ur-wg

Download

ur-wg@lists.ogf.org

May 2010

4 participants
1 discussions

UR-WG meeting Summary from OGF 28
by John Alan Kennedy 01 Jun '10

01 Jun '10

Hi, Here is a summary of the discussion at OGF28. It was a good session with lots of open discussion, hence the summary rather than minutes which were a little more chaotic. In Brief: Andrea Presented some ideas about storage usage records reflecting on the existing UR format. We discussed about individual parameters and also had a much wider discussion about storage accounting in general. Jules also gave input about aggregate records - raising questions and making some points. I assume (and it seems to already be happening) that the discussion will continue via the mailing list. Many thanks to all who contributed! - and thanks to the UR-WG for allowing us to hold a session in their stead. cheers johnk Summary from ur-wg meeting OGF 28 Andrea Cristofori: Acting as chair John Kennedy: Taking notes Contributing to Discussion Andreas Cristofori, John Gordon, John Kennedy, Johannes Reetz, Jules Wolfrat 1) Storage Accounting: following presentation from Andrea Andrea gave a presentation during which there was much open discussion. The initial focus was on Storage Accounting in General followed by a step through the existing Usage Record Format to see if any of the Properties can be re-used and also if we would need to add new Properties. >From Andrea's list -- Available for use -- *RecordIdentity *LocalUserId *Charge *ProjectName *Disk *TimeDuration *TimeInstant *GlobalUsername *Extension -- New -- *GlobalField *LocalField -- Available but to be Changed -- *Network *Status *Host *SubmitHost *ServiceLevel Comments to the properties: *RecordIdentity* A hash of the record? *LocalUserID* Should be fine *Charge* Seems quite difficult to tie down. Does a site determine this. Is this related to accounting or billing. How do you define a charge - if not from the site. *ProjectName* Should be fine *Disk* May be able to use *TimeDuration* This would possibly be in accounting for jobs, and also aggregates. Split accounting into jobs and traditional storage. *Time Instant* Unclear *GlobalUsername* Should be OK *Extension* Needs some discussion *GlobalField* - global file identifier - only relevant if at a file level. (back to the questions of file or user/group accounting) *LocalFile* - similar to global file (local storage object) *Network* - should we divide the network usage from the storage usage. amount of data transferred, protocol, network characteristics... *Status* only makes sense at a file level - but what does it mean? If the file exists on the system? or if it's available? In comparison with jobs - jobs records not needed while a job is executing. You could have 2 entries created/available and deleted. Doesn't make sense in the aggregate(user+group) model. *Host* look at how this is handled in the glue schema. (the whole host/resource/site info may be in glue) *SubmitHost* is this where the file came from? also only makes sense for single files. * Service Level* permanent/temporary/volatile Also possibly in glue. Do we need to account for temporary/volatile storage. Is the quality of storage already defined in the storage type - this implies the quality. * Units * We need to think about what units we use what do we use - the disk element in the existing UR may give hints? Or do we look at what's in glue? -- General Discussion -- Basic thoughts about what is really needed (File + type, owner, type of storage, storage class etc.) Do we simply account for how long the space is used (FileSize * Time)? Do we try to include Network related issues such as Number of times a file is accessed. The more a file is accessed the more it's actual "cost" is to the system. But if we do try to fold in access (and as such network) we have to consider that WAN access and storage network usage are different. It should also be notes that this "cost" can also be recorded as part of the service used, i.e. the I/O load of a job or the I/O load of a data transfer. It may be best/easiest to separate the Network Usage into a separate record. Q) How do you determine the usage Do you sample and if so at what rate (low rates may miss usage, high rates load the system) Do you have triggers which update records on file creation/deletion Sampling may be easier since triggers would require that all tools for adding/deleting data would need to cause these triggers to fire. Note) Accounting and billing are not the same thing. (or at least need not be) Accounting data is static and should be recorded. The billing data on the other hand is(can be) derived from the accounting data. There can always be negotiation about the "cost/charge" when the billing data is being generated. This may be feasible in smaller collaborations but as the number of sites increases it may become problematic. So the question is do we see the usage record as being complete and including all the information required for billing purposes or do we just account and derive billing data later? The whole concept of a charge field is linked to this and due to many different possible storage types/classes seems like it could become quite complicated. Q) How do we account for reserved space. In systems like SRM when a space token is created the reserved space should be accounted and billed and not just the used space. We'd need to be careful to ensure that no double counting takes place. If a reservation of 10TB is made and 7TB is used we should ensure we don't account/bill for 17TB. Q) How do we distinguish between different storage types? saying Dell/Raid-5 doesn't really define the difference in what you should charge. Need to think deeper about storage types/classes and also what is really used for charging/billing. Would a site be able to advertise their charge per TB etc Does the type/class define the quality of storage. Q) Storage accounting for Running Jobs Do we account for temporary storage usage for running jobs. It was considered that this shouldn't be the case. Q) File based or User-Group based accounting? There are pros/cons for both and this remains an open topic. File based + Allow for fine grained accounting - Lead to very large number of records (many millions at each site) User-Group based + Smaller number of records + Prob what funding bodies need to see/know. - Loss of information Could both be done? File based URs and User-Group based aggregate records? Q) Do we account for how much space is available? How and also would we reject storage requests when not enough space is available? Possibly beyond the scope of what we're aiming to do. Q) Do we need a type field in the record so we can distinguish compute/storage/network URs? Proposed to use UsageRecordType and define a suitable name for storage Q) Cloud storage It may be that the proposed storage record can be used for cloud storage. It may however need some extensions. This should be kept in mind and considered at a later date 2) Aggregate records - Jules wanted to discuss - following work in DEISA. aggregation - is it the summary of all the records or is it a collection of all the records. So do you get things like User A ran 505 jobs and here's the summed info or do you get a collection of all 505 URs. So would the term summary record be better. Input from Jules (via mail) about the aggregate records Aggregated records. 1) A StartTime and EndTime (RecordStart and RecordEnd) is used to specify the range of aggregation. But is is not specified if for which timestamp in the original records this range should be applied, and if the start and end timestamps themselves are included and excluded. Currently we use the EndTime of Jobs of UR-WG records to compare with start and end-time of ranges, where the StartTime of the range is inclusive and EndTime of the range is exclusive . 2) WallDuration. The document states: " 4.4 SumWallDuration This element describes total CPU Wall Clock Time consumed by jobs aggregated. " - It makes no sense to add wall-duration of jobs with different number of cores, processors,cpus. The reason is that mostly billing is based on the number of cores times the wall duration. Therefore we have introduced the JobTime which is the WallDuration times the number of cores, processors,cpus. This we put in the records as : <urf:TimeDuration urf:Description="JobTime">P43068DT15H35M12S</urf:TimeDuration> - For the grid accounting also values normalized to SpecInt2000 are added to the record : <urf:TimeDuration urf:Description="JobTime normalized">P116285DT8H29M2S</urf:TimeDuration> Some sites even claim to do this correctly for jobs running on multiple processors with different CPU and SpecInt2000. In each Usage record the SpecInt2000 value is stored, that could be different for any combination of processors. For DEISA normalization is handled in the end-user tool. Another way to avoid Job time is to have different aggregated records for each different number of processors.

5 6