Integration of heterogeneous resources in different administrative domains makes control and management of these environments a hard task, and this could be even worse if organizations intend to use these resources in a coordinate manner. Our goal is to simplify these labors with a policy based management schema. Policies with a high level of abstraction will be transform automatically in business rules to the right entities. In this paper we define a framework and several design aspects to show how this policy based management schema can be done. Besides we will give an example of a task scheduler for a computer cluster and how the latest version of grid tools available in the market fit in this proposal.VI Workshop de Procesamiento Distribuido y Paralelo (WPDP)Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Bertogna, Mario Leandro

Del Castillo, Rodolfo

English

Servicio de Difusión de la Creación Intelectual

 Framework for GRID Metascheduling with SLAs   Bertogna, Leandro M.  - Del Castillo, Rodolfo  Computer Science Department, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Buenos Aires 1400, Neuquén, Argentina {mlbertog, rolo}@uncoma.edu.ar   Abstract  Integration of heterogeneous resources in different administrative domains makes control and management of these environments a hard task, and this could be even  worse if  organizations intend to use these resources in a coordinate manner. Our goal is to simplify these labors with a policy based management schema. Policies with a high level of abstraction will be transform automatically in business rules to the right entities. In this paper we define a framework and several design aspects to show how this  policy based management schema can be done. Besides we will give an example of a task scheduler for a computer cluster and how the latest version of grid tools available in the market fit in this proposal. Key words: Grid, SLA, metascheduling Workshop de Procesamiento Distribuido y Paralelo   1. Introduction In most of organizations, computer networks computing and information resources, are critical points to do an optimal administration. With their evolution these resources become complex and singular; different type of users, different type of services, access control, software and hardware heterogeneity, require a lot of  funds for maintenance. To satisfy these requirements personal with different profiles and high skills are needed. This can be seen more clearly in Grid environments, because not only they have different administrative domains but also different kind of resources, like storage, computing, visualizations, networks, etc. Our goal is to fusion, quality of service parameters, admission control, congestion management, congestion avoidance, load balance, etc, with high level policies or business rules, in one simple, centralized management schema. An example of these policies could be job submission from grid organizations. Policies will modify schedulers queues without knowing where the resources are located or if they are heterogeneous, and local schedulers where these resources are physically located and where the policies are enforced. We can see that the use of rules covers a great range of administrative tasks and involves classification of users in roles, classification of services, differentiate services over time, each one of these tasks have to be tuned with packet lose, jitter, MTT, etc. These policies have to be interpreted, stored and applied in the correct locations automatically, and have to be flexible to include new requirements and future devices. This work shows an architecture to achieve this framework based in the RFC 2753 [1]. This RFC is concerned with specifying a framework for providing policy-based control over admission control decisions.  In the rest of this paper we will analyze how can we extend most of the RFC elements to grid environments and we will propose implementations for each one. The first section will describe policy based networks elements, and grid environments, the second section we will develop the framework and some adaptations to grid. In the next sections we will describe examples and show how different tools fit easily in this schema.   2. Background At some point, it will become necessary for systems to become much easier to manage, so that they do not require significant amounts of routine administration. Ideally, they should require no routine administration tasks like allocation of file systems, shuffling of computer resources, or job scheduling. System administration as a discipline will continue to be of critical importance, though, as the function that determines the policies to be implemented by self-managing systems; these goals are under research by groups working in autonomic computing [2].  As we can see from [3] self-administering systems are critical in grid computing. Several works trying to solve this kind of problems do exist, first tries were policy based networks [4][5]. When grid turned up there were some migration works [6][7], but these ones showed the practical benefit using policies rather than how these policies are stored and managed.   2.1 Policy based Networks The elements that will be the base of our framework are: the Policy Decision Point (PDP), the point where policy decisions are made and the Policy Enforcement Point (PEP), the point where the policy decisions are actually enforced. The PEP corresponds directly to a grid node and the PDP is an entity that can be located in the policy server and can use other functionality like authentication servers, account management, information storage, etc. Policies represent goals in the organization, in our case goals of the virtual and local organization. A translation must be made between these goals and objectives and their realization in the network.  An example of this could be a Service Level Agreement (SLA), and its objectives and metrics (Service Level Objectives, or SLOs), which are used to specify services that the network will provide for a given client.  