OGSA Test Grid

Dave Berry, Research Manager

NeSC Review, 18th March 2003

Project Aims

To investigate deployment of OGSA Service-based Grids

Initially GT3Moving to GT4 technology preview

Focus on generic issuesDeploy sample applicationsProduce information for OMII/GOC/ETF

£20,000 value to NeSC0.5 FTE for one year

Project Members

Wolfgang Emmerich (UCL) – PIPaul Brebner – Project Manager

Dave Berry (NeSC)Oliver Malham – RA

Steven Newhouse (LeSC)David McBride – RA

Paul Watson (NEReSC)Savas Parastatidis – Local ManagerJake Wu – RA

Sister Project (UK)

One of two OGSA Test GridsSister project differs slightly in focusSlower move to WSRFMore emphasis on interoperability testingLed by Mark Baker (Portsmouth)

Two projects keep in touch

Sister Project (NeSC)

IBM Early Evaluation ProjectTest IBM’s OGSI/WSRF releases Feedback to IBM

Also test Globus releasesFeedback to IBM and Globus

Overlap with OGSA Test GridCommon testingAim to produce test application(s)

£100,000 value to NeSC1.0 FTE for two years

OGSA Test Grid Status

Project started Dec. 15th

GT3 installed at all sitesNewcastle and UCL had problems with GT3.2 alpha. Fixed after upgrade to GT3.2 beta.

Accounts and Certificates installedTesting basic connectivity

Problems with firewalls, port configurations, etc.Reverting to remote logins to resolve networking issues

Testing plans

Scripts Based on GITS from ETF GridNew performance testsCentral database for results

Application: e-MaterialsSimulate growth of crystalsTwo services co-ordinated by BPELJava and Fortran

Deployment services

How do we deploy components on remote machines?

Investigate remote deployment mechanismsWorking with HP (SmartFrog)]

Three possible scenarios…

Scenario 1: Manual Installation

Library consistency checked manuallyDeployment tested manuallySecurity checked manually

1. Administrators install application on server

2. Client runs remote application

Scenario 2: Separate Services

Library consistency automatically enforcedAutomatic test scripts to check deploymentSecurity by trusting installer

2. Client runs remote application

1. Deployment service installs application from Repository

Scenario 3: Remote execution service

Library consistency automatically enforcedAutomatic test scripts check entire processSecurity by trusting client

1. Client sends application to remote server

2. Server runs application and returns result

Stronger security required(e.g. proof-carrying code?)

IBM Early Evaluation Status

Project started JulyInitial learning period

Updated GT3 training materials

Sample application: SAT-TracC++ applicationFirst port to Grid ServicesVarious problems encountered and reported at 6-month pointSecond attempt more successfulSome residual security problems

Questions?

Scenario 1: Manual Installation

1. Administrators install application on server

• Library consistency checked manually• Deployment tested manually• Security checked manually

2. Client runs remote application

Scenario 2: Separate services

1. Deployment service installs application from Repository

• Library consistency automatically detected and/or enforced

• Automatic test scripts to check deployment

• Security by trusting installer

2. Client runs remote application

Scenario 3: Remote execution service

1. Client sends application to remote server

• Library consistency automatically detected and/or enforced

2. Server runs application and returns result

• Automatic test scripts check entire process

• Security by trusting client• Possibly requires stronger security (e.g.

proof-carrying code?)