Oxana Smirnova schrieb:
As a user, I strongly disagree. I *am* interested to have my jobs executed as soon as possible, for sure. This means I want them to be sent by a workload management system not just to any site that matches job requirements, but to the best site - e.g., with the fastest processor, bigger memory, better bandwidth etc. I may also be interested in to send them to a cheapest site, or to a fastest site among the cheap ones. I may prefer to stay away from sites that use afs, and I may need to specify that I need inbound connectivity for a worker node. I perhaps only want to use sites in one specific country, for some licensing reasons. There are so many levels of optimization that users need, one can write a book about it.
I agree. However, this is a policy within the Resource Broker / Workload Manager / Scheduler. Sorry if I didn't make this clear (maybe since I'M coming from the scheduling POV). All things that you have mentioned can be interpreted as constraints for your job (price, speed, afs, blue logos on the lower right, ad nauseam).
This is not a hypothetical case: I know many users that schedule jobs by hand to sites that in their experience are better, while the workload management system can not tell this from the available information or job description. This manual scheduling is orthogonal to the Grid idea,
Yes, it is (alas, many users -- at the moment -- know better than the available schedulers). Still, we should keep this open: either the user keeps his requirements general, such that a Resource Broker can decide; or he specifies his constraints in a way that, in the end, only a single (the one the user wants) resource matches. Greetings, Alexander -- Dipl.-Inform. Alexander Papaspyrou | 44221 Dortmund, NRW (Germany) Robotics Research Institute | phone : +49(231)755-5058 Information Technology Section | fax : +49(231)755-3251 Dortmund University | web : http://www.irf.de/