The SLA will usually be written in high-level business terminology.  SLOs address more specific metrics in support of the SLA.  These high-level descriptions of network services and metrics must be translated into lower level, but also vendor and device independent specifications.   2.2 Web Services There are experiences trying to obtain platform independence to assure a service agreement between peers. At application level, web services is  a technology widely used to achieve this independency based on a service-oriented architecture (SOA). Grid applications are more restrictive and possess special characteristics, like complex data structures for I/O or the need to express stateful resources. To solve this aspects a set of devices like WS-Resource [8] have been proposed as a means of expressing the relationship between stateful resources and Web services, and the WS-Resource framework [9], a set of proposed Web services specifications that define a rendering of the WS-Resource approach in terms of specific message exchanges and related XML definitions. These specifications allow the programmer to declare and implement the association between a Web service and one or more  stateful resources. To accomplish some kind of contract between a service provider and a customer, such as to define the obligations of the parties, there is a specification language for service level agreements for Web Services, the Web Service Level Agreement [10]. This idea is naturally extended to grid like in the WS-Agreement [11], this draft describes an XML language for specifying an agreement between a resource/service provider and a consumer, and some works can be seen in [12].  3. Framework The basic architecture proposed by the RFC 2753 says that the interaction between the components begins with the PEP. The PEP will receive a notification or a message that requires a policy decision. Given such an event, the PEP then formulates a request for a policy decision and sends it to the PDP.  However, this is based on the assumption that most of the cases fall within the scenario of one administrative domain with a relative low number of resources. If we replicate this to other domains and we combine them like in grid usage, this idea will be hardly scalable. Virtual organizations [13] add another level of abstraction in the decision hierarchy, we have a local level control, the organizations that have the resource physically and a meta level, the organizations that have the resource virtually. These two levels may overlap or have conflicts. To allow these levels of decisions to work correctly, and trying to achieve modularity and scalability, another architectural element that describes the RFC is the extension of the PDP with a local representative (LPDP). The RFC interprets this representative as a network node and this means that the PEP will first use the LPDP to reach a local decision. This partial decision and the original policy request are next sent to the PDP, which yields a final decision (possibly, overriding the LPDP). It must be noted that the PDP acts as the final authority for the decision returned to the PEP and the PEP must enforce the decision yielded by the PDP. If we extend this behavior to grid environments and modify this concept, we  will assume the LDPD as representative of the local organization that is a component of the VO. We could store local policies in the LPDP and global policies or VO policies in  the PDP: both level of policies will be analyzed, but in some cases global policies will have high priority; in other cases, local policies will be independent, without interaction with the global PDP. This could reduce the policy search domain. An example of this is an authentication service: we have local users and global users, and some of these are not the same. There is no point for both decision points to have knowledge of both users, they should only know their scope instead. Once permitted access by the PDP or the LPDP the PEP just do the job, achieving task logic cohesion and improving decision-making performance.   Fig.1   2.Mechanisms for metascheduling We have defined the framework, but not how it will be carried out. Now we have to evaluate which mechanisms are desirable for it. Mechanisms must include support for monitoring policy state, resource usage, and provide access information. In particular, mechanisms must be included to provide usage and access information. This may be used for example for accounting and billing purposes. Most of these mechanisms are already in use or proposed. Let us take a job submission scenario proposed on the WS-agreement draft, and we will be able to see how this procedure can be adapted to the administration framework.    4.1 Submitting a job The RFC[1]  says that the translation of policies into SLAs is possible. We will use WS-Agreement as a model and we will suppose that resources policies defined by administrators are already translated into SLAs.  To use the same terminology with the WS-Agreement draft we will call these SLAs Agreement-Template. These are resource templates and will be store in each PDP where the resource is published.  A service provider may post an agreement template to the local PDP and grid PDPs. In this scenario, the agreement template defines the list of applications to be executed, and the software execution environment typically specified in a job submission. Service consumers are given a quality of service guarantee in terms of number of nodes and/or per node memory and storage for a specific time period. Alternatively, the guarantees can be on the completion time. A service consumer requesting a submitted job must fill in the name of the application to be executed, input and output files. In addition, a service consumer chooses the number of nodes (or any other resource requirements) that the application is guaranteed to execute on. To submit a job, a service consumer retrieves the template from the PDP, selects the application name, and provides URL of the input and output files as well as the details of resource guarantees. The filled template is sent as an offer to the provider; in our case this provider will be a PDP. The PDP analyzes this by sharing the decision among others PDPs, VO´s PDP or LDPD where the resource is located. Finally decides whether to accept or reject the request. This may depend on the queue of jobs waiting to be processed and the current allocation of resources. The service provider answers the offer with a confirmation or a fault. In due time, the service provider processes the job. These agreements will be stored in different PDPs for the next requirements.   