1 vo- and application- centric approaches to service level agreement marian bubak, jakub moscicki,...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
218 views
TRANSCRIPT
1
VO- and Application- Centric Approaches to Service Level Agreement
Marian Bubak, Jakub Moscicki, Marcin Radecki, and Tomasz Szepieniec
Cyfronet AGH, Krakow, PLCERN / IT
2
Contents
• VO-centric approach to SLA– Motivation– Basic requirements– SLA metrics– SLA execution– Bazaar tool
• QoS from a user perspective– User-level vs system-level techniques– Tools: Ganga/DIANE– Examples of QoS metrics– Case-study: Lattice QCD 2008
• Summary
4
Motivation
• Large number of VOs/users and resources
• Dynamic management is a must
• Remote interactions• Limitation of automation
– Policy managers want to decide about their resources
• Start with human-in-the-loop SLA process
6
What is needed
• Definition of meaningful and measurable SLA metrics
• Communication patterns– (Re-)negotiation – Configuration validation– Tracking demands/policy changes
• Complexity management and process traceability
• SLA execution monitoring (including feedback from users)
• So, we should
• define the SLA process
• and build a collaboration tool
7
EGEE Grid and Bazaar • Starting point
– No standard QoS metrics
– No procedures to express requirements
– Resources become available in the infrastructure even if not agreed
with VO
• Resource Allocation in Central Europe ROC (Bazaar Project)
– A procedure of tracking requests and responses to them
– Registration and monitoring of SLAs between VOs and Resources
Providers
– Collaboration tool for tracking the process
8
Central European Region in EGEE
• 8 countries, • 25 sites, • ~8000 cores, • ~850 TB storage • ~30 VOs
9
SLA Metrics
• Common language for users and providers
– Users: „I need to use x CPUs”
– Providers prefer to speak about aggregated wall-clock time in specific
period, without guarantee that resources will be available in (any) defined
time
• Expressive enough to satisfy users important requests
– Aggregated time, parallel use, waiting time (queues), condition of
environment
• Configurable
– providers need to have technical possibility to configure the resources
according to the SLA (fabric layer need to support those requirements)
• Measurable in execution time
10
Examples of SLA Metrics
• Computational Resources– Guaranteed number of job slots in Local Batch System
CPUs or cores
– Total wall-clock time to be used in specified time period (in hours) weekly, monthly
– Access period (range of dates)– Maximum wall-clock- and CPU-time of a single job (hours)– Maximum waiting time from job submission to make it running (in
minutes)– Average power of a single core (benchmark results like: SpecInt)– Capacity available for temporal use by a job (GB)– Memory available per core/CPU (GB)– Maximum latency between nodes in the cluster (ms)
11
Examples of SLA Metrics
• Grid Storage Resources– Storage quota guaranteed (GB)– Maximum latency in accessing files (optional, in ms)– Minimum bandwidth in accessing files (optional, Gb/s)– Storage quota for temporal use (optional, GB)– Time limit for temporal use of storage (optional, hours)– Period of using storage (dates from-to)
• General Resource QoS– Minimum resource availability (optional, in %)– Minimum resource reliability (optional, in %)– Maximum time to acknowledge trouble ticket (days)– Maximum time to resolve trouble ticket (days)
12
SLA Execution Stages in Bazaar
The process is
initialized by a VO
by a call for
resources
Next, a resource
providers define
their proposal for
SLA
13
States Transition Details
Each state transition must be confirmed by both sides
Proper configuration is
controlled by separated
set of states
14
Bazaar Functionality
– Call management - the user can perform call creation, edition and management.
– SLA management including negotiation - site managers can create a contract as a response to a call. Both partners can negotiate contract conditions and track contract changes.
– Notification management - system notifies a user via e-mail and user interface about actions like resource reconfiguration etc.
– Feedback - VO managers can assess site's configuration and both partners can provide a general assessment of the collaboration when the contract has been completed.
