Once in a while, the question of what is a grid is raised. One attitude is that if you can sell it as grid - then it is a grid. This is done by some of the software companies. In fact, it does not matter at all what is a grid.
But since mathematicians (and computer scientists) need definitions, I prefer to use Ian Fosters definition taken from What is the Grid ? :
(1) Coordinates resources that are not subject to centralized control
(2) Using standard, open, general-purpose protocols and interfaces
(3) Delivers nontrivial qualities of service
This definition actually requests a group of clusters that each belong to an other sys-admin (that are not under the same management to achieve non centralized control) that share resources based on open-standard protocols (as Open Grid Forum).
One of the implementation based on Globus is the EU project named EGEE-II. The project added or designed some of the components different of the original GGf (ancestor of OGF) like Resource Broker (RB) which is the node that gets the job and looks for the most appropriate site to send the job to. After it finds a site, the job is translated for the site queuing system (which is called LRMS).
In order to submit a job, one has to have X.509 certificate approved by a known CA. The user ID is translated in each site according to the local gridmap file (where each certificate DN appears). There is a pool of users that each user is mapped into according to users virtual organization belonging. A dynamic system named Virtual Organization Management System (VOMS) was developed that brings (2) main benefits:
(1) Users can have roles in the VO (opposed to flat mapping in the gridmap file).
(2) same certificate DN can belong to more than one VO. Especially in the academic environment, a user mighr work in more than one project that share different resources.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
What makes a new technology ready for implementation ?
Both technologies that I deal with those days - grids and IPv6 are not young (more than ten years), have clear benefit for the users, are supported and implemented by the major manufactures in that field, but still failed to be adopted in large scale. I wonder what makes a technology "ready to be adopted" and how it can be identified.
There are several aspects of readiness. The first one would be "How it can be done (based on existing tools) ?".
The DoD published the Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Deskbook that deals with technology maturity estimation based on analytical measurements of applying those technologies. So if the different components that are needed exist or can be developed with existing technology, that makes it ready. It is probably correct from the technical point of view even though not all connections and dependencies between components can be identified.
Next one would probably be the rentability of a technology. Its actual cost vs. profit it can give. If it costs more than its revenue - no one would implement it, but if it offers significant benefit compared to the cost, then implementing it would contribute to whom adopts the technology. Since the cost and revenue measurements are not global terms (it can give different revenue for different people) same technology might be good for one and not good enough for others.
But I was looking for something else that I might call it "coolness" or the trendiness of a technology. When a technology become trendy ? It is clear that first a technology has to exist, which means it passed the initial vision, brainstorming, planning, etc. stages. Then it has to have some prototype and from this stage it can become a trend if it has a specific property. I am not sure if there is one property or several properties and weather the properties have to exist all together or a sub-set of them are enough.
Assuming there are some properties that are needed, how can a good technology can be given those properties in order to make it happen. What comes first the technology worthiness or the properties that makes it worthy?
On the other hand are there technologies that can not become trendy ? It is clear to me that it is not about being useful, not about being cheap and not about being user friendly it is about something else that I try to find out.
What is that property and how can it be identified ?
There are several aspects of readiness. The first one would be "How it can be done (based on existing tools) ?".
The DoD published the Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Deskbook that deals with technology maturity estimation based on analytical measurements of applying those technologies. So if the different components that are needed exist or can be developed with existing technology, that makes it ready. It is probably correct from the technical point of view even though not all connections and dependencies between components can be identified.
Next one would probably be the rentability of a technology. Its actual cost vs. profit it can give. If it costs more than its revenue - no one would implement it, but if it offers significant benefit compared to the cost, then implementing it would contribute to whom adopts the technology. Since the cost and revenue measurements are not global terms (it can give different revenue for different people) same technology might be good for one and not good enough for others.
But I was looking for something else that I might call it "coolness" or the trendiness of a technology. When a technology become trendy ? It is clear that first a technology has to exist, which means it passed the initial vision, brainstorming, planning, etc. stages. Then it has to have some prototype and from this stage it can become a trend if it has a specific property. I am not sure if there is one property or several properties and weather the properties have to exist all together or a sub-set of them are enough.
Assuming there are some properties that are needed, how can a good technology can be given those properties in order to make it happen. What comes first the technology worthiness or the properties that makes it worthy?
On the other hand are there technologies that can not become trendy ? It is clear to me that it is not about being useful, not about being cheap and not about being user friendly it is about something else that I try to find out.
What is that property and how can it be identified ?
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
First post
After several people asked me too many times, I decided to do it too - Wrting a blog.
This week was a very interesting week from the professional point of view.
On Sunday, I wasn invited by local branch of MS to see the new Compute Cluster Server (CCS). Since I lead the technical effort of the Grid in Israel, they wanted very much that I will see and express my opinion in that area.
Well - I am happy to see that parallel computing arrived to MS platform at last. It is clear that since there are multi core CPUs that become ubiquitous, it is unavoidable that it will be used by the general public and not only in the exact science dept at Universities. This service is just the first step and I am sure that MS push it to show they are interested in this field. It lacks most of the up-to-date technology as check-pointing, DAG process dependencies, advanced scripting options, etc. It will certainly make this field interesting in the coming years. I hope that it will not produce two parallel universes that never meet.
On Monday I gave a lecture about Grid security in the ISOC-IL annual conference. There were a lot of people there. Most of them were interested in community services. It is about time that the internet activity will be dominated by the people who use it and not by the technical staff that maintain it.
An interesting session was about IPv6. Yes - that old protocol that is still looking for a way to the real world. It is definitely the right direction. For long time a lot of talking and ink was spent on this protocol and now it is time to use it.
More to be followed
This week was a very interesting week from the professional point of view.
On Sunday, I wasn invited by local branch of MS to see the new Compute Cluster Server (CCS). Since I lead the technical effort of the Grid in Israel, they wanted very much that I will see and express my opinion in that area.
Well - I am happy to see that parallel computing arrived to MS platform at last. It is clear that since there are multi core CPUs that become ubiquitous, it is unavoidable that it will be used by the general public and not only in the exact science dept at Universities. This service is just the first step and I am sure that MS push it to show they are interested in this field. It lacks most of the up-to-date technology as check-pointing, DAG process dependencies, advanced scripting options, etc. It will certainly make this field interesting in the coming years. I hope that it will not produce two parallel universes that never meet.
On Monday I gave a lecture about Grid security in the ISOC-IL annual conference. There were a lot of people there. Most of them were interested in community services. It is about time that the internet activity will be dominated by the people who use it and not by the technical staff that maintain it.
An interesting session was about IPv6. Yes - that old protocol that is still looking for a way to the real world. It is definitely the right direction. For long time a lot of talking and ink was spent on this protocol and now it is time to use it.
More to be followed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)