4.2 Monitoring One of the most important parts of this schema is task information gathering; decisions and agreement verifications are based on this data. This information is obtained from tools like the Monitoring and Discovery System (MDS)[14] component of Globus Toolkit V4. This component can streamline the tasks of monitoring and discovering services and resources in a distributed system or Grid. The MDS framework requires that resources explicitly register with the aggregator service. The aggregator service periodically collects up-to-date state or status information from all registered Grid resources using specific information sources. In clusters, we have the GLUE [15] resource property that collects information from the schedulers and the cluster information system, for example Ganglia [16] or Hawkeye [17], and makes this information available to the user. If we observe the task of explicit register, we have already done it by the Agreement-Template publication, as we see in the section before; this reminds us that the aggregator service is located in the PDPs. Based on the monitoring tool information, task submitting will be done by metaschedulers. This software allows interaction with underlying resource managers in a system independent fashion. In addition, the metascheduler is a high-level abstraction for some of the concepts like “job”, a “resource reservation”, and a “scheduler”. This level of abstraction is in the VO PDP, submitting tasks to a local PEP. In grids we already have this schedulers implemented like the CSF [18] metascheduler. This metascheduler has adapters that can communicate with local schedulers OpenPBS [19], SGE [20], LSF [21], so combining their functions could enforce policies globally and locally.   3.Conclusion The model discussed in this paper defines an adaptation of policy based network administration into a grid environment. This schema has several benefits such that  configuration of multiple instances of the same entity is feasible, or that the configuration of different entities can be done from a single tool in a centralized manner. Defining administration scopes, pointing out where decision points are located, and using well-defined interfaces, ensure consistent configuration across products using the same objects in their configuration. Now we are developing a state of the art report of monitoring tools so we can test which one, or which combination of them, fits better in our schema. In the near future we plan to implement a small testbed with a meta-scheduler and a few local schedulers controls by SLAs and SLOs in both levels of control: grid and local.   Acknowledgement We would like to thank other members of the computer science department for their support, especially Eduardo Grosclaude.    4.Bibliography [1] Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D. and R. Guerin, "A Framework for Policy-based Admission Control", RFC 2753, January 2000. [2] Jeffrey O. Kephart, David M. Chess, ”The Vision of Autonomic Computing”, IEEE Computer 36(1): 41-50 2003. [3] I. Foster et al., “The Grid2003 Production Grid: Principles and Practice”, Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing, 2004. [4] Moore, B., Ellesson, E., Strassner, J. and A. Westerinen, "Policy Core Information Model -- ", RFC 3060, February 2001. [5] Jean-Christophe Martin,. Policy-Based Networks., Sun BluePrints. OnLine, October 1999.  [6] Czajkowski, K., Foster, I., Kesselman, C.,Sander, V. and Tuecke, S., SNAP: A Protocol for Negotiating Service Level Agreements and Coordinating Resource Management in Distributed Systems. in 8th Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, (2002). [7] Dumitrescu, C. and I. Foster. Usage Policy-based CPU Sharing in Virtual Organizations. in 5th International Workshop in Grid Computing. 2004. [8] Modeling Stateful Resources With Web Services.  http://www-106.ibm.com /developerworks/library/ws-resource/ws-modelingresources.pdf [9] The Web Services Resource Framework. http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks /library/ws-resource/ws-wsrfpaper.html [10] IBM, WSLA Language Specification, Version 1.0. 2003. [11] K. Czajkowski, A. Dan, J. Rofrano, S. Tuecke and M. Xu.Agreement-based Grid Service Management (OGSIAgreement) Version 0. https://forge.gridforum.org /projects/graap-wg/document/Draft_OGSI-agreement_Specification/en/1/Draft_ OGSI-Agreement_Specification.doc [12] Providing Data Transfer with QoS as Agreement-Based Service, H. Zhang, K. Keahey,W. Allcock. 2004. [13] I. Foster, C. Kesselman, S. Tuecke. The Anatomy of the Grid: Enabling Scalable Virtual Organizations. International J. Supercomputer Applications, 15(3), 2001 [14] MDS, http://www.globus.org  [15] GLUE, http://www.cnaf.infn.it /sergio/datatag/glue/ [16] Massie, M., B. Chun, and D. Culler. The Ganglia Distributed Monitoring: Design, Implementation, and Experience. in ParallelComputing. May 2004. [17] Hawkeye monitoring tool, http://www.cs.wisc.edu/condor/hawkeye/ [18] Community Scheduler Framework. http://sourceforge.net/projects/gcsf/ [19] OpenPBS Project, A Batching Queuing System, Software Project, Altair Grid Technologies, LLC, www.openpbs.org. [20]Sun Grid Engine. http://gridengine.sunsource.net/ [21] LSF Administrator’s Guide, Version 4.1, Platform Computing Corporation, February 2001. 

Framework for GRID metascheduling with SLAs

SEDICI - Repositorio de la UNLP

 
Framework for GRID Metascheduling with SLAs 
 
 
Bertogna, Leandro M.  - Del Castillo, Rodolfo  
Computer Science Department, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, 
Buenos Aires 1400, Neuquén, Argentina 
{mlbertog, rolo}@uncoma.edu.ar 
 
 
Abstract  
Integration of heterogeneous resources in 
different administrative domains makes 
control and management of these 
environments a hard task, and this could be 
even  worse if  organizations intend to use 
these resources in a coordinate manner. Our 
goal is to simplify these labors with a policy 
based management schema. Policies with a 
high level of abstraction will be transform 
automatically in business rules to the right 
entities. 
In this paper we define a framework and 
several design aspects to show how this  
policy based management schema can be 
done. Besides we will give an example of a 
task scheduler for a computer cluster and 
how the latest version of grid tools available 
in the market fit in this proposal. 
Key words: Grid, SLA, metascheduling 
Workshop de Procesamiento Distribuido y 
Paralelo 
 
 
1. Introduction 
In most of organizations, computer networks 
computing and information resources, are 
critical points to do an optimal administration. 
With their evolution these resources become 
complex and singular; different type of users, 
different type of services, access control, 
software and hardware heterogeneity, require 
a lot of  funds for maintenance. To satisfy 
these requirements personal with different 
profiles and high skills are needed. This can 
be seen more clearly in Grid environments, 
because not only they have different 
administrative domains but also different kind 
of resources, like storage, computing, 
visualizations, networks, etc. 
Our goal is to fusion, quality of service 
parameters, admission control, congestion 
management, congestion avoidance, load 
balance, etc, with high level policies or 
business rules, in one simple, centralized 
management schema. 
An example of these policies could be job 
submission from grid organizations. Policies 
will modify schedulers queues without 
knowing where the resources are located or if 
they are heterogeneous, and local schedulers 
where these resources are physically located 
and where the policies are enforced. 
We can see that the use of rules covers a great 
range of administrative tasks and involves 
classification of users in roles, classification 
of services, differentiate services over time, 
each one of these tasks have to be tuned with 
packet lose, jitter, MTT, etc. These policies 
have to be interpreted, stored and applied in 
the correct locations automatically, and have 
to be flexible to include new requirements and 
future devices. 
This work shows an architecture to achieve 
this framework based in the RFC 2753 [1]. 
This RFC is concerned with specifying a 
framework for providing policy-based control 
over admission control decisions.  
In the rest of this paper we will analyze how 
can we extend most of the RFC elements to 
grid environments and we will propose 
implementations for each one. The first 
section will describe policy based networks 
elements, and grid environments, the second 
section we will develop the framework and 
some adaptations to grid. In the next sections 
we will describe examples and show how 
different tools fit easily in this schema. 
 
