Dear all, We have a session scheduled for Monday, March 15 from 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm Location: HGB-A 016. Agenda: - UR for Storage Accounting discussion - AUR discussion - AOB If you want to add or change something on the agenda please let me know. I'm plannig to prepare some slide to show to the people present there that can be a starting point for the discussion. Cheers Andrea -- Andrea Cristofori INFN-CNAF Viale Berti Pichat 6/2 40127 Bologna Italy Tel. : +39-051-6092920 Skype: andrea-cnaf
Dear all, I have uploaded the slide I presented in Munich last Monday. As soon as we check the minute of the discussion I will upload the file, we can continue the discussion and decide how to proceed. Cheers Andrea On 03/10/2010 04:40 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
We have a session scheduled for Monday, March 15 from 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm Location: HGB-A 016.
Agenda: - UR for Storage Accounting discussion - AUR discussion - AOB
If you want to add or change something on the agenda please let me know. I'm plannig to prepare some slide to show to the people present there that can be a starting point for the discussion.
Cheers Andrea
-- Andrea Cristofori INFN-CNAF Viale Berti Pichat 6/2 40127 Bologna Italy Tel. : +39-051-6092920 Skype: andrea-cnaf
P.S.: here is the link http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/?id=2029 On 03/18/2010 05:15 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
I have uploaded the slide I presented in Munich last Monday. As soon as we check the minute of the discussion I will upload the file, we can continue the discussion and decide how to proceed.
Cheers Andrea
On 03/10/2010 04:40 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
We have a session scheduled for Monday, March 15 from 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm Location: HGB-A 016.
Agenda: - UR for Storage Accounting discussion - AUR discussion - AOB
If you want to add or change something on the agenda please let me know. I'm plannig to prepare some slide to show to the people present there that can be a starting point for the discussion.
Cheers Andrea
-- Andrea Cristofori INFN-CNAF Viale Berti Pichat 6/2 40127 Bologna Italy Tel. : +39-051-6092920 Skype: andrea-cnaf
Dear all, While waiting for the minute I'll suggest we can already start to discuss one basic topic that came up during the meeting before we move to more specific things. - Since the beginning I was thinking just to add new properties to the existing UR definition. This would allow to choose those that are needed in each situation and reuse those that are common. In case of new versions of the UR definition if we update a property then is not needed to update all the definition if this is common. Not all of us agreed with that and it was proposed to create a different usage record for the Storage. What do you think? - What would you prefer to do in case we discuss other property not directly connected with storage accounting? Should we include everything in the discussion now or concentrate only on this topic and try to finalize an update before moving to other things? Cheers Andrea On 03/18/2010 05:19 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
P.S.: here is the link
http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/?id=2029
On 03/18/2010 05:15 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
I have uploaded the slide I presented in Munich last Monday. As soon as we check the minute of the discussion I will upload the file, we can continue the discussion and decide how to proceed.
Cheers Andrea
On 03/10/2010 04:40 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
We have a session scheduled for Monday, March 15 from 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm Location: HGB-A 016.
Agenda: - UR for Storage Accounting discussion - AUR discussion - AOB
If you want to add or change something on the agenda please let me know. I'm plannig to prepare some slide to show to the people present there that can be a starting point for the discussion.
Cheers Andrea
-- Andrea Cristofori INFN-CNAF Viale Berti Pichat 6/2 40127 Bologna Italy Tel. : +39-051-6092920 Skype: andrea-cnaf
Andrea, at OGF28 someone suggested that we had a choice of either fitting the storage record into the existing UR or defining a new standard. I do not think that this is the case. The existing UR UsageRecord element has a UsageRecordType type of which JobUsageRecord is a defined type. I think we need to define a new type StorageUsageRecord which can contain some of the existing Global attributes defined for the JobUsageRecord. We could also define a FileUsageRecord to cover the case you were defining Andrea. John
-----Original Message----- From: ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Cristofori Sent: 23 March 2010 14:49 To: ur-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
Dear all,
While waiting for the minute I'll suggest we can already start to discuss one basic topic that came up during the meeting before we move to more specific things.
- Since the beginning I was thinking just to add new properties to the existing UR definition. This would allow to choose those that are needed in each situation and reuse those that are common. In case of new versions of the UR definition if we update a property then is not needed to update all the definition if this is common. Not all of us agreed with that and it was proposed to create a different usage record for the Storage. What do you think?
- What would you prefer to do in case we discuss other property not directly connected with storage accounting? Should we include everything in the discussion now or concentrate only on this topic and try to finalize an update before moving to other things?
