[gin-data] Re: [gin] Re: [gin-info] Dane's question

[Erwin Laure]

Hi Jens,

Yes - this is what is written in the data management group plan. Have a 
look at gridforge.

I wouldn't speparate between SRMv1 and SRMv2, though.

Cheers,

-- Erwin

Jensen, J (Jens) wrote:
> Hi Erwin, & al,
> 
> Taking your example of SRM, I see SRM 1 as a subarea
> of "SRM" which in turn is a subarea of gin-data.
> 
> I suggest we should collect for each area/subarea:
> 
> 	(a) available services, as Dane suggests,
> 	(b) "standard" tests, for minimal interop (example below),
> 	    and
> 	(c) dependencies between areas (e.g. storage depending
> 	    on information publishers), or subareas,
> 	(d) the results of the testing (a) with (b).
> 	(e) perhaps people interested in the area/subarea.
> 
> Returning to the SRM (version 1.1) example for now (and keeping
> it brief-ish), (a) will list a set of "volunteer", non production,
> servers.  (b) will list necessary tests, including:
> 
> 1. Testing the gridftp server with globus-url-copy;
> 2. Testing the srm with dCache srmcp (which doesn't
>    depend on information system), upload/download,
> 3. 3rd party copy between SRM1s with srmcp,
> 4. LCG tools like GFAL or lcg-* which *do* depend
>    on the information system.
> 
> These tests are necessary but not (necessarily) sufficient: other
> major Grids who are using SRM 1 may contribute other "minimal"
> tests.  I can think of more advanced tests of SRM1, too.
> 
> (c) will highlight that some tests may depend on gin-info tests.
> 
> (d) is for keeping track of which version was tested with
> what; which version of client tools and peer servers.
> 
> (e) above may be useful because sometimes it's useful to
> ask other people to test your latest SRM1 from their own
> Grid.  So say LCG develops a new SRM1 and we ask someone
> from OSG to test it.
> 
> Grids not using SRM 1 will not be interested in the SRM1
> subarea, until we aim for higher hanging fruit and other
> islands, etc.  By then, the information gathered by the
> (e) people will become useful.
> 
> Most grids using specific services will already have basic
> tests for their services that they can contribute.
> 
> Back to the specifics, we have had good experiences with wikis
> - I don't know pragma - any solution that lets (authenticated)
> users relatively easily update web pages will be useful.
> 
> My £0.02.
> 
> Cheers,
> 				--jens
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gin at ggf.org [mailto:owner-gin at ggf.org]On Behalf Of Erwin
> Laure
> Sent: 10 March 2006 08:23
> To: Jennifer M. Schopf
> Cc: gin-info at ggf.org; gin at ggf.org; Papadopoulos Phillip
> Subject: [gin] Re: [gin-info] Dane's question
> 
> 
> Hi Jen,
> 
> Yes, eventually we need to have a system like the ones you describe 
> where the agreed subset of information is published.
> 
> However, for now we need to start collecting the information on the 
> sites taking part in the exercise in a more pragmatic way to enable the 
> subgroups to start working. For instance, the data mgmt group needs to 
> know which SRMs and gridFTP servers are to be used for interoperability 
> tests. I think we need to proceed in parallel here.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- Erwin
> 
> Jennifer M. Schopf wrote:
> 
>>I think the agreement was actually to look into ways to describe the 
>>data, the PRAGMA tool was one possibility, WebMDS was another, several 
>>folks said they had available ways to display the data.
>>
>>However, listing services IS NOT something this list has discussed yet- 
>>we're still trying to reach an agreement on a minimal set of attributes, 
>>so i think we'd need more info about what you're looking for.
>>
>> -jen
>>
>>
>>
>>At 08:24 08/03/2006, Erwin Laure wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Dane,
>>>
>>>(putting the general gin list in cc)
>>>
>>>I think one of the outcomes of our Athens meeting was to use a webpage
>>>for that, probably hosted by pragma. Phil?
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>-- Erwin
>>>
>>>Yuji Saeki wrote:
>>>
>>>>I forward mail from Dane.
>>>>
>>>>Yuji
>>>>
>>>>-------- Original Message --------
>>>>
>>>>To: gin-info at ggf.org
>>>>From: Dane Skow <skow at mcs.anl.gov>
>>>>Subject: An Info Service listing the GIN early adopter resources ?
>>>>Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 22:21:40 -0600
>>>>
>>>>We have created a VOMS services for GIN early adopters so that we can
>>>>identify people working to debug the interoperation separately from
>>>>the full production VO lists in use on the various grids. I find
>>>>myself wanting to find the equivalent for services. How shall we
>>>>manage the list of services which are intending to make themselves
>>>>available for GIN access ? Is this sensible or will it always be
>>>>pairwise ?
>>>>
>>>>Should we use some common info service (or tag in existing service
>>>>descriptions) to indicate services which are intended for InterGrid
>>>>use ?
>>>>
>>>>A webpage may be the simplest thing and sufficient for a while...
>>>>
>>>>What should we do for now ?
>>>>Dane
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Dr. Jennifer M. Schopf
>>Scientist                              eInfrastructure Policy Advisor
>>Distributed Systems Lab       National eScience Centre and JISC
>>Argonne National Laboratory  The University of Edinburgh
>>jms at mcs.anl.gov                 jms at nesc.ac.uk
>>http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~jms http://homepages.nesc.ac.uk/~jms
>>
>>
> 
>