[glue-wg] Notes: GLUE WG session at OGF 40

[Warren Smith]

Sorry to be so late to respond, but I disagree with the cloud approach below. As someone involved in the operation of both clouds and clusters, I don't think they are all that different. I think we can/should represent them both using the same schema - in fact, I've already used GLUE2 to represent a couple different IaaS clouds well enough for my needs. I also think that the basic IaaS cloud infrastructure concepts are pretty stable so we don't have a need to have a specific representation for them.

Furthermore, the clouds and clusters I'm involved with are part of the same infrastructure (e.g. FutureGrid, the ones we have at TACC, and the ones that will be coming in to XSEDE). I want to use the same schema to represent all of these resources.

In my opinion, we should be looking at generalizing glue2 where needed and perhaps adding more specific entities (e.g. instance, cluster job). I think this would benefit cluster environments, too.


Warren


> -----Original Message-----
> From: glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On
> Behalf Of Navarro, John-Paul F.
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 2:39 PM
> To: OGF GLUE Working Group
> Subject: [glue-wg] Notes: GLUE WG session at OGF 40
> 
> Notes from the Wednesday January 15, 2014, OGF 40 GLUE WG session.
> 
> Describing Clouds
> -----------------
> We revisited the debate on whether Cloud infrastructure should be
> described using the existing HPC/Grid Compute entities, using new
> custom Cloud entities that follow the conceptual model as closely as
> possible,  of with a hybrid.  Although we recognize there are many
> similarities, the consensus was that Clouds will benefit from the
> freedom to describe what they need independently of HPC/Grid at least
> for the next few years as cloud continue to rapidly evolve.  If at some
> future point it became clear that HPC/Grid and Cloud were very similar
> and could be merged, that could happen in the context of GLUE 3,
> whenever that happens. We recognized that naming in the HPC/Grid data
> models would have to be further generalized if merging happens. Some
> differences noted between HPC/Grid and Cloud are that: HPC/Grid
> ApplicationHandle and ApplicationEnvironment have no equivalent in
> Cloud, and CloudComputeImage has no equivalent hp HPC/Grid.
> 
> ACTION: The group agreed to request that the GLUE Specification v 2.1
> submitted with Cloud extensions be RE-SUBMITTED by the authors with
> change tracking enabled so that all the changes with respect to the
> current Specification v2.0 are clearly visible.  All other editing by
> anyone in the group should be change tracked until the group approves,
> submits, and officially releases v 2.1.
> 
> Enumerations
> ------------
> We discussed our current enumerations, ServiceType and InterfaceName,
> and the proposed change process circulated just prior to the meeting.
> We anticipate the need to use the same process to maintain all other
> Enumerations relevant to GLUE. We noted that the group has agreed to
> publish approved Enumerations lists is CSV format so that they are
> software consumable. We agreed to discuss and possibly approve
> enumerations and the enumeration process at our next call currently
> scheduled for January 28.
> 
> LDAP rendering
> --------------
> Difference between Stephen and Florido have now been resolved.
> 
> The group agreed that the final editing for comprehensibility should be
> done by JP and Shiraz:
>  1. Make sure the purpose of the DIT Appendix is clear and who the
> target audience (people writing implementation and/or users)  2. Make
> it clear that the main purpose of the document is to define the LDAP
> rendering of the schema. Reference to the schema should be included,
> perhaps in an Appendix  3. JP and Shiraz should report back to working
> group with a change tracked version for final review
> 
> BES/JSDL update
> ---------------
> Andrew shared a preview of the aspects of GLUE that are being adopted
> by BES/JSDL. Andrew was going to present that material in separate
> BES/JSDL OGF 40 sessions.
> 
> ACTION: Andrew will submit 5 Enumeration requests to the GLUE list.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, if anyone else that was present remembers other significant
> discussions please reply and share them with the group.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> JP
> 
> _______________________________________________
> glue-wg mailing list
> glue-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg