[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[nm-wg] NM-WG review of GGF13

Hi folks, 

Here's a review of GGF13 from an NM-WG perspective. It's not necessary to read it all, but it's there if you want it :) As a quick summary... 

* The proposed re-org of GGF was covered in detail during the plenary sessions, and while the ideas should improve the GGF "process" there will be little change on a day-to-day basis for NM-WG

* We held two sessions.
	+ At the first session Mark reviewed the V1 schemas and gave demos of EGEE JRA4 and Internet2 software using the schemas. Many thanks to JRA4 and Warren Matthews for their help on these! Through the combination of the two demos we were able to demonstrate obtaining historic data from backbone and end-to-end monitoring infrastructures (i.e. multi-domain) and requesting on-demand tests. Richard also introduced the V2 work. Thanks to Dan, Martin and Jason for the support on this.
	+ During the second session we had two interesting talks from more local speakers (Yuetsu Kodama from AIST in Japan and Minki Noh from KISTI in Korea). Richard then presented some thoughts on future work NM-WG.

* There was some interest in our work from the Asia attendees, which Richard will follow up 

* We discussed how to finalise our V1 schema work with our current and new (as a result of the re-org) Area Directors. Documenting what we have as a GGF "Experimental document" seems the best way forward, as it will allow us to release a definitive version of the schemas with some supporting documentation WITHOUT it detracting from the push for V2. Richard has offered to be the editor, and will make a start by pulling together what we have already (some requirements, business logic and the schemas themselves). Mark will continue to finalise the schemas. The only input we hope to require from everyone else are some comments/observations in response to using the schemas (i.e. minimal effort required). Richard and I feel this is a win-win situation: we get something documented for the early adopters, it shows that NM-WG and GGF are producing things, and it doesn't take effort from V2.

* Also as a result of the discussion with the ADs, Geoffrey Fox will organise a Web Services tutorial for us (and any other interested groups) to be run at GGF14 (Chicago, 26-29th June). The exact format is yet to be decided.

As always, feel free to ask questions. The slides should be posted on the NM-WG website over the next few days.

As a reminder, we have an NM-WG call today (Tuesday 4th April). Susan has already sent out the call in details. 

Cheers, 

Mark. 



NM-WG at GGF13 (Seoul, March 13-16th)
-------------------------------------

NM-WG sessions
--------------

We held two 1.5 hr sessions on the last day of the conference, with 28 attendees, which went well. Richard introduced the V2 work, while Mark presented V1 and gave two successful demonstrations, showing the schemas being used to request data from backbone and end-to-end monitoring infrastructures, and request on-demand tests. We also had two interesting talks from more local people - thanks again to Yuetsu Kodama and Minki Noh. All the presentations 

See the attached file for the notes (thanks to Tom Sugden).



Other Activity
--------------

There was much talk during the plenary sessions of the proposed GGF re-organisation. The slides from theses sessions should appear on the GGF website soon. The changes aim to improve the GGF "process" but on a day-to-day basis the only real changes for NM-WG are that:
* We move into a new "infrastructure" group along with the IPv6, GHPN (Grid High Performance Networking) and NMA (Network Measurements for Applications) groups, and the dormant OGSI and DT (Data Transport) groups
* We lose John Tollefsrud and Geoffrey Fox as Area Directors, and gain Cees de Laat



We met with our existing (John Tollefsrud and Geoffrey Fox) and new (Cees de Laat) ADs to discuss documenting the V1 schema work. We said:
* Most people involved with the group want to move to V2. Some current users may take longer but we think they'll move eventually.
* We need to stabilise V1 as there are people using or waiting to use it (who cannot wait for V2) and we're not sure how long V2 will take, especially since we will unfortunately be losing some effort (Dan Gunter and Brian Tierney).

