July 2009 - pgi-wg - lists.ogf.org

Next teleconference: tomorrow, wednesday july 15th
by Moreno Marzolla 04 Aug '09

04 Aug '09

Dear all, the next PGI teleconference will be held tomorrow july 15th at 16:00 CET (duration: 1 hour). Call-in details as follow: via Skype call +9900827049931906 (free of charge) ordinary phone numbers (local rates) with the 9931906 conference number: Austria 0820 401 15470 Belgium 0703 57 134 France 0826 109 071 Germany +49 (0) 180 500 9527 Switzerland 0848 560 397 The agenda is similar to the last call (in particular, tomorrow I would like that we spend a few minutes on a status update of the security discussion) 1) State model 2) Status update on security 3) AOB Feel free to propose additional topics for discussion. Moreno. -- Moreno Marzolla INFN Sezione di Padova, via Marzolo 8, 35131 PADOVA, Italy EMail: moreno.marzolla(a)pd.infn.it Phone: +39 049 8277103 WWW : http://www.dsi.unive.it/~marzolla Fax : +39 049 8756233

8 11

Update of some PGI input documents
by Morris Riedel 31 Jul '09

31 Jul '09

Hi PGI team, some team members of the middlewares ARC, gLite, and UNICORE (AGU) found a bit time to update their input documents to the PGI process: (1) To ensure an open process, we put the updated version into the PGI OGF space: A) strawman_rendering (http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/doc15628?nav=1) Note that the document has still some limitations such as: a) job state model is not fully integrated and thus contradicts to the rest of the rendering document since we also have some inputs for the discussion of it in the next weeks b) some formatting glitches: e.g. would be nice to have section headers, numbered, the table of content contain sections down to level 5. c) agreements only between ARC, gLite and UNICORE while a broader consensus with the other interested members of PGI is missing (i.e. GENESIS, EDGES) and to be discussed d) still some open questions that should be discussed in the broader PGI community B) strawman_functionality (http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/doc15736?nav=1) Note that this document only got a minor update. C) agu_jsdl.xml (http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/doc15737?nav=1) Focused on needed functionality - not existing JSDL with extensions. (2) Since we don't want to interrupt the currently ongoing fruitful state model discussions, we expect to continue with them and would suggest that members of PGI collect feedback about these updated documents over the next weeks/vacation period. Once the state model has been reasonable stable we can work on the feedback of the updated documents together and come to agreements between us all. (3) Since we don't like an emerging specification that is not really implemented we are about to start a reference implementation of it that might be demonstrated at OGF or other conferences, including its changes following from the open discussion process among the broader PGI community. With kind regards, Morris Riedel Balazs Konya Moreno Marzolla ------------------------------------------------------------ Morris Riedel SW - Engineer Distributed Systems and Grid Computing Division Jülich Supercomputing Centre (JSC) Forschungszentrum Juelich Wilhelm-Johnen-Str. 1 D - 52425 Juelich Germany Email: m.riedel(a)fz-juelich.de Info: http://www.fz-juelich.de/jsc/JSCPeople/riedel Phone: +49 2461 61 - 3651 Fax: +49 2461 61 - 6656 Skype: MorrisRiedel "We work to better ourselves, and the rest of humanity" Sitz der Gesellschaft: Jülich Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Düren Nr. HR B 3498 Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDirig'in Bärbel Brumme-Bothe Vorstand: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender)

1 0

Re: [Pgi-wg] No PGI TelCon today
by Steven Newhouse 30 Jul '09

30 Jul '09

Hi Morris, > That might be the case, but take into account that it's vacation time, > at least in Europe - and the rather more important group argument > should be that there are not enough significant 'voices' today to make > decisions or even meaningful progress. Sure... but there was no call on the mailing list to see if anyone would be available for a call, or if there was anyone else available who could lead the call. The WG chairs do not have to lead every call, they are certainly expected to drive progress within the group. > There is no point to have an agreement w/o gLite, UNICORE, ARC. While I agree with this... (with my EGEE hat on) there are also other groups involved in this WG and it is VERY worrying (with my OGF hat on) that a WG chair should make a statement that only a particular technologies have an 'important' voice in an activity. I'm sure this was a mistake... > If this group is really following a collaborative process, we should > have a voice from everybody who is interested - and when we not wait > for one or more interested voices in terms of 'just-going-forward- > with-meaningless-decisions' - that would be not a WIN/WIN game in the > end that we want to achieve in the group. Which it seems to be from this statement... Regards, Steven

