airavata-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marlon Pierce <marpi...@iu.edu>
Subject Re: Orchestrator Overview Meeting Summary
Date Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:14:39 GMT
I have two minds on the "configure experiment" method. On the one hand,
most of the gateways we are taking use cases from already have a local
persistence mechanism for this, so we don't have a driver. And I'm sure
there will be implementation subtleties. On the other hand, it would be
a good feature to provide for new gateways. Telling them to go implement
a DB for this by themselves would be bad practice, especially when we
should have the experience to do it correctly.

The AMBER portal could be a good use case. I think this is currently in
the "nice to have" list.


Marlon

On 1/19/14 10:58 AM, Suresh Marru wrote:
> I see Amila’s point and can be argued that, Airavata Client can fetch experiment, modify
what is needed and re-submit as a new experiment.
>
> But I agree with Saminda, if an experiment has dozens of inputs and if say only parameter
or scheduling info needs to be changes, cloning makes it useful. The challenge though is how
to communicate what all needs to be changed? Should we assume anything explicitly not passed
remains as original experiment and the ones passed are overridden? 
>
> I think the word clone seems fine and also aligns with the Java Clone interpretation
[1].
>
> This brings up another question, should there be only create, launch, clone and terminate
experiments or should we also have a configure experiment? The purpose of configure is to
let the client slowly load up the object as it has the information and only launch it when
it is ready. That way portals need not have an intermediate persistence for these objects
and facilitate users to build an experiment in long sessions. Thought?
>
> Suresh
> [1] - http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Object.html#clone()
>
> On Jan 17, 2014, at 2:05 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <samindaw@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> an experiment will not define new descriptors but rather point to an existing descriptor(s).
IMO (correct me if I'm wrong),
>>
>> Experiment = Application + Input value(s) for application + Configuration data for
managing job
>>
>> Application = Service Descriptor + Host Descriptor + Application Descriptor
>>
>> Thus for an experiment it involves quite the amount of data of which needs to be
specified. Thus it is easier to make a copy of it rather than asking the user to specify all
of the data again when only there are very few changes compared to original experiment. Perhaps
the confusion here is the word "clone"?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Amila Jayasekara <thejaka.amila@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> This seems like adding new experiment definition. (i.e. new descriptors).
>> As far as I understood this should be handled at UI layer (?). For the backend it
will just be new descriptor definitions (?).
>> Maybe I am missing something.
>>
>> - AJ
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <samindaw@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This was in accordance with the CIPRES usecase scenario where users would want to
rerun their tasks but with subset of slightly different parameters/input. This is particularly
useful for them because their tasks can include more than 20-30 parameters most of the time.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Sachith Withana <swsachith@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Amila,
>>
>> The use of the word "cloning" is misleading.
>>
>> Saminda suggested that, we would need to run the application in a different host
( based on the users intuition of the host availability/ efficiency) keeping all the other
variables constant( inputs changes are also allowed). As an example: if a job keeps failing
on one host, the user should be allowed to submit the job to another host. 
>>
>> We should come up with a different name for the scenario.. 
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Amila Jayasekara <thejaka.amila@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Sachith Withana <swsachith@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> This is the summary of the meeting we had Wednesday( 01/16/14) on the Orchestrator.
>>
>> Orchestrator Overview
>> I Introduced the Orchestrator and I have attached the presentation herewith.
>>
>> Adding Job Cloning capability to the Orchestrator API
>> Saminda suggested that we should have a way to clone an existing job and run it with
different inputs or on a different host or both. Here's the Jira for that.[1]
>>
>> I didnt quite understand what cloning does. Once descriptors are setup we can run
experiment with different inputs, many times we want. So what is the actual need to have cloning
?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Thejaka Amila
>>  
>>
>> Gfac embedded vs Gfac as a service
>> We have implemented the embedded Gfac and decided to use it for now. 
>> Gfac as a service is a long term goal to have. Until we get the Orchestrator complete
we will use the embedded Gfac. 
>>
>> Job statuses for the Orchestrator and the Gfac
>> We need to come up with multi-level job statuses. User-level, Orchestartor-level
and the Gfac-level statuses. Also the mapping between them is open for discussion. We didn't
come to a conclusion on the matter. We will discuss this topic in an upcoming meeting. 
>>
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRAVATA-989
>>
>> -- 
>> Thanks,
>> Sachith Withana
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Thanks,
>> Sachith Withana
>>
>>
>>
>>


Mime
View raw message