airavata-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pamidighantam, Sudhakar V" <spami...@illinois.edu>
Subject Re: Improvements to Experiment input data model in order to support Gaussian application
Date Mon, 08 Dec 2014 15:38:31 GMT
Chaturi:
Thanks for these suggestions. One question I have is whether we should look at some of the
input files in the set of applications currently under testing to come up with these requirements.
There may be additional requirements in some of the inputs. Of course we can incrementally
update the data structures as well as we test these applications in more depth. But I feel
some significant number of application cases should be accommodated with each update. We may
target these for rc 0.15 and depending on the time available  we can look at at least few
more applications.

Comments?

Thanks,
Sudhakar.
On Dec 8, 2014, at 9:22 AM, Chathuri Wimalasena <kamalasini@gmail.com<mailto:kamalasini@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Hi Devs,

We are trying to add Gaussian application using airavata-appcatalog. While doing that, we
face some limitations of the current design.

In Gaussian there are several input files, some input files should used when the job run command
is generated, but some does not.  Those which are not involved with job run command also need
to be staged to working directory. Such flags are not supported in current design.

Another interesting feature that in Gaussian is, in input file, we can specify the values
for memory, cpu like options. If input file includes those parameters, we need to give priority
to those values instead of the values specified in the request.

To support these features, we need to slightly modify our thrift IDLS, specially to InputDataObjectType
struct.

Current struct is below.

struct InputDataObjectType {
    1: required string name,
    2: optional string value,
    3: optional DataType type,
    4: optional string applicationArgument,
    5: optional bool standardInput = 0,
    6: optional string userFriendlyDescription,
    7: optional string metaData
}

In order to support 1st requirement, we introduce 2 enums.

enum InputValidityType{
REQUIRED,
OPTIONAL
}

enum CommandLineType{
INCLUSIVE,
EXCLUSIVE
}

Please excuse me for names. You are welcome to suggest better names.

To support 2nd requirement, we change metaData field to a map with another enum where we define
all the metadata types that can have.

enum InputMetadataType {
    MEMORY,
    CPU
}

So the new InputDataObjectType would be as below.

struct InputDataObjectType {
    1: required string name,
    2: optional string value,
    3: optional DataType type,
    4: optional string applicationArgument,
    5: optional bool standardInput = 0,
    6: optional string userFriendlyDescription,
    7: optional map<InputMetadataType, string> metaData,
    8: optional InputValidityType inputValid;
    9: optional CommandLineType addedToCommandLine;
    10: optional bool dataStaged = 0;
}

Suggestions are welcome.

Thanks,
Chathuri



Mime
View raw message