Cheers Andrea
P.S.: here is the link
http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/?id=2029
On 03/18/2010 05:15 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
I have uploaded the slide I presented in Munich last Monday. As soon as we check the minute of the discussion I will upload the file, we can continue the discussion and decide how to proceed.
Cheers Andrea
On 03/10/2010 04:40 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
We have a session scheduled for Monday, March 15 from 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm Location: HGB-A 016.
Agenda: - UR for Storage Accounting discussion - AUR discussion - AOB
If you want to add or change something on the agenda please let me know. I'm plannig to prepare some slide to show to the people present
On 03/18/2010 05:19 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote: there
that can be a starting point for the discussion.
Cheers Andrea
-- Andrea Cristofori INFN-CNAF Viale Berti Pichat 6/2 40127 Bologna Italy Tel. : +39-051-6092920 Skype: andrea-cnaf
-- ur-wg mailing list ur-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg -- Scanned by iCritical.
John, Andrea,
-----Original Message----- From: ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of john.gordon@stfc.ac.uk Sent: 23 March 2010 16:42 To: andrea.cristofori@cnaf.infn.it; ur-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
Andrea, at OGF28 someone suggested that we had a choice of either fitting the storage record into the existing UR or defining a new standard. I do not think that this is the case. The existing UR UsageRecord element has a UsageRecordType type of which JobUsageRecord is a defined type. I think we need to define a new type StorageUsageRecord which can contain some of the existing Global attributes defined for the JobUsageRecord. So, apparently the choice already was made, with good arguments!
Regards, Jules
We could also define a FileUsageRecord to cover the case you were defining Andrea.
John
-----Original Message----- From: ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Cristofori Sent: 23 March 2010 14:49 To: ur-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
Dear all,
While waiting for the minute I'll suggest we can already start to discuss one basic topic that came up during the meeting before we move to more specific things.
- Since the beginning I was thinking just to add new properties to the existing UR definition. This would allow to choose those that are needed in each situation and reuse those that are common. In case of new versions of the UR definition if we update a property then is not needed to update all the definition if this is common. Not all of us agreed with that and it was proposed to create a different usage record for the Storage. What do you think?
- What would you prefer to do in case we discuss other property not directly connected with storage accounting? Should we include everything in the discussion now or concentrate only on this topic and try to finalize an update before moving to other things?
Cheers Andrea
P.S.: here is the link
http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/?id=2029
On 03/18/2010 05:15 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
I have uploaded the slide I presented in Munich last Monday. As soon as we check the minute of the discussion I will upload the file, we can continue the discussion and decide how to proceed.
Cheers Andrea
On 03/10/2010 04:40 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
We have a session scheduled for Monday, March 15 from 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm Location: HGB-A 016.
Agenda: - UR for Storage Accounting discussion - AUR discussion - AOB
If you want to add or change something on the agenda please let me know. I'm plannig to prepare some slide to show to the people
On 03/18/2010 05:19 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote: present there
that can be a starting point for the discussion.
Cheers Andrea
-- Andrea Cristofori INFN-CNAF Viale Berti Pichat 6/2 40127 Bologna Italy Tel. : +39-051-6092920 Skype: andrea-cnaf
-- ur-wg mailing list ur-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg -- Scanned by iCritical. -- ur-wg mailing list ur-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
Hi Andrea, John, Jules,... Am 23.03.2010 16:58, schrieb Jules Wolfrat:
John, Andrea,
-----Original Message----- From: ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of john.gordon@stfc.ac.uk Sent: 23 March 2010 16:42 To: andrea.cristofori@cnaf.infn.it; ur-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
Andrea, at OGF28 someone suggested that we had a choice of either fitting the storage record into the existing UR or defining a new standard. I do not think that this is the case. The existing UR UsageRecord element has a UsageRecordType type of which JobUsageRecord is a defined type. I think we need to define a new type StorageUsageRecord which can contain some of the existing Global attributes defined for the JobUsageRecord.
So, apparently the choice already was made, with good arguments!
I am not sure whether a choice has already been made, but I like to second John's and Jules' statements and arguments here. As far as I can see, the general concept of the usage of compute resources is orthogonal to the general concept of the usage of storage resources. This is what we discovered and discussed step by step during the meeting last week - I think. Of course we will have go through the details and should analyze some variety of realistic use cases before we should make the final design decisions. However, currently I have no doubt that we might end up with a resource usage model that will require for different schemas, one for the description of the consuption of compute resources where the attributes startTime and endTime make sense and another for the current consumption storage resources which could be represented by long-time archives as well as by short.time storages. Regards, Johannes
Regards,
Jules
We could also define a FileUsageRecord to cover the case you were defining Andrea.
