- ur-wg - lists.ogf.org

Re: [UR-WG] APEL vs UR comparison
by Andrea Cristofori 10 Apr '09

10 Apr '09

Dear John, Ok thanks. I'll wait her return then. I just want to add that for example there are Multidisciplinary VOs. From the CIC portal: https://cic.gridops.org/index.php?section=vo&vo=balticgrid In this case you would map different Projectname with the same VO. I've also been told that there is at least an example in Italy of an experiment (compass) that has two VOs associated (compass and compassit). I do not know if it's part of EGEE but it would be a problem with this kind of mapping. In this case there would be a mapping of two different Projectname for 2 VOs but in fact the Projctname should be the same. Regards, Andrea Gordon, JC (John) wrote: > Andrea, Cristina is away until after Easter. I know that we felt that > the Vortual Organisation name was the best mapping for Projectname in UR > but I don't know what value we write into Jobname. > > Regards, > > John > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ur-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf >> > Of > >> Andrea Cristofori >> Sent: 08 April 2009 04:23 >> To: Del Cano Novales, C (Cristina) >> Cc: Rosario M. Piro; ur-wg(a)ogf.org; Tiziana Ferrari >> Subject: Re: [UR-WG] APEL vs UR comparison >> >> >> Dear Cristina, >> >> I have a question regarding the mapping you provided: >> why you map the ProjectName as the ur:JobName? >> Shouldn't they be 2 different things? >> >> Regards, >> Andrea >> >> >> >> Del Cano Novales, C (Cristina) wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I attach the document comparing the APEL schema with the UR >>> specification. You can find how APEL describes both individual and >>> aggregated records and the extra fields it uses. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Cristina <<APEL.doc>> >>> >>> ***Cristina del Cano Novales* >>> >>> Scientific Technology Computing / e-Science >>> >>> Science and Technology Facilities Council >>> >>> Rutherford Appleton Laboratory >>> >>> Harwell Science and Innovation Campus >>> >>> Didcot OX11 0XQ >>> >>> Tel: 0044(0)1235 445778 >>> >>> e-mail: ___cristina.del-cano-novales(a)stfc.ac.uk_ >>> <mailto:cristina.del-cano-novales@stfc.ac.uk> >>> >>> >>> >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> --- >> >>> Scanned by iCritical. >>> >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> --- >> >>> -- >>> ur-wg mailing list >>> ur-wg(a)ogf.org >>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg >>> >> -- >> ur-wg mailing list >> ur-wg(a)ogf.org >> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg >>

1 0

Session Requests for OGF26
by Donal K. Fellows 08 Apr '09

08 Apr '09

Hi everyone Sorry I've been a bit quiet, but at least I've remembered one important thing: as we discussed in Catania, I've asked for two sessions in Chapel Hill (before today's deadline!): • Working Session — for our experiences document work. • Alignment/Production Profile Session — for working out how to convert the UR into something more useful for modern grids. The current session details should be visible online on www.ogf.org, but I can't be sure about that (the session booking page is sometimes awkward when it comes to viewing existing session requests). Let me know as soon as possible if there are any issues with this. Donal.

1 0

APEL vs UR comparison
by Del Cano Novales, C (Cristina) 08 Apr '09

08 Apr '09

Dear all, I attach the document comparing the APEL schema with the UR specification. You can find how APEL describes both individual and aggregated records and the extra fields it uses. Regards, Cristina <<APEL.doc>> Cristina del Cano Novales Scientific Technology Computing / e-Science Science and Technology Facilities Council Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Harwell Science and Innovation Campus Didcot OX11 0XQ Tel: 0044(0)1235 445778 e-mail: cristina.del-cano-novales(a)stfc.ac.uk -- Scanned by iCritical.

3 3

Initial draft of exp. doc with 'experiences presentation' included
by Steve Crouch 01 Apr '09

01 Apr '09

Hi All, I've done a first rough pass of putting the UR experiences presentation material into an experiences document - see attached. You'll have to excuse the doc styling, the template is a bit lacking in this area! I've also added in some text around the content for starters, which I expect will need to be changed, but haven't added else much to the core text yet. I haven't redone the diagrams, including a single one for each use case from the presentation. I would like to be sure this is progressing in an acceptable fashion first before making more detailed changes. Any comments/suggestions very welcome! Regards, Steve Crouch -- Dr Stephen Crouch, Software Architect, OMII-UK, Electronics and Computer Science, Room 4067, Level 4, Building 32, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 8787 EMail: s.crouch(a)omii.ac.uk Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 3045 WWW: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~stc

