airavata-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Amila Jayasekara <thejaka.am...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Persisting GFac job data
Date Wed, 22 May 2013 17:43:53 GMT
What is more familiar ? "Application" or "Job" ?

Thanks
Amila


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Saminda Wijeratne <samindaw@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Amila Jayasekara
> <thejaka.amila@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > I am bit concerned about the names. Are we assuming that API users has
> > knowledge about GFac ?
> > OR else we can just remove "GFac" substring and have method names like
> > "void
> > updateJobMetadta(..)"
> >
> You have a point there Amila. Perhaps we can name them as "Application"
> rather than GFac since we already have the notion of an application
> descriptor in the API. wdyt?
>
>
> > Thanks
> > Amila
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <samindaw@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Following API functions are added for the ProvenanceManager[2],
> > >
> > > boolean isGFacJobExists(String gfacJobId)
> > > void addGFacJob(GFacJob job)
> > > void updateGFacJob(GFacJob job)
> > > void updateGFacJobStatus(String gfacJobId, GFacJobStatus status)
> > > void updateGFacJobData(String gfacJobId, String jobdata)
> > > void updateGFacJobSubmittedTime(String gfacJobId, Date submitted)
> > > void updateGFacJobCompletedTime(String gfacJobId, Date completed)
> > > void updateGFacJobMetadta(String gfacJobId, String metadata)
> > > GFacJob getGFacJob(String gfacJobId)
> > > List<GFacJob> getGFacJobsForDescriptors(String serviceDescriptionId,
> > String
> > > hostDescriptionId, String applicationDescriptionId)
> > > List<GFacJob> getGFacJobs(String experimentId, String
> > workflowExecutionId,
> > > String nodeId)
> > >
> > > Thoughts are welcome!!!
> > >
> > >
> > > 2.
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/airavata/trunk/modules/airavata-client/src/main/java/org/apache/airavata/client/api/ProvenanceManager.java
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <samindaw@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > But I thought the providers are part of the GFac (not as a separate
> > > > service). If not then the providers should report to GFac. Orelse
> there
> > > is
> > > > no way the GFac knows what status to update which data to update etc.
> > > Does
> > > > the current GFac implementation support this?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Amila Jayasekara <
> > > thejaka.amila@gmail.com
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I think that should be handled at a more upper layer like Workflow
> > > >> Interpretter or GFac. In FT perspective it is better if providers
> are
> > > >> stateless. One reason is we dont have control over some providers
> and
> > > and
> > > >> there will be many places writing to disk if we implement the
> > > persistence
> > > >> logic at provider level.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks
> > > >> Amila
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <
> > samindaw@gmail.com
> > > >> >wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Amila Jayasekara
> > > >> > <thejaka.amila@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <
> > > >> samindaw@gmail.com
> > > >> > > >wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Thanks for the feedback Amila. a few comments inline
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Amila Jayasekara
> > > >> > > > <thejaka.amila@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > Hi Saminda,
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Great suggestion. Also +1 for Dhanushka's proposal
to have
> > > >> > > > > serialize/de-serilized data.
> > > >> > > > > Few suggestions,
> > > >> > > > > 1. In addition to successful/error statuses we
need other
> > status
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > > nodes
> > > >> > > > > & workflows
> > > >> > > > > and workflows.
> > > >> > > > > E . g :-
> > > >> > > > >    node - started, submitted, in-progress, failed,
> successful
> > > etc
> > > >> ...
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > Sorry if I was too vague. Yes we have more fine-grain
statuses
> > for
> > > >> > > workflow
> > > >> > > > and node[1]. We will have a much fine-grained level
of
> > granuality
> > > >> for a
> > > >> > > > GFacJob status.
> > > >> > > >     public static enum GFacJobStatus{
> > > >> > > >         SUBMITTED, //job is submitted, possibly waiting
to
> start
> > > >> > > executing
> > > >> > > >         EXECUTING, //submitted job is being executed
> > > >> > > >         CANCELLED, //job was cancelled
> > > >> > > >         PAUSED, //job was paused
> > > >> > > >         WAITING_FOR_DATA, // job is waiting for data
to
> continue
> > > >> > > executing
> > > >> > > >         FAILED, // error occurred while job was executing
and
> > the
> > > >> job
> > > >> > > > stopped
> > > >> > > >         FINISHED, // job completed successfully
> > > >> > > >         UNKNOWN // unknown status. lookup the metadata
for
> more
> > > >> > details.
> > > >> > > >     }
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > 2. This data will be useful in implementing FT and
Load
> > Balancing
> > > in
> > > >> > each
> > > >> > > > > component. Sometime back we had discussions to
make GFac
> > > >> stateless.
