airavata-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Saminda Wijeratne <samin...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Persisting GFac job data
Date Fri, 31 May 2013 15:30:43 GMT
I'm thinking of injecting code to save GFac job data from our Airavata code
itself. So far it seems only at the Provider level this is possible since
the required data is only available at that point.
For instance as I see, to record gram data I need to have code in the
execute function in GramProvider class where jobid becomes available along
with other data. Is it really the place or is there a generic place where
we can do this for all providers?


On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <samindaw@gmail.com>wrote:

> I updated the names in both the API function sets for GFacJobData and
> GFacJobErrorData in ExecutionManager and ProvenanceManager. If anyone has
> being using these functions outside of the Airavata trunk please update
> your code to reflect this change. Basically change "GFac" to "Application"
>
> Thanks,
> Saminda
>
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <samindaw@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> Since there is no objection for the suggested name pattern (
>> addApplicationJob(...)) and since we are sort of running short of time
>> we are going ahead of with that name.
>>
>> If you a much better suggestion please respond within today or tomorrow
>> so that we can incorporate any changes for 0.8 release without delay.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Saminda
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <samindaw@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Application. But in our case we may have to use both. eg:
>>> addApplicationJob(...) or addApplicationSubmission(...). The name addApplication(...)
>>> is misleading I think. wdyt?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Amila Jayasekara <
>>> thejaka.amila@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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