[UR-WG] Survey Design

[Xiaoyu Chen]

Hello all:
 
        The attachment summarises JISC review results in terms of UR 1.0. I hope the document would help us establish the initial idea on UR 2.0 profile and survey design in order to obtain detailed information. Remember the survey design aims at collection of comments on Usage Record 1.0 rather than JISC's scope in Grid accounting and Usage monitoring. Therefore the summary attachment does not give enough information for UR 2.0 profile. We need our own survey!!! But the summary information does share same issue we might enounter during interview.
 
        Here are my comments on Donal's email:
 
>Hi everyone

>First let me apologize for letting things slide for a while; I've been
>up to my ears in the project I work on.

>We need to start work on designing the survey to gather experiences with
>the UR 1.0 format. I'm not quite sure how to go about this, but I
>suppose a good way to start would be to provide some kind of template
>for people to fill in. So I'm going to write some random ideas I have
>for what we should be asking; chime in if you think I'm right or wrong.
>Name & Contact Email
>Project/Product
>Prose Description of Use


I suggest that we need establish agreement on survey scope. There are many Grid or cluster projects that require usage logging and statistics, which may use Usage Record 1.0 with extensions or custom data model. The objective of the survey is then accordingly need to be clarity on "experiences on usage of UR 1.0" or "usage representation requirements". Things can be even more complex when coming to data service providers (see attchment section 1.6). The usage metrics are application/service-specific and totally differentiates from UR 1.0. 


>Structured Use Characterization:
>Which UR1.0 Elements do you support? (Table, one row per spec
>      element)
>
>        Element Name | Generate | Parse
 >      -------------+----------+-------
>         UsageRecord |    yes   |  yes
>         ....
 
It is a good idea to use above table to degree importances of various usage properties defined in UR 1.0 and highlight extensions on custom properties. Again the problem appears when a project does not use UR 1.0 at all for other usage logging purpose, e.g. WLCG/EGEE storage accounting schema, which does fall into the scope of UR 2.0. Besides, the UR 1.0 concentrates on Batch job level usage representation. Therefore using a single table does not give us information of other-level usage representation (e.g. a complex job, summary, and service). How do you think put one more option here allowing interviewees to put their custom schema or desired usage metrics if they are not using UR 1.0 at all. In this case, the WLCG/EGEE could put their storage schema and summary schema as well. 

>      What extensions do you put in a Usage Record?
>
>        e.g. executable name, working directory, arguments
 
Good point! or we could put extensions into above question (Which UR1.0 Elements do you support? ) with UR 1.0 extension properties?
 

>     When do you generate usage records?

>       At job start.
>        At job end.
>        At points during the job.
>            What triggers the generation?
>        After the job has run from other captured data.
>            Corresponding to whole job?
>            Corresponding to events within job?

>     What do you do with Usage Records after generating them?

>Is there anything else that we ought to ask about?
>I should note here that the OGSA HPC Profile WG is looking into the
>collection of usage data from simple jobs, and that they are minded to
>use UR1.0 as the basis for this.

 
could you please forward us the link (if any) to us ?
 
 
 
X. Chen
 
BITLab
School of Engineering and Design
Brunel University, Uxbridge
Middlesex, UB8 3PH
London
 
mobile: ++44(0)7871876894
 
 

 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: JISC Review of Grid Accounting and Usage Monitoring.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 140800 bytes
Desc: JISC Review of Grid Accounting and Usage Monitoring.doc
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ur-wg/attachments/20080109/d9032155/attachment-0001.doc