6 6

Re: [Pgi-wg] No PGI TelCon today
by Oxana Smirnova 29 Jul '09

29 Jul '09

Hi all, as one of the "rest of the group", I can say that I'm not too comfortable with the idea of many co-chairs. I rather believe in one leader, and possibly a deputy or a few, whatever is the activity. But that's just me (and thousands of years of human society experience). That said, I also agree with Morris that the most important part is not to count chair-persons, but to have proper representations from each interested party, such that not only this party has a say in PGI, but also that the PGI decisions are adopted by all the parties. So, whatever is the number of chair-persons, they all must be respected as authorities both in PGI and in their respective projects. Cheers, Oxana Morris Riedel пишет: > Ok, > > I agree that we have an open collaborative process, no doubt: > >> -Considering that we are not having a call today because both of you are unavailable there might be an argument that additional leadership is needed because you are both busy.... > > > That might be the case, but take into account that it's vacation time, at least in Europe - and the rather more important group argument should be that there are not enough significant 'voices' today to make decisions or even meaningful progress. > > In other words you will not reach 'ir-reversal decisions' ( :-)... a double no ) since there is no one from gLite, UNICORE, nor ARC or even EDGES (to the best of my knowledge) available today. > > > > PGI progress is important, especially to me and that's why I proposed this GIN-spin-off group, and the most of us really would like to push this activity forward as best as possible, but reaching an agreement only with a small fraction in any type of PGI matters does not make sense. Even discussing it lead to a waste of time since these topics have to be re-discussed. > > > There is no point to have an agreement w/o gLite, UNICORE, ARC. Even another chair can't do something in this particular context - you might proceed with a third chair and continue w/o significant presence but this will certainly lead to a standard that is not broadly adopted in the European infrastructures, so a LOSE/LOSE game for everybody interested in PGI, including US infrastructure providers that seek the achieve the interoperability with European infrastructures as far as I know. > > > If this group is really following a collaborative process, we should have a voice from everybody who is interested - and when we not wait for one or more interested voices in terms of 'just-going-forward-with-meaningless-decisions' - that would be not a WIN/WIN game in the end that we want to achieve in the group. > > > Again - It's the process of involving the right folks at the right time - not the 'pure' standard itself. > > > But please continue the discussion of "how does the rest of the group feel about this...?".... > > > Take care, > Morris > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Morris Riedel > SW - Engineer > Distributed Systems and Grid Computing Division > Jülich Supercomputing Centre (JSC) > Forschungszentrum Juelich > Wilhelm-Johnen-Str. 1 > D - 52425 Juelich > Germany > > Email: m.riedel(a)fz-juelich.de > Info: http://www.fz-juelich.de/jsc/JSCPeople/riedel > Phone: +49 2461 61 - 3651 > Fax: +49 2461 61 - 6656 > > Skype: MorrisRiedel > > "We work to better ourselves, and the rest of humanity" > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Jülich > Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Düren Nr. HR B 3498 > Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDirig'in Bärbel Brumme-Bothe > Vorstand: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), > Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender) > > >> ------Original Message----- >> -From: Steven Newhouse [mailto:Steven.Newhouse@cern.ch] >> -Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:44 AM >> -To: Riedel, Morris; pgi-wg(a)ogf.org >> -Subject: RE: [Pgi-wg] No PGI TelCon today >> - >> -> I discussed shortly with Balazs that we both are able to handle this >> -> w/o the need for a third. >> - >> -And how does the rest of the group feel about this...? >> - >> -Considering that we are not having a call today because both of you are unavailable >> -there might be an argument that additional leadership is needed because you are >> -both busy.... >> - >> -Steven > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Pgi-wg mailing list > Pgi-wg(a)ogf.org > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg

1 0

Re: [Pgi-wg] No PGI TelCon today
by Steven Newhouse 29 Jul '09

29 Jul '09

> I discussed shortly with Balazs that we both are able to handle this > w/o the need for a third. And how does the rest of the group feel about this...? Considering that we are not having a call today because both of you are unavailable there might be an argument that additional leadership is needed because you are both busy.... Steven