– Accounting and statistics - users can generate reports with resources usage statistics. In the next prototype, a tool shall enable obtaining data from EGEE accounting tools.
15
Bazaar in operation– Bazaar – a tool supporting
resource allocation including SLA negotiation
Integrated with EGEE Operation Portal (CIC Portal)
No cost of entry – data obtained from GOCDB and CIC-Portal VO-cards
Introduced into operations in Central European Region
– Main features of Bazaar Clear view on VOs demands
for resources Management of calls and
SLAs between VOs and RCs SLA negotiation support E-mail notifications Tracking of SLA changes
16
SLA in PL-Grid
• PL-Grid Project
– Grid operations center in Poland
– 3 different infrastructures: EGI compliant (currently gLite-
based), DEISA, cloud-like research grid
• SLA Management in PL-Grid
– We take ideas from Bazaar Project as a starting point
– Develop SLA-centric model including
• Impact on resources available at the technical level
• Notifications on missing resources
• Improvement on SLA monitoring and accounting
• Integration with computational grants system
18
Conclusions
• Human in a negotiation loop seems to be unavoidable• SLAs should support VO and resource managers• Complexity management should be supported by Web
2.0 tools (collaboration tools with traceable processes)
20
Some Grid applications
• Data Analysis– extraction of (statistical) parameters from data using event loop
ATLAS experiment at LHC• Monte Carlo simulation
– creation of statistical objects (e.g. histograms) or building images by generating large number of independent events
Geant4 simulations for radiotherapy in medical physics• Parameter sweep
– running a large number of independent jobs in various configurations Geant 4 regression tests
• High-throughput activities– autonomous computing over long periods of time
Avian Flu Drug Search (bio-informatics) Lattice QCD (theoretical physics)
• High-performance, short-deadline activities– short-deadline performance peak
ITU frequency analysis for RRC06
21
QoS for scientific applications
• In the Grid: the basic interaction of a user is sending jobs– efficient job/workload management plays central role– efficient scheduling often requires application-specific knowledge
which may be difficult at the system level
• The system provides an appropriate QoS if it responds in an acceptable way to the user and is capable of automatically maintaining the processing goals defined by the user (measured by metrics)
• Some QoS metrics (measure of user-defined goals)– turnaround time
typically minimize the total execution time of the job
– reliability / failure rate– response latency: time to obtain initial results– feedback from the execution
filling histograms with events -> significance of individual partial results decreases with time
– prioritization/scheduling of the tasks– predictability/stability of the execution
22
Mechanisms for better QoS
• In general QoS in NOT implemented on the Grid• Techniques for performance related metrics
– dedication of resources (wasteful)– advanced reservations
difficult for some users who do not plan ahead interactive work
– better scheduling: fast/slow queues (site configuration)– preemption: suspend lower priority job– migration: suspend and migrate elsewhere– better brokering: forecasting using monitoring systems (e.g. NWS)
• Techniques for failure related metrics– metascheduling (JDL retry count, Condor)
• Techniques for application-specific metrics– metascheduling (not generally implemented, e.g. out of scope of
DAGs)
23
QoS Implementation Choices
• QoS implementation– site service modifications
faster queues, scheduler modifications e.g. virtualization schemes with MAUI
– middleware modification checkpointing/migration, special services (e.g. GARA), Virtual
Machines
– system level modifications (unix kernel modules, special I/O)– user-level overlay schedulers (plot jobs, agents,...)