John
-----Original Message----- From: ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On
Behalf Of
Andrea Cristofori Sent: 23 March 2010 14:49 To: ur-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
Dear all,
While waiting for the minute I'll suggest we can already start to discuss one basic topic that came up during the meeting before we
move
to more specific things.
- Since the beginning I was thinking just to add new properties
to the
existing UR definition. This would allow to choose those that are needed in each situation and reuse those that are common. In case of new versions of the UR definition if we update a property then is not needed to update all the definition if this is common. Not all of us
agreed
with that and it was proposed to create a different usage record
for
the Storage. What do you think?
- What would you prefer to do in case we discuss other property
not
directly connected with storage accounting? Should we include everything in the discussion now or concentrate only on this topic and try
to
finalize an update before moving to other things?
Cheers Andrea
On 03/18/2010 05:19 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
P.S.: here is the link
http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/?id=2029
On 03/18/2010 05:15 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
I have uploaded the slide I presented in Munich last Monday.
As soon
as
we check the minute of the discussion I will upload the file,
we can
continue the discussion and decide how to proceed.
Cheers Andrea
On 03/10/2010 04:40 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
We have a session scheduled for Monday, March 15 from 4:00 pm
to
5:30 pm
Location: HGB-A 016.
Agenda: - UR for Storage Accounting discussion - AUR discussion - AOB
If you want to add or change something on the agenda please
let me
know.
I'm plannig to prepare some slide to show to the people
present
there
that can be a starting point for the discussion.
Cheers Andrea
-- Andrea Cristofori INFN-CNAF Viale Berti Pichat 6/2 40127 Bologna Italy Tel. : +39-051-6092920 Skype: andrea-cnaf
-- ur-wg mailing list ur-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
-- Scanned by iCritical. -- ur-wg mailing list ur-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
-- ur-wg mailing list ur-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
-- --- Dr. Johannes Reetz ---------------------------------------------------------- Rechenzentrum Garching (RZG) der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft / MPI für Plasmaphysik Garching Computing Centre of the Max Planck Society / MPI for Plasma Physics Boltzmannstrasse 2, D-85748 Garching, Bldg D2 office #315 tel +49-89-3299-2199 fax +49-89-3299-1301 http://www.rzg.mpg.de
Hello John: It's a good idea to have a UR 2.0 specification, but I won't recommend a separate storage usage record. In OGF 21, Donal and I came up with a long-term roadmap for UR 2.0 (as attached). How about come up with some storage metrics rather than another usage record template for storage. I will try to squeeze sometime for the UR core schema, which abstract common template for different types of usage records, computing, storage, service, etc. PS: I've moved to university of Southampton (email: xc2@ecs.soton.ac.uk) and got a project deadline in May. But I will try my best to input something. I also asked for replacement of my chairship. Best Regards! X. Chen -------- LSL Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton SO17 1BJ United Kingdom +44 238 0591 523 -----Original Message----- From: ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org on behalf of john.gordon@stfc.ac.uk Sent: Tue 23/03/2010 15:42 To: andrea.cristofori@cnaf.infn.it; ur-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule Andrea, at OGF28 someone suggested that we had a choice of either fitting the storage record into the existing UR or defining a new standard. I do not think that this is the case. The existing UR UsageRecord element has a UsageRecordType type of which JobUsageRecord is a defined type. I think we need to define a new type StorageUsageRecord which can contain some of the existing Global attributes defined for the JobUsageRecord. We could also define a FileUsageRecord to cover the case you were defining Andrea. John
-----Original Message----- From: ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Cristofori Sent: 23 March 2010 14:49 To: ur-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
Dear all,
While waiting for the minute I'll suggest we can already start to discuss one basic topic that came up during the meeting before we move to more specific things.
- Since the beginning I was thinking just to add new properties to the existing UR definition. This would allow to choose those that are needed in each situation and reuse those that are common. In case of new versions of the UR definition if we update a property then is not needed to update all the definition if this is common. Not all of us agreed with that and it was proposed to create a different usage record for the Storage. What do you think?
- What would you prefer to do in case we discuss other property not directly connected with storage accounting? Should we include everything in the discussion now or concentrate only on this topic and try to finalize an update before moving to other things?