1 0

OGF25 Session Notes
by Donal K. Fellows 20 Mar '09

20 Mar '09

Here are my session notes from OGF25. They're also available online at http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/index.php?id=1520 • UR1 Experiences • Get details out of experiences presentation • Donal, Steve Crouch • All: By 20/3, send text to UR-WG mailing list • Composed text released by 3/4 • Make sure include section about extensions • Production Profile • Start mid April • Semantic Alignment • Production experience • Align with GLUE2 • Sessions at OGF26 • Experiences, documents in progress • Semantic alignment Sorry they're a little sketchy, but I've never been the world's best minute taker and I was trying to write them without looking at the screen... :-) Donal.

1 0

OGF 24 session request
by Xiaoyu Chen 24 Jul '08

24 Jul '08

hello, Donal, UR and RUS team: I would like to request two sessions for both UR and RUS working group. Session one: group: UR WG title: Aggregate Usage Record Representation (proposed) agenda: Introduction to Aggregage Usage Record representation Usage scenario in WLCG Feedback request Session Two: group: RUS WG title: RUS current standard feedback agenda: Review of RUS standard (current version) Implementation experiences in WLCG Comments on RUS standards (current version) (possible: implementation experiences of RUS core specification compatible with WS-management) Would RUS group chairs set up a session? cheers! X. Chen BITLab School of Engineering and Design Brunel University, Uxbridge Middlesex, UB8 3PH London mobile: ++44(0)7871876894

3 3

Session on Aggregate/Summary Usage Record? [Fwd: [wg-all] OGF23 Call for Participation]
by piro＠to.infn.it 24 Apr '08