> > > >> > So
> > > >> > > > who
> > > >> > > > > is going to populate this data structure and persist
it ?
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > That is a very good question... :). This summer is
going to
> be a
> > > >> long
> > > >> > > > one... ;)
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > What I meant is which component is doing persistence ? (GFac
or
> WF
> > > >> > > Interpretter). Not the actual person who is going to implement
> it
> > > :).
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > hih hih....
> > > >> > Well its going to be whatever the provider respondible for
> managing
> > > the
> > > >> job
> > > >> > lifecycle. For example GRAMProvider should be responsible for
> > > recording
> > > >> all
> > > >> > the data relating to the GRAM jobs its working with.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > 1.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/airavata/trunk/modules/workflow-model/workflow-model-core/src/main/java/org/apache/airavata/workflow/model/graph/Node.java
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Thanks
> > > >> > > > > Amila
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Saminda Wijeratne
<
> > > >> > > samindaw@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > >wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Thats is an excellent idea. We can have the
job data field
> > to
> > > be
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > designated GFac job serialized data. The
whatever
> > GFacProvider
> > > >> > should
> > > >> > > > > > adhere to it.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > I'm still inclined to have the rest of the
fields to ease
> of
> > > >> > querying
> > > >> > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > the required data. For example if we wanted
all attempts
> on
> > > >> > executing
> > > >> > > > > for a
> > > >> > > > > > particular node of a workflow or if we wanted
to know
> which
> > > >> > > application
> > > >> > > > > > descriptions are faster in execution or more
reliable etc.
> > we
> > > >> can
> > > >> > let
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > query language deal with it. wdyt?
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Danushka
Menikkumbura <
> > > >> > > > > > danushka.menikkumbura@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Saminda,
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > I think the data container does not
need to have a
> generic
> > > >> > format.
> > > >> > > We
> > > >> > > > > can
> > > >> > > > > > > have a base class that facilitate object
> > > >> > > > serialization/deserialization
> > > >> > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > let specific meta data structure implement
them as
> > required.
> > > >> We
> > > >> > get
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > Registry API to serialize objects and
save them in a
> meta
> > > data
> > > >> > > table
> > > >> > > > > > (with
> > > >> > > > > > > just two columns?) and to deserialize
as they are loaded
> > off
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > registry.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Danushka
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Saminda
Wijeratne <
> > > >> > > > samindaw@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > It has being apparent more and
more that saving the
> data
> > > >> > related
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > executing a jobs from the GFac
can be useful for many
> > > >> reasons
> > > >> > > such
> > > >> > > > > as,
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > debugging
> > > >> > > > > > > > retrying
> > > >> > > > > > > > to make smart decisions on reliability/cost
etc.
> > > >> > > > > > > > statistical analysis
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Thus we thought of saving the data
related to GFac
> jobs
> > in
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > registry
> > > >> > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > > > order to facilitate feature such
as above in the
> future.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > However a GFac job is potentially
any sort of
> computing
> > > >> > resource
> > > >> > > > > access
> > > >> > > > > > > > (GRAM/UNICORE/EC2 etc.). Therefore
we need to come up
> > > with a
> > > >> > > > > > generalized
> > > >> > > > > > > > data structure that can hold the
data of any type of
> > > >> resource.
> > > >> > > > > > Following
> > > >> > > > > > > > are the suggested data to save
for a single GFac job
> > > >> execution,
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > *experiment id, workflow instance
id, node id* -
> > pinpoint
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > node
> > > >> > > > > > > > execution
> > > >> > > > > > > > *service, host, application description
ids *-
> pinpoint
> > > the
> > > >> > > > > descriptors
> > > >> > > > > > > > responsible
> > > >> > > > > > > > *local job id* - the unique job
id retrieved/generated
> > per
> > > >> > > > execution
> > > >> > > > > > > > [PRIMARY KEY]
> > > >> > > > > > > > *job data* - data related executing
the job (eg: the
> rsl
> > > in
> > > >> > GRAM)
> > > >> > > > > > > > *submitted, completed time*
> > > >> > > > > > > > *completed status* - whether the
job was successfull
> or
> > > ran
> > > >> in
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > > > errors
> > > >> > > > > > > > etc.
> > > >> > > > > > > > *metadata* - custom field to add
anything user wants
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Your feedback is most welcome.
The API related changes
> > > will
> > > >> > also
> > > >> > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > discussed once we have a proper
data structure. We are
> > > >> hoping
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > > > > implement
> > > >> > > > > > > > this within next few days.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > > > > > > Saminda
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message