Cheers Andrea
P.S.: here is the link
http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/?id=2029
On 03/18/2010 05:15 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
I have uploaded the slide I presented in Munich last Monday. As soon as we check the minute of the discussion I will upload the file, we can continue the discussion and decide how to proceed.
Cheers Andrea
On 03/10/2010 04:40 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
We have a session scheduled for Monday, March 15 from 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm Location: HGB-A 016.
Agenda: - UR for Storage Accounting discussion - AUR discussion - AOB
If you want to add or change something on the agenda please let me know. I'm plannig to prepare some slide to show to the people present
On 03/18/2010 05:19 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote: there
that can be a starting point for the discussion.
Cheers Andrea
-- Andrea Cristofori INFN-CNAF Viale Berti Pichat 6/2 40127 Bologna Italy Tel. : +39-051-6092920 Skype: andrea-cnaf
-- ur-wg mailing list ur-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg -- Scanned by iCritical. -- ur-wg mailing list ur-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
Hi all, if we are going for UR2.0 spec I would like to remind that we need a way to express license cost in a UR. Am/On 23.03.10 17:11, Xiaoyu Chen schrieb/wrote:
Hello John:
It's a good idea to have a UR 2.0 specification, but I won't recommend a separate storage usage record. In OGF 21, Donal and I came up with a long-term roadmap for UR 2.0 (as attached). How about come up with some storage metrics rather than another usage record template for storage. I will try to squeeze sometime for the UR core schema, which abstract common template for different types of usage records, computing, storage, service, etc.
PS: I've moved to university of Southampton (email: xc2@ecs.soton.ac.uk) and got a project deadline in May. But I will try my best to input something. I also asked for replacement of my chairship.
Best Regards!
X. Chen -------- LSL Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton SO17 1BJ United Kingdom
+44 238 0591 523
-----Original Message----- From: ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org on behalf of john.gordon@stfc.ac.uk Sent: Tue 23/03/2010 15:42 To: andrea.cristofori@cnaf.infn.it; ur-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
Andrea, at OGF28 someone suggested that we had a choice of either fitting the storage record into the existing UR or defining a new standard. I do not think that this is the case. The existing UR UsageRecord element has a UsageRecordType type of which JobUsageRecord is a defined type. I think we need to define a new type StorageUsageRecord which can contain some of the existing Global attributes defined for the JobUsageRecord.
We could also define a FileUsageRecord to cover the case you were defining Andrea.
John
-----Original Message----- From: ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Cristofori Sent: 23 March 2010 14:49 To: ur-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
Dear all,
While waiting for the minute I'll suggest we can already start to discuss one basic topic that came up during the meeting before we move to more specific things.
- Since the beginning I was thinking just to add new properties to the existing UR definition. This would allow to choose those that are needed in each situation and reuse those that are common. In case of new versions of the UR definition if we update a property then is not needed to update all the definition if this is common. Not all of us agreed with that and it was proposed to create a different usage record for the Storage. What do you think?
- What would you prefer to do in case we discuss other property not directly connected with storage accounting? Should we include everything in the discussion now or concentrate only on this topic and try to finalize an update before moving to other things?
Cheers Andrea
P.S.: here is the link
http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/?id=2029
On 03/18/2010 05:15 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
I have uploaded the slide I presented in Munich last Monday. As soon as we check the minute of the discussion I will upload the file, we can continue the discussion and decide how to proceed.
Cheers Andrea
On 03/10/2010 04:40 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
We have a session scheduled for Monday, March 15 from 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm Location: HGB-A 016.
Agenda: - UR for Storage Accounting discussion - AUR discussion - AOB
If you want to add or change something on the agenda please let me know. I'm plannig to prepare some slide to show to the people present
On 03/18/2010 05:19 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote: there
that can be a starting point for the discussion.