24 Apr '08

Dear UR-WG members! (I put the RUS-WG mailing list in CC since the argument is interesting for both). Quite some time ago Xiaoyu proposed an aggregate/summary usage record format that might be interesting for all those that need to treat usage statistics (which should be the case in most Grid projects/infrastructures). This would, as we already discussed, be also very interesting for the RUS specification. I think it would be a good idea to have a UR-WG session dedicated to this aggregate usage record (or summary usage record, that would be one of the things to decide) to present the current proposal, discuss it and get some initial work done towards a draft specification for public comments. What do you think about this idea? It would be best to have a dedicated session on that because there will be quite some work to do and another session for the single-job UR format can additionally be held. Both of them should officially be held by the UR-WG, but I'm sure the RUS-WG members, being interested, will help. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Rosario. ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: [wg-all] OGF23 Call for Participation From: "Steve Crumb" <scrumb(a)ogf.org> Date: Mon, March 10, 2008 3:24 pm To: scrumb(a)ogf.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Apologies to any who receive multiple copies of this call. OGF23/OGF-Europe Call for Participation Session proposals are being accepted through 11 April, 2008 for OGF23, OGF-Europe's first international event, co-hosted by the Barcelona Supercomputing Center (http://www.bsc.es/) in Barcelona, Spain, June 2-6, 2008. OGF Event Programs seek to strengthen existing industrial and eScience communities within OGF, provide a forum to foster new relationships and collaborations based on common interests, and develop best practices and technical specifications related to distributed systems and grids. With the launch of the EU-funded, OGF-Europe project (http://www.ogfeurope.eu) topic-specific community outreach seminars emphasizing best practices, workshops analyzing grid user requirements, and tutorials transferring practical skills will take place as part of this event. Additionally, the BEinGRID project ( <http://www.beingrid.com/> http://www.beingrid.com) will co-locate its Industry Days event where updates and demonstrations of eighteen business experiments with grids will be presented. More details on the call for participation and an online submission form may be found at: <http://ogf.org/OGF23/cfp.php> http://ogf.org/OGF23/cfp.php. In addition to OGF's chartered groups and Birds of a Feather (BoF) sessions, the Program Committee is soliciting proposals for content that support its mission of accelerating grid adoption in both research and industry. While the Program Committee will consider all proposed content related to grid technology and usage, they are particularly seeking content related to the following topics: OGF Specification Adoption OGF23 will continue OGF's emphasis on grid specification adoption with a multi-session track showcasing implementations of OGF specifications. Demonstrations and implementation experiences are encouraged as part of these sessions. Digital Repositories Under the remit of the OGF-Europe project, funded by the European Commission, OGF-Europe will hold a Community Outreach Seminar that explores how digital repositories in research, government, and commercial settings are successful leveraging grid technologies and infrastructures. Data Management in a Grid Environment As a follow-up to the full-day workshop held at OGF22 on data movement and management, OGF is soliciting further proposals for sessions that discuss practical approaches and best practices around managing data in either an eScience or a commercial setting. Best Practices In addition to developing grid specifications that lead to interoperable grid software, OGF also produces Best Practice documents that define a particular challenge found in deploying or managing grids and grid applications and then suggest a functional solution (e.g., practice) that solves the identified challenge. Related Community Content As with traditional OGF event programs, the OGF23 Program Committee welcomes submissions of all types (case studies, technology updates, panels, tutorials, etc.). Individuals or organizations proposing workshops will contribute to a publishable "Post-Event report" compiled by OGF-Europe and distributed to major stakeholders giving an overview summary report of the outcomes and findings of the workshop. In addition to the explicit solicitations above, additional topics of interest include but are not limited to: * Achieving scalability and availability in a grid environment * Application development/deployment in a grid environment * Earth modeling and geospatial applications using grids * High Performance Technical Computing and grids * Virtualization, cloud computing, and grids * Exploiting grid technologies for inter-organizational collaborations * Simplifying management complexity of grids * Small-medium enterprise (SME) adoption of grids * Technology Enhanced Learning & Virtual Learning Tools * Digital Content & Digital Rights Management - Applications & Technologies * Medical applications using grids * Telecommunications & Optical Networks * Networked and Virtual Organizations * Collaborative Working Environments * Transportation & grids * Energy & grids Tutorials OGF and OGF-Europe is soliciting proposals for multiple half-day or full-day tutorials, which differ from workshops and other community content in that they are extremely hands-on activities with a clear expectation of knowledge and skill transfer. Tutorial topics may include: developing grid services; deploying grid tools; building grid applications; managing grid infrastructures; and other topics where skills can be taught and transferred to tutorial participants. Tutorials may also be targeted to decision makers such as managers or architects exploring grid technologies for the first time. In this case, a tutorial may include overviews of benefits, costs of deployment, timeframes and manpower requirements, and other useful information for organizations wishing to leverage grids. Online Submission Site ( <http://ogf.org/OGF23/cfp.php> http://ogf.org/OGF23/cfp.php) is available from 10 March through 11 April, 2008. The Call for Participation submission deadline is 11 April, 2008. Notifications will be sent by 21 April, 2008. Program Committee Wolfgang Gentzsch (Chair), D-Grid, DE Kento Aida, National Institute of Informatics JP Robert Fogel, Intel, US Geoffrey Fox, Indiana University, US Fabrizio Gagliardi, Microsoft, US Matti Heikkurinen, Emergence Tech, The e-Infrastructures Reflection Group Support Programme 2 , FI Rajkumar Buyya, U of Melbourne, AU Domenico Laforenza, Italian National Research Council, Institute of Information Science and Technology, IT Erwin Laure, European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Enabling Grids for E-sciencE (EGEE), CH Sarah Pearce, Queen Mary University London, GridTalk, UK Morris Riedel, Forschungszentrum-Juelich, DE Bruno Schulze, National Laboratory for Scientific Computing - LNCC, BR Yoshio Tanaka, National Institute for Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), JP Lee Hing Yan, NGO (National Grid Office) Singapore For OGF23 Registration and Lodging information please visit: http://www.ogf.org/OGF23. Steve Crumb Executive Director, Open Grid Forum scrumb(a)ogf.org +1 312-895-5931 (office) +1 630-915-3324 (cell) -- The wg-all mailing list is an umbrella list for all OGF mailing lists. If you are subscribed to any OGF mailing list, you will receive mails to wg-all. You can unsubscribe from this list on http://www.ogf.org/cgi-bin/perl/unsubscribe-wg-all.pl wg-all mailing list wg-all(a)ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-all

4 8

Announcing the Usage Record 1.0 Survey!
by Donal K. Fellows 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

The Usage Record v1.0 specification (GFD.98) has been around for a while now, but we'd like it to be not just a specification but also a standard. To do this, we need to know about how the community is working with the format, which parts you produce or consume, and to be told about those parts you like and hate. To do this, we've written a survey form (as an Excel spreadsheet) available from GridForge at: http://forge.ogf.org/short/ur-wg/survey Please take the time to fill in the survey, especially if you're responsible for either producing or consuming Usage Records. Submit your feedback through the forum we've set up for the purpose: http://forge.ogf.org/short/ur-wg/experiences You'll need to log into GridForge before you can post (spammers being what they are, alas). Thank you very much for taking the time to participate. It really does help! Donal Fellows (UR-WG Co-Chair)

