OAG report

EGEE-II INFSO-RI-031688

Enabling Grids for E-sciencE

www.eu-egee.org

EGEE and gLite are registered trademarks

OAG report

R. Rumler, CC-IN2P3 (CNRS)

ARM-10 at KTH

R. Rumler, 2007-06-13 2/12



Contents

• VO registration: changes and statistics• VO deployment test• Deregistration procedure• GGUS support unit• Changes in role and mission• Issues and EGEE-III• Resource SLAs• EGEE'07

R. Rumler, 2007-06-13 3/12



VO registration: changes

• Technical changes:– The VOMS server key is obtained automatically– The VO can choose between integrating the support of its own

users into GGUS or not– New features:

Public access to parts of the VO ID card information XML dump of VO ID cards

• Cleanup of VO data baseWhen the VO data base was created, several VOs were entered

which even didn’t have a VO manager. Most of them now either have one or aren’t no longer in the data base. Ongoing.

• VO deregistrationTechnical part is clear. Several policy documents have to be

updated accordingly. The paperwork is not very advanced yet, ongoing activity. See later for some details.

R. Rumler, 2007-06-13 4/12



VO registration: numbers (1)

• Registration requests:– Q3/2006: 31 (+2 from the last days of June 2006)– Q4/2006: 12– Q1/2007: 4– Q2/2007: 5Which gives a total of 54 newly registered VOs (+7 since ARM-9),

one of which is a VO for a deployment test done by NA4.

• 7 requests still pending, 6 of them because of VO AUP (-2 since ARM-9):– 1 just arrived but with non standard name– 1 without any AUP (slipped in due to a bug in the web form)– All others use a modified or unmodified Grid AUP– All of them have already been in the last OAG report

• 6 VOs are in state “Validated” (-1 since ARM-9)– No VOMS server specified

R. Rumler, 2007-06-13 5/12



VO registration: numbers (2)

• Total number of registered VOs: 116 (ARM-9: 113)– 16 Global selected (15)– 28 Global (27)– 7 External (6)– 64 Regional (65)

AP: 2 CE: 2 DECH: 8 F: 11 (6) I: 8 NE: 5 (8) R: 7 SEE: 10 (9) SWE: 3 UKI: 9 (12)

– 1 “dead”• Difference of 54 to 116 comes from VOs known from EGEE-I• Decrease for some regions comes from VO data base cleanup

R. Rumler, 2007-06-13 6/12



VO deployment test

• NA4 currently runs a VO deployment test• Some site admins from SA1 have volunteered

to contribute• Objectives

– Determine the technical and perhaps organisational problems on the site level for the deployment of a VO

– Based on this, develop suggestions to simplify and speed up the process

• A report will be done to the TCG

R. Rumler, 2007-06-13 7/12



Deregistration procedure, outline

• Names of VOs have to stay in the data base.VO passes to “inactive” then “dead” state. Delays are determined

by security considerations. “Dead” VOs don’t show up in summaries but their ID card may be requested explicitly. This has to be detailed and integrated into the VO registration procedure document. The priority is the application of the process, though.

• Some security policy documents have to be updated– Sites may dispose of VO resources when it goes “inactive”,

except for VOMS data base and security logs.– Sites may sweep the rest of the VO data and resources when it

goes “dead”.– Grid AUP and/or VO AUP have to clarify the responsibility of the

VO for the cleanup before deregistration.– Any of these can be defined differently in an MoU, except for the

minimum delays for security data disposal.

R. Rumler, 2007-06-13 8/12



GGUS support unit

• Introduced end of April this year• Handle tickets on

– VO registration process– VO core service requests– VO resource requests– High level organisational problems between VOs and SA1

• An example: A VO which needs a VOMS server opens a ticket for the OAG

support unit. After some preliminary contacts of the OAG and one or more ROCs, this ticket will be assigned to the ROC which agreed to supply the service. It will be closed when the service is in place.

R. Rumler, 2007-06-13 9/12



Changes in role and mission

• Roles and missions which are disappearing or cannot be fulfilled currently– Broker role for basic core services is sometimes

requested (rare!)– Other resource brokerage ineffective– Procedural and initial technical problems of the VOs are

now handled in the VO managers group– No MoUs since a long time

• Tasks fulfilled:– Contact point between NA4 and SA1– VO registration process follow up– Development of tools for SA1’s VO management

R. Rumler, 2007-06-13 10/12



Issues and EGEE-III

• Still the problem of resource allocation– Give a simple, reliable, and secure method to

introduce a new VO to the sites. Under investigation by a working group lead by Frédéric Schaer from NA4.

– Adapt project organisation to this purpose, at least in EGEE-III: Build a “catch all” pool of resources Define resource SLAs (next slide) Reserve some budget for paying sites for resources (TNA)

R. Rumler, 2007-06-13 11/12



Resource SLAs, is this a way?

• "BASIC" SLA– free CPU cycles– site may pre-empt at any time.This kind of scheduling is already done by some sites, e. g. BNL.

• "BASIC+SE" SLA BASIC extended by: "if there is a SE, it may be used but data may be

scratched by the site at any time and without notice." This would need some work from the developers to keep SEs and catalogues consistent.

• "BASIC++”– no pre-emption for running jobs. – SEs as for BASIC+SE.

• "DC" ("data challenge")– guaranteed resources for a limited time. Tools are partially in place.

Examples: as for Biomed data challenges.• "NEGOTIATED"

– for Global Selected VOs, MoU based.

R. Rumler, 2007-06-13 12/12



EGEE’07

• Convene a joint ROC/VO managers meetingIs in the initial scope of the OAG membership

• Possible topics– Issues and concerns of the VOs with Operations– Issues and concerns of Operations with VOsAnd– Current resource allocation procedures

Documents

OAG report