Cheers Andrea
-- Andrea Cristofori INFN-CNAF Viale Berti Pichat 6/2 40127 Bologna Italy Tel. : +39-051-6092920 Skype: andrea-cnaf
-- ur-wg mailing list ur-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
-- ur-wg mailing list ur-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
-- Wolfgang Ziegler www.scai.fraunhofer.de/ziegler.html Fraunhofer-Institute for Algorithms and Scientific Computing (SCAI) Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany Tel: +49 2241 14 2258; Fax: +49 2241 14 42258 SmartLM - Software License Technology for Grids, Clouds, SOA: www.smartlm.eu CoreGRID Network of Excellence www.coregrid.net Institute on Resource Management and Scheduling www.coregrid.net/irms
Hi Chen, I didn't know about this presentation. But, in fact, I was also in favour of a 2.0 version that included as many thing as possible instead of going through a series of intermediate release that each add some specific things. Of course we should try to do it in a way that we are not overwhelmed by too many things but at least to produce something that is quite general in a reasonable amount of time. As it was also pointed out we should be careful and try to avoid attributes that can be used in different ways in different condition so Andrea On 03/23/2010 05:11 PM, Xiaoyu Chen wrote:
Hello John:
It's a good idea to have a UR 2.0 specification, but I won't recommend a separate storage usage record. In OGF 21, Donal and I came up with a long-term roadmap for UR 2.0 (as attached). How about come up with some storage metrics rather than another usage record template for storage. I will try to squeeze sometime for the UR core schema, which abstract common template for different types of usage records, computing, storage, service, etc.
PS: I've moved to university of Southampton (email: xc2@ecs.soton.ac.uk) and got a project deadline in May. But I will try my best to input something. I also asked for replacement of my chairship.
Best Regards!
X. Chen -------- LSL Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton SO17 1BJ United Kingdom
+44 238 0591 523
-----Original Message----- From: ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org on behalf of john.gordon@stfc.ac.uk Sent: Tue 23/03/2010 15:42 To: andrea.cristofori@cnaf.infn.it; ur-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
Andrea, at OGF28 someone suggested that we had a choice of either fitting the storage record into the existing UR or defining a new standard. I do not think that this is the case. The existing UR UsageRecord element has a UsageRecordType type of which JobUsageRecord is a defined type. I think we need to define a new type StorageUsageRecord which can contain some of the existing Global attributes defined for the JobUsageRecord.
We could also define a FileUsageRecord to cover the case you were defining Andrea.
John
-----Original Message----- From: ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf
Of
Andrea Cristofori Sent: 23 March 2010 14:49 To: ur-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
Dear all,
While waiting for the minute I'll suggest we can already start to discuss one basic topic that came up during the meeting before we move to more specific things.
- Since the beginning I was thinking just to add new properties to the existing UR definition. This would allow to choose those that are needed in each situation and reuse those that are common. In case of new versions of the UR definition if we update a property then is not needed to update all the definition if this is common. Not all of us agreed with that and it was proposed to create a different usage record for the Storage. What do you think?
- What would you prefer to do in case we discuss other property not directly connected with storage accounting? Should we include everything in the discussion now or concentrate only on this topic and try to finalize an update before moving to other things?
Cheers Andrea
On 03/18/2010 05:19 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
P.S.: here is the link
http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/?id=2029
On 03/18/2010 05:15 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
I have uploaded the slide I presented in Munich last Monday. As
soon
as
we check the minute of the discussion I will upload the file, we
can
continue the discussion and decide how to proceed.
Cheers Andrea
On 03/10/2010 04:40 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
We have a session scheduled for Monday, March 15 from 4:00 pm to
5:30 pm
Location: HGB-A 016.
Agenda: - UR for Storage Accounting discussion - AUR discussion - AOB
If you want to add or change something on the agenda please let me
know.
I'm plannig to prepare some slide to show to the people present
there
that can be a starting point for the discussion.
Cheers Andrea
-- Andrea Cristofori INFN-CNAF Viale Berti Pichat 6/2 40127 Bologna Italy Tel. : +39-051-6092920 Skype: andrea-cnaf
-- ur-wg mailing list ur-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
-- ur-wg mailing list ur-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
-- Andrea Cristofori INFN-CNAF Viale Berti Pichat 6/2 40127 Bologna Italy Tel. : +39-051-6092920 Skype: andrea-cnaf
Dear Andrea,
-----Original Message----- From: ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Cristofori Sent: 23 March 2010 15:49 To: ur-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
Dear all,
While waiting for the minute I'll suggest we can already start to discuss one basic topic that came up during the meeting before we move to more specific things.
- Since the beginning I was thinking just to add new properties to the existing UR definition. This would allow to choose those that are needed in each situation and reuse those that are common. In case of new versions of the UR definition if we update a property then is not needed to update all the definition if this is common. Not all of us agreed with that and it was proposed to create a different usage record for the Storage. What do you think? I think it is indeed a good idea to continue this basic discussion first and reach consensus. Here is my thinking. The basic question is if you really are describing different things, or properties of totally different objects? Then probably the answer should be yes, because it's CPU usage vs storage (and networks can be another). Still you can use a common schema and use for instance a type property saying what usage is published. The problem in using a common schema can arise if some property has a different meaning depending on the type of usage. And also if you discuss changes you always have to keep in mind the different types, which may block progress. So, probably separate schemas will be the best roadmap in the end. Probably it would be best to collect the different arguments and then try to decide?