1 0

Survey Design
by Donal K. Fellows 20 Feb '08

20 Feb '08

Hi everyone First let me apologize for letting things slide for a while; I've been up to my ears in the project I work on. We need to start work on designing the survey to gather experiences with the UR 1.0 format. I'm not quite sure how to go about this, but I suppose a good way to start would be to provide some kind of template for people to fill in. So I'm going to write some random ideas I have for what we should be asking; chime in if you think I'm right or wrong. Name & Contact Email Project/Product Prose Description of Use Structured Use Characterization: Which UR1.0 Elements do you support? (Table, one row per spec element) Element Name | Generate | Parse -------------+----------+------- UsageRecord | yes | yes .... What extensions do you put in a Usage Record? e.g. executable name, working directory, arguments When do you generate usage records? At job start. At job end. At points during the job. What triggers the generation? After the job has run from other captured data. Corresponding to whole job? Corresponding to events within job? What do you do with Usage Records after generating them? Is there anything else that we ought to ask about? I should note here that the OGSA HPC Profile WG is looking into the collection of usage data from simple jobs, and that they are minded to use UR1.0 as the basis for this. Donal.

3 4

Re: [UR-WG] Survey Design
by piro＠to.infn.it 14 Dec '07

14 Dec '07

Hi Donal! I think it's a good idea to start from a survey. I've added a few ideas and comments inline. > Hi everyone > > First let me apologize for letting things slide for a while; I've been > up to my ears in the project I work on. > > We need to start work on designing the survey to gather experiences with > the UR 1.0 format. I'm not quite sure how to go about this, but I > suppose a good way to start would be to provide some kind of template > for people to fill in. So I'm going to write some random ideas I have > for what we should be asking; chime in if you think I'm right or wrong. > > Name & Contact Email > Project/Product > Prose Description of Use > > Structured Use Characterization: > Which UR1.0 Elements do you support? (Table, one row per spec > element) > > Element Name | Generate | Parse > -------------+----------+------- > UsageRecord | yes | yes > .... > > What extensions do you put in a Usage Record? > > e.g. executable name, working directory, arguments This is important, I guess, for knowing what properties might be added to those explicitly defined (if everybody is ussing it, why not add it as regular property ...). For that purpose I suggest to ask also _how_ important are those extensions for the correct functioning of the project/product. For example: if an accounting system can only accept/process records containing a non-standard property (i.e. extension) the impact on interoperability is different from cases in which an extension is allowed but not required. A practical example: DGAS requires the unique global resource ID (Computing Element ID) to be present in a record (because it associates these records to pre-registered CE accounts). This might be either put into the MachineName (that however can also be the site name, etc.) or in an extenstion. In both cases there is a risk of incompatibility of otherwise perfectly valid usage records (if the MachineName contains something else or the extension is not defined). But this is just an example, there will be other projects/products that require specific non-standard properties (VOName, for example, is important for nearly all large-scale Grid environments), but that is of course something that the survey has to show. Just keep in mind that some extensions might be more essential than others. > > When do you generate usage records? > > At job start. > At job end. > At points during the job. > What triggers the generation? > After the job has run from other captured data. > Corresponding to whole job? > Corresponding to events within job? Good point, we usually talk about "periodic" accounting (after the facts; e.g. once a day), "immeditate" accounting (right after job completion) and "real-time" accounting (incrementally while a service is being furnished) I'd clarify by using the expressions "at job end (upon job completion)" and "after job ends (periodically)". > What do you do with Usage Records after generating them? > > Is there anything else that we ought to ask about? I'd also ask how important an aggregate/summary usage record (for usage statistics) would be, making however clear that that would be a distinct specification (such as the one proposed by Xiaoyu). Just to have an idea on how much effort should be put into this (as a co-chair of the RUS-WG I say a lot ;oP , but of course it's the community that should decide). > > I should note here that the OGSA HPC Profile WG is looking into the > collection of usage data from simple jobs, and that they are minded to > use UR1.0 as the basis for this. Can you point me to some documentation about this, reading their charter they seem to focus on job scheduling, not building usage statistics. Cheers, Rosario. > > Donal. > -- > ur-wg mailing list > ur-wg(a)ogf.org > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg >

1 0