• Boundary conditions in a large Grid (e.g. EGEE)– acceptance/deployment of middleware changes: very slow due
organizational constraints– resource providers' constraints (site changes)
many sites cannot freely change their software (serving also non-grid users)
sysadmins do not like sudo-like programs
– interfacing legacy applications
24
User-level overlay
• Overlays are the only option if we talk about using existing Grid infrastructure at the large scale
LCG and EGEE Grid– the largest Grid
infrastructure to date
– over 250 sites– over 80K WNs– over 15 PB of
storage
25
User-level tools
• DIANE: helps smaller scientific communities using distributed (Grid) resources more efficiently– reduce the application execution time– reduce the manual work overhead by providing fully automatic execution and
failure management,– efficiently integrate local and Grid resources– part of EGEE Respect suite
– http://cern.ch/diane
• Ganga: Job Management Interface– Submission gateway to many distributed systems– Easy job management and application configuration– http://cern.ch/ganga
26
• User-level overlay– each user uses a (temporary) overlay which is created for the
duration the computations
User-level Overlay
(drawing courtesy of ThIS collaboration
27
Master/Worker backbone
• Master/Worker processing of tasks– RunMaster executes on a local
host– WorkerAgents execute as Grid
jobs• TaskScheduler is a software
component (python module) which may be arbitrarily customized or replaced
• application plugins:– ApplicationWorker – ApplicationManager
28
• 3 functional parts– Submitter: selection and acquisition of the resources– M/W: scheduling and execution control– Directory Service: late binding of resources
• System is easily customized by plugins
Flexible architecture
30
QoS Metric: predictability of execution
Comparison of G4 Production on LCG: DIANE and direct submission• 6 sites / 173 CPUs / 100 VO-shared, 70 VO-dedicated• 207 tasks, direct: 1 task = 1 job, DIANE workers
31
QoS metric: reliability
• Summary of ITU RRC06 runs– 200K jobs in less than 6 hours– worst case reliability: 0.0003 jobs lost
run #jobs #task turnaround CPUh #WN comment 1 243K 26K 6.40h 425h 190 lost <10 tasks (3*e-04) 2 237K 23K 6.30h 332h 125 lost 1 task (4*e-05) 3 224K 40K 3.05h 192h 210 OK 4 218K 39K 1.05h 151h 320 OK
– ITU RRC-06 (15 May–16 June 2006) 120 countries (~1200 delegates) negotiated the
new digital frequency plan a part of a new international agreement introduction of digital broadcasting
• UHF (470-862 Mhz)• VHF (174-230 Mhz)
preceded by RRC-04 and other international meetings
32
QoS Metric: low latency on the Grid
RRC06 ITU job 116 LCG workers 3470 tasks ~130 CPU h
large span of task lengthnot a priori known!
27%
64%
34
• Case study: high-throughput Lattice QCD simulation– application-aware scheduler: prioritize tasks based on the
simulation parameters– active resource selection via Submitter (WorkerFactory)
dynamically select resources based on their fitness for the application
35
Lattice QCD 2008 @ Grid
• Study the behaviour of the critical point of quark-gluon plasma– The scientific results obtained by the
LQCD project were published in a paper P. de Forcrand et al.: "The chiral critical point of Nf = 3 QCD at finite density to the order (μ/T)4" and are available at http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.1096
• Monte-Carlo simulation of discrete space-time lattice– need a lot of CPU– relatively small data (~Gbs)
36
LQCD execution history
• ongoing since May 2008– several phases (application and system upgrades, power-cuts,
etc...)– routinely production since September 2008
• runs unattended for months– operated by a single, not-a-Grid-expert user
• large-scale– ~1000 running jobs at any time– ~700 CPU-years since the May 2008– ~18 TB of data
37
Routinely LQCD production
• 700 CPU years since May 2008• ~18 TB of data transferred• ~800 simultaneous workers
38
Summary
• User-level overlay is a technique enhancing the QoS parameters for scientific applications in the EGEE Grid
• Pros & cons:– Existing infrastructure may be used “as is”– Application-specific optimizations (impossible at the system level)– Hard QoS not possible (infrastructure unreliable)– Faire-share implemented by the underlying infrastructure and
respected by the overlay (if used appropriately)– Used successful for diverse applications
• Overlays are a complementary approach to SLAs• More on tools:
http://cern.ch/diane
http://cern.ch/ganga