 
2. Background 
At some point, it will become necessary for 
systems to become much easier to manage, so 
that they do not require significant amounts of 
routine administration. Ideally, they should 
require no routine administration tasks like 
allocation of file systems, shuffling of 
computer resources, or job scheduling. 
System administration as a discipline will 
continue to be of critical importance, though, 
as the function that determines the policies to 
be implemented by self-managing systems; 
these goals are under research by groups 
working in autonomic computing [2].  
As we can see from [3] self-administering 
systems are critical in grid computing. Several 
works trying to solve this kind of problems do 
exist, first tries were policy based networks 
[4][5]. When grid turned up there were some 
migration works [6][7], but these ones 
showed the practical benefit using policies 
rather than how these policies are stored and 
managed. 
 
 
2.1 Policy based Networks 
The elements that will be the base of our 
framework are: the Policy Decision Point 
(PDP), the point where policy decisions are 
made and the Policy Enforcement Point 
(PEP), the point where the policy decisions 
are actually enforced. 
The PEP corresponds directly to a grid node 
and the PDP is an entity that can be located in 
the policy server and can use other 
functionality like authentication servers, 
account management, information storage, 
etc. 
Policies represent goals in the organization, in 
our case goals of the virtual and local 
organization. A translation must be made 
between these goals and objectives and their 
realization in the network.  An example of 
this could be a Service Level Agreement 
(SLA), and its objectives and metrics (Service 
Level Objectives, or SLOs), which are used to 
specify services that the network will provide 
for a given client.  The SLA will usually be 
written in high-level business terminology.  
SLOs address more specific metrics in 
support of the SLA.  These high-level 
descriptions of network services and metrics 
must be translated into lower level, but also 
vendor and device independent specifications. 
 
 
2.2 Web Services 
There are experiences trying to obtain 
platform independence to assure a service 
agreement between peers. 
At application level, web services is  a 
technology widely used to achieve this 
independency based on a service-oriented 
architecture (SOA). 
Grid applications are more restrictive and 
possess special characteristics, like complex 
data structures for I/O or the need to express 
stateful resources. To solve this aspects a set 
of devices like WS-Resource [8] have been 
proposed as a means of expressing the 
relationship between stateful resources and 
Web services, and the WS-Resource 
framework [9], a set of proposed Web 
services specifications that define a rendering 
of the WS-Resource approach in terms of 
specific message exchanges and related XML 
definitions. These specifications allow the 
programmer to declare and implement the 
association between a Web service and one or 
more  stateful resources. 
To accomplish some kind of contract between 
a service provider and a customer, such as to 
define the obligations of the parties, there is a 
specification language for service level 
agreements for Web Services, the Web 
Service Level Agreement [10]. This idea is 
naturally extended to grid like in the WS-
Agreement [11], this draft describes an XML 
language for specifying an agreement 
between a resource/service provider and a 
consumer, and some works can be seen in 
[12]. 
 
3. Framework 
The basic architecture proposed by the RFC 
2753 says that the interaction between the 
components begins with the PEP. The PEP 
will receive a notification or a message that 
requires a policy decision. Given such an 
event, the PEP then formulates a request for a 
policy decision and sends it to the PDP.  
However, this is based on the assumption that 
most of the cases fall within the scenario of 
one administrative domain with a relative low 
number of resources. If we replicate this to 
other domains and we combine them like in 
grid usage, this idea will be hardly scalable. 
Virtual organizations [13] add another level 
of abstraction in the decision hierarchy, we 
have a local level control, the organizations 
that have the resource physically and a meta 
level, the organizations that have the resource 
virtually. These two levels may overlap or 
have conflicts. 
To allow these levels of decisions to work 
correctly, and trying to achieve modularity 
and scalability, another architectural element 
that describes the RFC is the extension of the 
PDP with a local representative (LPDP). The 
RFC interprets this representative as a 
network node and this means that the PEP 
will first use the LPDP to reach a local 
decision. This partial decision and the original 
policy request are next sent to the PDP, which 
yields a final decision (possibly, overriding 
the LPDP). It must be noted that the PDP acts 
as the final authority for the decision returned 
to the PEP and the PEP must enforce the 
decision yielded by the PDP. 
If we extend this behavior to grid 
environments and modify this concept, we  
will assume the LDPD as representative of the 
local organization that is a component of the 
VO. We could store local policies in the 
LPDP and global policies or VO policies in  
the PDP: both level of policies will be 
analyzed, but in some cases global policies 
will have high priority; in other cases, local 
policies will be independent, without 
interaction with the global PDP. This could 
reduce the policy search domain. An example 
of this is an authentication service: we have 
local users and global users, and some of 
these are not the same. There is no point for 
both decision points to have knowledge of 
both users, they should only know their scope 
instead. Once permitted access by the PDP or 
the LPDP the PEP just do the job, achieving 
task logic cohesion and improving decision-
making performance. 
 