We had a long discussion, and the comments that summarise it best are:
GF: "You need to make V1 as viable as possible, for now, and in case V2 is delayed"
JT "You could use an experimental document to record what you have for posterity. This is described as 'Results of Grid related experiments, implementations, or other operational experience.'"
MJL: "Okay, we can try this based on the belief it will be a win-win situation: we get something documented for the early adopters, it shows the group and GGF are producing things, and it doesn't take effort away from the new V2 work."
JT "Experimental is best - shows you tried something; that it was put into use." 
GF "You dont need to deal with security a great deal either. It's beyond your scope. You could say 'We are following security group <xyz>. We will adopt Web Services security as it matures'"

We also asked Geoffrey about help from his group with Web Services:
GT "It's not your job to do example implementations. There are lots of ways to do things with web services, and you can't cater for them all, e.g. the way Axis does things is different to other software, and I don't think the way it works is particulary good. I could organise some kind of tutorial for you for the Chicago GGF (26th-29th June). I'll ask around to see if it would benefit any other groups."
JT "Good idea. WS are certainly non-trivial"
GT "Yes, it would stop WGs wasting time on WS leaving them to concentrate on their real work. I thought in Brussels that you were spending too much time on Web Services instead of the schemas themselves"



Richard and I were able to do some (human) networking, which Richard will follow up and elaborate on in a future call. There was interest from: 
* Yuexuan Wang, a researcher from Tsinghua University in Beijing
* Yuetsu Kodama and Tomohiro Kudoh from AIST (Japan's National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology) who during the second session introduced us to their gigabit network analyser. They were interested in using the schemas to publish data from the analyser.
* Minki Noh from KISTI (Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information) who also spoke at our second session, although he couldn't committ effort to active participation
* one other....hey, I can't remember everything ;-)



There were two interesting BOFs which people may want to find out more about: Grid VPNs and firewall issues. Richard also attended a session in the Scheduling and Resource Management (SRM) area where the group showed a useful looking approach involving producing abstract and implementational/operational versions of essentially the same schema. He will follow this up.


Network Measurement-Working Group Meeting, 16th March 2005
==========================================================

  Session 1, 13:30-15:00:
  1. Introduction and Walk Through Schemas, Mark Leese
  2. Demos, Mark Leese
  3. Version 2 of Schemas, Richard Hughes-Jones

  Session 2, 15:30-17:00:
  4. Network Testbed GtrcNET-1 (and its network measurement functions), Yuetsu Kodama
  5. Network mornitoring for Research network of Korea, Minki Noh
  6. NM-WG Futures, Richard Hughes-Jones

1. Introduction and Walk Through Schemas
========================================

Mark Leese (Daresbury Laboratory)
m.j.leese@dl.ac.uk

Status
------

 - Hierarchy doc published in June
	- Standard definitions of network metrics of use to grid
 - Focus now on schema work
	- Schemas for request and response documents for querying network 
	  performance details.
	- Version 1 is stabilising and being used by early adopters.
	- Version 2 is more powerful and flexible but not backwards
compatible.
 - New website hosted by internet2

History
-------

 - Started in June 2003 with publication of schema for publishing network 
   performance data.
 - In October produced a unified schema for requesting/querying network 
   data.
 - NM-WG work began after GGF9.
 - Internal draft specification in January 2004.

Motivation
----------

 - Give software access to measurement information.
 - Use web services and XML with common schemas to enable sharing of data.
 - Grid use case:
    - File replication
      - Spread multiple copies of the same file across the grid.
      - A file has a logical file name that maps to 1 or more physical 
        file names.
      - Service decides which PFN to use based on network performance 
        data

Requirements
------------

 - What
    - DAMED style names (i.e. path.delay.oneWay)
    - Wildcards not supported
    - Can request statistical data with specified sample interview
      - Ex. Data averages for one-way delay over a month
    - Request multiple characteristics in a single request
    - Limits can be specified for results
 - Where
 - When
    - targetTime specifies period for test
    - relative +/- time tolerances
    - "now" keyword evaluated as late as possible
    - absolute time formats
    - can also give start and end time
    - testing interval to control how often tests are run
 - How
    - Can supply values to act as params for tests, or filters for querying
past data
    - Users not tied into using publication schema
      may specify return method

What The Schemas Look Like
--------------------------

 - Started with XML-Schema but changed to RelaxNG for greater clarity
 - RelaxNG schemas can be converted to XML-Schema using tools
 - Version 1c of requirements saw the introduction of business logic
    - ex. if you receive x then do y
 - Schema validation slow but useful
 - Looking at using document/literal method instead of RPC/Encoded 
   because it allows schema validation.

An example request document for daily averages between two points was shown,

followed by an example response document containing an individual value for 
same metric.

