[Pgi-wg] OGF PGI - Job State Model - Improvements after Analysis results (UML: zargo + xmi + png)

[Etienne URBAH]

Morris and All,


Concerning the PGI Job State Model :

-  Thank you very much for having taken the time to analyze my proposal.

-  Your remarks are relevant :  Although my UML model already contained 
the desired internal states, the rendering diagram which I had created 
was too small to display the internal states.  To address your remarks :
    - I enlarged the rendering diagram in order to clearly display the 
internal states (like inside the 'CREAM job state diagram'), in 
particular Data-Staging (1) and Failed-Recoverable (2),
    - I renamed the internal states in order to clearly show the 
hierarchy, in particular Delegated:Running (3).

Inside http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15655?nav=1 :
I saved the improved model on Thursday 11 June 2009 under 3 formats :
    - ZARGO file created by ArgoUML
    - XMI file readable by any UML tool
    - PNG drawing

I hope that the model is clearer now, and I am ready for further 
improvements.


I am sorry not being able to attend the PGI telephone conferences this 
week :
-  On Wednesday 10 June, I was involved in an EDGeS face to face meeting.
-  On Friday 12 June 2009, I will NOT be able to attend either.


Best regards.

-----------------------------------------------------
Etienne URBAH         LAL, Univ Paris-Sud, IN2P3/CNRS
                       Bat 200   91898 ORSAY    France
Tel: +33 1 64 46 84 87      Skype: etienne.urbah
Mob: +33 6 22 30 53 27      mailto:urbah at lal.in2p3.fr
-----------------------------------------------------


On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, m.riedel at fz-juelich.de wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
>   I try to summarize the analysis of the state model, which we took as a basis on the telcon:
> 
> http://forge.ogf.org/sf/docman/do/downloadDocument/projects.pgi-wg/docman.root.input_documents.execution_service.state_model/doc15655
> (doc15655: PGI Job State Model (available as ZARGO, XMI and PNG) )
> 
> This state model is a good starting point for discussion, however an analysis reveal still a few uncertain points:
> 
> 
> (1)
> Data-staging is not indicated although required - in that context we might even distinguish between manual/auto data-staging states
> 
> (2)
> A restart state/possibility/transition is required at least for failed jobs - in that context it might even worth to consider restarts of successful jobs that might only operated on 'wrong data' manually provided by the end-user during stagings - benefit: keep descriptions of jobs
> 
> (3)
> reflection of hierarchy: Initially in Geneva we agreed to have kind of an approach to get a hierarchical process update. In other words, once a job is delegated, we also want to know whether the job is in delegated:Running or delegated:Pending and such like. Hence, we need an approach of describing hierarchies in the state model missing in the current version.
> 
> 
> We have an agreement between gLite, ARC, & UNICORE once these points are part of the state model.
> 
> 
> Did I forgot something? Please add your comments.
> 
> Take care,
> Morris
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Morris Riedel
> SW - Engineer
> Distributed Systems and Grid Computing Division
> Central Institute of Applied Mathematics
> Research Centre Juelich
> Wilhelm-Johnen-Str. 1
> D - 52425 Juelich
> Germany
> 
> Email:  m.riedel at fz-juelich.de
> Info: http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/ZAMPeople/riedel
> 
> Phone: +49 2461 61 - 3651
> Fax: +49 2461 61 - 6656
> 
> Skype: MorrisRiedel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 5060 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/pgi-wg/attachments/20090612/dbf9c531/attachment.bin