airavata-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Saminda Wijeratne <samin...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Orchestrator Overview Meeting Summary
Date Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:38:10 GMT
My initial idea is to have an experiment template saved and later users
would launch a experiment template as much as they would want each time
creating an experiment only at the launch. If users want to make small
changes, they could take the template, change it and save it again either
to a new template or to the same one. But I was wondering how intuitive it
would be to the user to follow up such an approach.


On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Suresh Marru <smarru@apache.org> 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