Best regards, Jules
- What would you prefer to do in case we discuss other property not directly connected with storage accounting? Should we include everything in the discussion now or concentrate only on this topic and try to finalize an update before moving to other things?
Cheers Andrea
P.S.: here is the link
http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/?id=2029
On 03/18/2010 05:15 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
I have uploaded the slide I presented in Munich last Monday. As soon as we check the minute of the discussion I will upload the file, we can continue the discussion and decide how to proceed.
Cheers Andrea
On 03/10/2010 04:40 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
We have a session scheduled for Monday, March 15 from 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm Location: HGB-A 016.
Agenda: - UR for Storage Accounting discussion - AUR discussion - AOB
If you want to add or change something on the agenda please let me know. I'm plannig to prepare some slide to show to the people present
On 03/18/2010 05:19 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote: there
that can be a starting point for the discussion.
Cheers Andrea
-- Andrea Cristofori INFN-CNAF Viale Berti Pichat 6/2 40127 Bologna Italy Tel. : +39-051-6092920 Skype: andrea-cnaf
-- ur-wg mailing list ur-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
Hi Jules, On 03/23/2010 04:53 PM, Jules Wolfrat wrote:
Dear Andrea,
-----Original Message----- From: ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Cristofori Sent: 23 March 2010 15:49 To: ur-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
Dear all,
While waiting for the minute I'll suggest we can already start to discuss one basic topic that came up during the meeting before we move to more specific things.
- Since the beginning I was thinking just to add new properties to the existing UR definition. This would allow to choose those that are needed in each situation and reuse those that are common. In case of new versions of the UR definition if we update a property then is not needed to update all the definition if this is common. Not all of us agreed with that and it was proposed to create a different usage record for the Storage. What do you think?
I think it is indeed a good idea to continue this basic discussion first and reach consensus. Here is my thinking. The basic question is if you really are describing different things, or properties of totally different objects? Then probably the answer should be yes, because it's CPU usage vs storage (and networks can be another). Still you can use a common schema and use for instance a type property saying what usage is published. The problem in using a common schema can arise if some property has a different meaning depending on the type of usage. And also if you discuss changes you always have to keep in mind the different types, which may block progress.
Probably we could avoid a property that says which kind of usage is published if we can describe unique properties that apply only for a certain kind of record and common property that apply to all with the same meaning.
So, probably separate schemas will be the best roadmap in the end. Probably it would be best to collect the different arguments and then try to decide?
After seeing the presentation that Chen posted I'd like to know if a decision was already taken and we should skip this part or if nothing has been decided yet. Cheers Andrea
Best regards,
Jules
- What would you prefer to do in case we discuss other property not directly connected with storage accounting? Should we include everything in the discussion now or concentrate only on this topic and try to finalize an update before moving to other things?
Cheers Andrea
On 03/18/2010 05:19 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
P.S.: here is the link
http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/?id=2029
On 03/18/2010 05:15 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
I have uploaded the slide I presented in Munich last Monday. As
soon as
we check the minute of the discussion I will upload the file, we
can
continue the discussion and decide how to proceed.
Cheers Andrea
On 03/10/2010 04:40 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
Dear all,
We have a session scheduled for Monday, March 15 from 4:00 pm
to 5:30 pm
Location: HGB-A 016.
Agenda: - UR for Storage Accounting discussion - AUR discussion - AOB
If you want to add or change something on the agenda please let
me know.
I'm plannig to prepare some slide to show to the people present
there
that can be a starting point for the discussion.
Cheers Andrea
-- Andrea Cristofori INFN-CNAF Viale Berti Pichat 6/2 40127 Bologna Italy Tel. : +39-051-6092920 Skype: andrea-cnaf
-- ur-wg mailing list ur-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
-- Andrea Cristofori INFN-CNAF Viale Berti Pichat 6/2 40127 Bologna Italy Tel. : +39-051-6092920 Skype: andrea-cnaf
participants (6)
-
Andrea Cristofori -
Johannes Reetz -
john.gordon＠stfc.ac.uk -
Jules Wolfrat -
Wolfgang Ziegler -
Xiaoyu Chen