Wrap up
-------

 - There are early adopters:
    - EGEE JRA4
    - Dante
    - Internet2
    - NCSA Advisor and UK GridMon
 - Schemas are not perfect but have matured over several iterations.
 - Achieved main aim to show how powerful shared schemas can be.
 - Lots of new ideas for schemas were raised at GGF12
 - Both schema versions will be developed in parallel
    - Version 1 must remain stable for early adopters
    - However, version 2 will offer clear advantages including
      a separation of metadata from data.

Questions
---------

Thilo Kielmann: A question was asked about the signal to noise ratio of the example 
   response documents. Most of the document consists of XML tags rather 
   that the actual network performance values. Is this the best way to 
   encapsulate results?

ML: This example shows a response document containing a single value. 
    The signal to noise ratio improves when the response contains multiple 
    values. We may also consider ways to compress the results. 
    




2. Demos
========

EGEE Network Performance Monitoring Prototype
---------------------------------------------

 - Retrieved end-to-end and backbone data
    - End-to-end data retrieved from CNRS's WP7 tools
    - Backbone data from Dante perfmonit tool
 - Architecture:
    - Client interacts with mediator via web services interface
    - Mediator locates network monitoring points and uses aggregator 
      to coordinate request
			
The prototype client was shown and various example queries for retrieving 
end-to-end and backbone data were shown.

 - NPM Prototype issues
    - Discovery:
      - At the moment network end points and routes are static.
      - Could have a registry which mediator accesses for more
        dynamic system.
      - It may be possible (but very difficult) to map ANY hostname/IP addresses
        to an appropriate monitoring point
       	
Pipes Demo
----------

 - PIPES = Performance Initiative Performance Environment System
 - Interface for historical data and on-demand tests
 - Allows end users to determine end-to-end performance using partial path 
   analysis.
 - Written using Perl and SOAP:Lite or XMLRPC:Lite
 - XML Processing is hard-coded
 - More details: http://abilene.internet2.edu/ami/webservices.html





3. Version 2 of Schemas
=======================

Richard Hughes-Jones, University of Manchester

Introduction
------------

 - Introduction to hierarchy document and terminology
 - Focus is on standardizing schemas irrespective of who paid for recording 
   measurements.
 - Started with requesting historical data then expanded for requesting 
   on-demand
 - Version 1
    - monolithic
    - straight mapping of characteristics
 - Version 2
    - base schema contains common components
    - separate sub-schema for each characteristic and/or tool
    - separation of meta-data and network information
    - framework fully extensible

Requests
--------

 - A request contains metadata describing characteristic, subject and 
   parameters.
 - namespaces used for uniquely identifying characteristics

Responses
---------

 - Response consists of two sections
    - metadata
      - conditions and parameters used by tool
      - params from request may be modified
    - data
      - content depends on characteristic
      - everything in xml (base64 could be used for binary, but probably 
        not necessary)

Examples
--------

 - 8 examples were shown illustrating various requests, responses and 
   characteristic schemas.

Current Status and Future
-------------------------

 - Currently working on a developers guide
 - Also working on a toolkit that will give reference implementations
    - Perl
    - python
    - java
    - .net (need assistance here)
 - WS-RF integration needs discussion and work
    - Advertising capability (feature negotiation)
 - Version 2 base schema has been around for a while
 - Sub-schema for common characteristics and tools defined:
    - iperf, ping, traceroute
 - Extensibility allows support for almost anything to be added!
 - Need implementer feedback
 - In order to produce a draft recommendation, two inter-operable 
   implementations are required.




4. Network Testbed GtrcNET-1 (and its network measurement functions)
====================================================================

Yuetsu Kodama (AIST)

ML: Your product looks very powerful and useful. I can imagine people wanting
to use these boxes to make a distributed monitoring infrastructure in a
network. Do you think this is possible? For example, how much does each box
cost, and how many do you have deployed at the moment?
YK: Each box costs about $20k. There are currently three boxes deployed, in
the US, Amsterdam and Japan, so yes, they could be used as distributed 
monitoring boxes.


Tomohiro Kudoh: Our box generates lots of data. Could the schemas be used for
all that data?
RHJ: Yes, but probably not by directly returning the results as XML. The
response message could be the address of file to download by conventional means.
MJL: You could also use your own more efficient method for sharing data within
your network domain. The only CRUCIAL part is to share it with others using an
agreed format at the network edges. If you were doing that with large data, then
you can obviously reduce an overhead that the schemas introduce as the price you
pay for using Web Services.