[ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Jan. 9th call

Mon Jan 9 16:02:20 CST 2006

I can't call in...I get a message saying that "all circuits are busy".  I'm
guessing that the conference system is hosed.  I'll try again in a few
minutes, but may not be able to join the call because of this.

-Mark 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 1:29 AM
> To: ogsa-wg at ggf.org
> Subject: [ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Jan. 9th call
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I hope you and your family had a good holiday break and are 
> looking forward to the new year.
> 
> The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on 
> Jan. 9th Monday from 4pm to 6pm (CST).
> 
> The dial-in number for Monday;
>    Free: +1-866-639-4741
>    Toll: +1-574-935-6703
>    PIN:  8980700
> 
> Screen share service will be provided.
>    URL:         http://ogsa.glance.net
>    Session key: 0109
> See more explanation:
> http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg
> 00077.html
> 
> 1) Early discussion (10 min)
>          Note taker assignment
>          Roll call
>          Telecon minutes approval (Dec. 19)
> https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes2
> 0051219/en/1
>          Do we have Jan. 11th telecon, since several people will be at
>          GFSG F2F meeting?
>          Agenda bashing
> 
> 2) CDDLM-WG joint call (60 min)
>          Jem has uploaded the revised version to the GridForge.
>          - http://tinyurl.com/aez86
>          Look forward to proofread and tracker verification.
> 
> (1) Deployment and configuration section break-down
> > == Proposed list of sections ==
> > 
> > 3.1 Provision (Deploy) an application on an existing BES container
> >     (The application can then be used to instantiate a BES activity.
> >         Mostly what is now 3.2 in EMS Architecture composition.)
> > 
> > 3.2 Provision a BES container
> >     (What is now 3.1 in EMS Architecture composition)
> > 
> > [Both 3.1 and 3.2 assume that the 'level' of the BES container is 
> > pre-determined and fixed. See below.]
> > 
> > 3.3 Using ACS do 3.1
> > 
> > 3.4 Using ACS do 3.2
> > 
> > [Both 3.3 and 3.4 assume that the 'level' of the BES container is 
> > pre-determined and fixed. See below.]
> > 
> > 3.5 Add time predictions to provision 3.1 and 3.2 by a deadline
> >         Using a deployment estimation service (perhaps based on
> >         historical data, etc, but how the estimation is done is
> >         out-of-scope.) Possibly requiring reservations.
> > 
> > [3.5 assumes that the 'level' of the BES container is 
> pre-determined 
> > and fixed. See below.]
> > 
> > 3.x Determine dynamically the optimal level of 'BES 
> container' in the
> >     system and provision containers appropriately depending on
> >     workload etc
> >         may depend on analysis of the entire application 
> CDL (down to
> >         hardware) for the entire workload of the system; use
> >         deployment time predictions; etc
> > 
> > <<Version 1 of the document could just cover scenarios 3.1-3.5 and 
> > discuss 3.x as future work. Otherwise need to breakdown 3.x 
> further.>> 
> > ==
> 
> 
> (2) - Deployment versus provisioning requirements
> >      (Or, where to 'cut' the CDL tree. Above the 'cut' point is
> >      deployment---assumed to be a relatively 'light' operation---and
> >      below is provisioning---assumed to be more heavy-weight.)
> >     - Deciding the cut point is orthogonal to CDDLM---it is 
> policy or
> >       best practices and is therefore a system choice
> >     - Information (metadata) to help in making the choice could be
> >       added to the CDL as mark up
> >     - CDDLM implementations have walked the tree fairly far down (to
> >       the hardware) for deployment
> >     - CDL may be sufficient to express both deployment and
> >       provisioning. But it is an open issue if these two activities
> >       can, or should be unified in this way in OGSA. In 
> particular CDL
> >       may not be going to the full extent of supporting 
> costing, etc.,
> >       that maybe needed to address all requirements
> >       - Resources beneath the cut point can be considered as
> >         pre-provisioned: they either exist or they don't. 
> They are not
> >         going to be deployed themselves; but they can be used to
> >         deploy on.
> >       - Which resource to choose for deployment? It is the choice of
> >         the EMS architecture (EPS, CSG) and not of CDDLM.
> >       - Discussion on how CDL may be viewed as a hierarchy 
> of scripts;
> >         and that one could have a history of costs associated with
> >         each node. In other words the tree could be decorated with
> >         other information (cost, etc, as metadata)
> 
> (3) - JSDL and CDL relation and can one cover the requirements for the
> >     other
> >     - A JSDL submission may be associated with a deployment
> >       description or request, and the deployment portion could be
> >       described in CDL. [I.e., CDL could be a more specific 
> > application
> >       sub-type in a JSDL document.]
> >     - JSDL is not intended to describe the configuration of the
> >       software that will be used by the job. The aim is to describe
> >       things at a higher level. There may be similarities 
> between the
> >       languages (perhaps around resource description) but 
> it does not
> >       mean that one language can, or should, replace the 
> other because
> >       they serve different purposes.
> >     - Jay wants to pursue the issue further among a smaller group of
> >       people.
> 
> 3) OGSA F2F meeting update (30 min)
>          Session leaders: Please provide your goals and 
> detailed agenda.
> 
> https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/2005Wint
> er_F2F_survay
> https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/2006Jan-
> OGSA-F2F-agenda
> 
> 4) Wrap up (10 min)
>          AOB
> 
> <NEXT CALL>
> 
> OGSA-WG F2F Jan. 16-20.
> --
> Hiro Kishimoto
> 
> 
> 