely defined.
I am following the discussions in a working group at CERN about the next generation information system (read: for CERN experiments) and GLUE2 is rarely mentioned there. Some of the concepts also fail to be defined in GLUE2 without a different interpretation of some of the attributes, which actually takes us far from integration. Remember the discussion on how to identify a data transfer protocol on this mailing list? We even failed to have an agreement here....
Again, OGF’s interest is in documenting, providing forums and vehicles for discussion of, and helping to the extent that community input and an organized method for writing up the results of a discussion can help in arriving at the best practices and methods in a given area, including standard specifications and schema when these are necessary. If GLUE2 can help in this area, then we are very happy to continue to support the group in its efforts to document, evolve and support the approach. Any given project can of course make its own choices and can of course even document and publish these as OGF informational, community practice or experimental documents. Such documents are extremely helpful to allow the rest of the community to understand a particular approach, and they can be submitted, put out for public comment and published without regard to the need to establish consensus. We are very happy, though, when the results of such documents and efforts lead to an interoperable approach that can then be published as a further guideline to encourage common efforts in a given area. If there are discussions about a new information system, the process that we worked so hard as a community to create for an open, public way to document and get comments on it is available, and I hope that people will make use of it. Let me (or Jens or Wolfgang or Andre or any of the folks in the GFSG) know if a new working group needs to be chartered, or if a community group could help to encourage cross-project discussion. That’s a good way, I think, to proceed with the emergence of new technologies. Alan
Hi Alan, On 28/08/15 14:40, Sill, Alan wrote:
While I think it is worth exploring new paradigms in this area, it is definitely the case that the EGI Federated Cloud makes explicit mention of using GLUE in all of its public talks, so keeping discussion and support going with them in this area would seem to be a good idea.
For what it's worth, the INDIGO-DataCloud project also includes explicit mention of GLUE in their design documents. I hope the approaches EGI and INDIGO-DataCloud take for service discover can be sufficiently similar that we can use the same cloud extensions within GLUE.
More troubling to me is that the Open Science Grid has apparently abandoned use of BDII and seems to be going in a new direction for its related tasks. OGF's role and interest in these areas is always just to provide a forum and arena to document and to encourage exchange of information among participants on best practices and methods, including development and support of standards where appropriate.
Is a discussion underway with OSG about its needs and current approach? Can we understand what led them to stop using BDII and GLUE (or did I misunderstand their current approach and get this wrong)?
At a somewhat higher level, should we restart or recommission a community or working group to look at overall practices in this area, with a focus on new technologies?
I think it would be good to attempt this, but I'm unsure how successful it will be. This move away from GLUE apparently took people within WLCG by surprise, but OSG people claimed they have been planning this for years. Certainly there's been a disconnect here: GLUE 2.0 was developed to overcome deficiencies in GLUE 1.3, yet a major user decided to abandon GLUE altogether rather than move. Cheers, Paul.
participants (5)
-
Alan Sill -
Florido Paganelli -
navarro -
Paul Millar -
Sill, Alan