2 1

Re: [Pgi-wg] No PGI TelCon today
by Steven Newhouse 29 Jul '09

29 Jul '09

> unfortunately all the chairs are not available today as well as some > active members of the group. As we are now down to two chairs... what are the plans for appoint a third co-chair... or does the group feel they do not need a third chair? Is anyone interested in joining the leadership of this interesting activity? Steven

2 1

Re: [Pgi-wg] OGF PGI - Telephone conferences using Skype
by Etienne URBAH 29 Jul '09

29 Jul '09

Moreno, Oxana and all, Concerning OGF PGI telephone conferences : SKYPE has just published for Mac OS X a new version labeled 2.8 I suggest that Mac OS X users download this version, test it, and check how much participants it allows inside a telephone conference. If this version correctly works and if the number of allowed participants is high enough, I suggest that the chairs of OGF PGI organize the next telephone conferences with SKYPE by inviting simultaneously : - all PGI members for which they know the Skype pseudo, - telephone number +9900827049931906 That would permit simultaneously : - All invited Skype users to see in real time the list of participants, the name of the participant who is currently speaking, and perhaps to benefit from screen sharing, - People without internet connection to join at +9900827049931906 Best regards. ----------------------------------------------------- Etienne URBAH LAL, Univ Paris-Sud, IN2P3/CNRS Bat 200 91898 ORSAY France Tel: +33 1 64 46 84 87 Skype: etienne.urbah Mob: +33 6 22 30 53 27 mailto:urbah@lal.in2p3.fr ----------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Moreno Marzolla wrote: > Etienne URBAH wrote: > [...] >> - Version 2.8.0 of the Skype client allows theoretically 24 >> participants, > > Unfortunately this version is not available for linux nor MacOSX, which > are the only platforms I have access to. > >> >> - Inviting the 8 persons most suspected of willing to talk would >> already be an improvement. > > I do not agree with that. The aim of the teleconference is to let > everybody talk, discuss and ask questions whenever they feel the need to > do so. Questions can be raised (as they did) for specific issues which > are described by the speaker. If people are not allowed to hear, they > can never know whether they have issues to raise. > The problem of identifying the speaker can be easily solved with our > current teleconferencing infrastructure by making everybody state their > name when they want to talk. > > Moreno.

2 1

No PGI teleconference next week
by Moreno Marzolla 17 Jul '09

17 Jul '09

Dear all, due to the unavailability of most people, next week we will not have the usual PGI teleconference. We hope to have one on wednesday, july 29 (but that will be announced as usual). Also, I inform everybody that at the end of july I will leave the PGI WG as I'm moving to another job. My colleague Luigi Zangrando (in CC:) will follow this activity and be the contact person for gLite. Regards, Moreno. -- Moreno Marzolla INFN Sezione di Padova, via Marzolo 8, 35131 PADOVA, Italy EMail: moreno.marzolla(a)pd.infn.it Phone: +39 049 8275900 WWW : http://www.dsi.unive.it/~marzolla Fax : +39 049 8756233

2 1

Sorry for the abrupt termination of the call
by Moreno Marzolla 15 Jul '09

15 Jul '09

Sorry for the abrupt termination of the call, but there was another meeting sheduled at 5:00PM CET. Moreno. -- Moreno Marzolla INFN Sezione di Padova, via Marzolo 8, 35131 PADOVA, Italy EMail: moreno.marzolla(a)pd.infn.it Phone: +39 049 8275900 WWW : http://www.dsi.unive.it/~marzolla Fax : +39 049 8756233

1 0

Good call today
by Andrew Grimshaw 08 Jul '09

08 Jul '09

All, I felt that we made good progress today. I recollect two things: 1) We agreed on a high level state model - similar to BES but with two new states: pre and post processing, and a renaming of "running" to "delegated". 2) We also agreed that we will follow the BES model of only allowing state transitions between states at the same level, i.e., between high level. The only open question is about explicit transitions back to submitted, or whether it needs to go through finished/failed or something like that. We also discussed the existing (in the proposed diagram) substates, and some extensions, e.g., suspended as a substate of delegated. There are still many discussions on substates to go - but good progress! A

2 1