 
Fig.1 
 
 
2.Mechanisms for metascheduling 
We have defined the framework, but not how 
it will be carried out. Now we have to 
evaluate which mechanisms are desirable for 
it. Mechanisms must include support for 
monitoring policy state, resource usage, and 
provide access information. In particular, 
mechanisms must be included to provide 
usage and access information. This may be 
used for example for accounting and billing 
purposes. 
Most of these mechanisms are already in use 
or proposed. Let us take a job submission 
scenario proposed on the WS-agreement 
draft, and we will be able to see how this 
procedure can be adapted to the 
administration framework.  
 
 
4.1 Submitting a job 
The RFC[1]  says that the translation of 
policies into SLAs is possible. We will use 
WS-Agreement as a model and we will 
suppose that resources policies defined by 
administrators are already translated into 
SLAs.  
To use the same terminology with the WS-
Agreement draft we will call these SLAs 
Agreement-Template. These are resource 
templates and will be store in each PDP 
where the resource is published.  
A service provider may post an agreement 
template to the local PDP and grid PDPs. In 
this scenario, the agreement template defines 
the list of applications to be executed, and the 
software execution environment typically 
specified in a job submission. Service 
consumers are given a quality of service 
guarantee in terms of number of nodes and/or 
per node memory and storage for a specific 
time period. Alternatively, the guarantees can 
be on the completion time. A service 
consumer requesting a submitted job must fill 
in the name of the application to be executed, 
input and output files. In addition, a service 
consumer chooses the number of nodes (or 
any other resource requirements) that the 
application is guaranteed to execute on. 
To submit a job, a service consumer retrieves 
the template from the PDP, selects the 
application name, and provides URL of the 
input and output files as well as the details of 
resource guarantees. The filled template is 
sent as an offer to the provider; in our case 
this provider will be a PDP. The PDP 
analyzes this by sharing the decision among 
others PDPs, VO´s PDP or LDPD where the 
resource is located. Finally decides whether to 
accept or reject the request. This may depend 
on the queue of jobs waiting to be processed 
and the current allocation of resources. The 
service provider answers the offer with a 
confirmation or a fault. In due time, the 
service provider processes the job. 
These agreements will be stored in different 
PDPs for the next requirements. 
 
 
4.2 Monitoring 
One of the most important parts of this 
schema is task information gathering; 
decisions and agreement verifications are 
based on this data. This information is 
obtained from tools like the Monitoring and 
Discovery System (MDS)[14] component of 
Globus Toolkit V4. This component can 
streamline the tasks of monitoring and 
discovering services and resources in a 
distributed system or Grid. 
The MDS framework requires that resources 
explicitly register with the aggregator service. 
The aggregator service periodically collects 
up-to-date state or status information from all 
registered Grid resources using specific 
information sources. In clusters, we have the 
GLUE [15] resource property that collects 
information from the schedulers and the 
cluster information system, for example 
Ganglia [16] or Hawkeye [17], and makes this 
information available to the user. 
If we observe the task of explicit register, we 
have already done it by the Agreement-
Template publication, as we see in the section 
before; this reminds us that the aggregator 
service is located in the PDPs. 
Based on the monitoring tool information, 
task submitting will be done by 
metaschedulers. This software allows 
interaction with underlying resource 
managers in a system independent fashion. In 
addition, the metascheduler is a high-level 
abstraction for some of the concepts like 
“job”, a “resource reservation”, and a 
“scheduler”. This level of abstraction is in the 
VO PDP, submitting tasks to a local PEP. In 
grids we already have this schedulers 
implemented like the CSF [18] 
metascheduler. This metascheduler has 
adapters that can communicate with local 
schedulers OpenPBS [19], SGE [20], LSF 
[21], so combining their functions could 
enforce policies globally and locally. 
 
 
3.Conclusion 
The model discussed in this paper defines an 
adaptation of policy based network 
administration into a grid environment. This 
schema has several benefits such that  
configuration of multiple instances of the 
same entity is feasible, or that the 
configuration of different entities can be done 
from a single tool in a centralized manner. 
Defining administration scopes, pointing out 
where decision points are located, and using 
well-defined interfaces, ensure consistent 
configuration across products using the same 
objects in their configuration. 
Now we are developing a state of the art 
report of monitoring tools so we can test 
which one, or which combination of them, fits 
better in our schema. In the near future we 
plan to implement a small testbed with a 
meta-scheduler and a few local schedulers 
controls by SLAs and SLOs in both levels of 
control: grid and local. 
 
 
Acknowledgement 
We would like to thank other members of the 
computer science department for their 
support, especially Eduardo Grosclaude.  
 
 
4.Bibliography 
[1] Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D. and R. 
Guerin, "A Framework for Policy-based 
Admission Control", RFC 2753, January 
2000. 
[2] Jeffrey O. Kephart, David M. Chess, ”The 
Vision of Autonomic Computing”, IEEE 
Computer 36(1): 41-50 2003. 
[3] I. Foster et al., “The Grid2003 Production 
Grid: Principles and Practice”, Proceedings of 
the 13th IEEE International Symposium on 
High Performance Distributed Computing, 
2004. 
[4] Moore, B., Ellesson, E., Strassner, J. and 
A. Westerinen, "Policy Core Information 
Model -- ", RFC 3060, February 2001. 
[5] Jean-Christophe Martin,. Policy-Based 
Networks., Sun BluePrints. OnLine, October 
1999.  
[6] Czajkowski, K., Foster, I., Kesselman, 
C.,Sander, V. and Tuecke, S., SNAP: A 
Protocol for Negotiating Service Level 
Agreements and Coordinating Resource 
Management in Distributed Systems. in 8th 
Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for 
Parallel Processing, (2002). 
[7] Dumitrescu, C. and I. Foster. Usage 
Policy-based CPU Sharing in Virtual 
Organizations. in 5th International Workshop 
in Grid Computing. 2004. 
[8] Modeling Stateful Resources With Web 
Services.  http://www-106.ibm.com 
/developerworks/library/ws-resource/ws-
modelingresources.pdf 
[9] The Web Services Resource Framework. 
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks 
/library/ws-resource/ws-wsrfpaper.html 
[10] IBM, WSLA Language Specification, 
Version 1.0. 2003. 
[11] K. Czajkowski, A. Dan, J. Rofrano, S. 
Tuecke and M. Xu.Agreement-based Grid 
Service Management (OGSIAgreement) 
Version 0. https://forge.gridforum.org 
/projects/graap-wg/document/Draft_OGSI-
agreement_Specification/en/1/Draft_ OGSI-
Agreement_Specification.doc 
[12] Providing Data Transfer with QoS as 
Agreement-Based Service, H. Zhang, K. 
Keahey,W. Allcock. 2004. 
[13] I. Foster, C. Kesselman, S. Tuecke. The 
Anatomy of the Grid: Enabling Scalable 
Virtual Organizations. International J. 
Supercomputer Applications, 15(3), 2001 
[14] MDS, http://www.globus.org  
[15] GLUE, http://www.cnaf.infn.it 
/sergio/datatag/glue/ 
[16] Massie, M., B. Chun, and D. Culler. The 
Ganglia Distributed Monitoring: Design, 
Implementation, and Experience. in 
ParallelComputing. May 2004. 
[17] Hawkeye monitoring tool, 
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/condor/hawkeye/ 
[18] Community Scheduler Framework. 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gcsf/ 
[19] OpenPBS Project, A Batching Queuing 
System, Software Project, Altair Grid 
Technologies, LLC, www.openpbs.org. 
[20]Sun Grid Engine. 
http://gridengine.sunsource.net/ 
[21] LSF Administrator’s Guide, Version 4.1, 
Platform Computing Corporation, February 
2001. 


http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/bitstream/handle/10915/23172/Documento_completo.pdf?sequence=1

Framework for GRID metascheduling with SLAs

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Servicio de Difusión de la Creación Intelectual

SEDICI - Repositorio de la UNLP