airavata-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Suresh Marru <>
Subject Re: Personal compute/storage preferences for campus portals
Date Tue, 11 Oct 2016 13:38:44 GMT
Hi Marcus,

I do not have any creative name suggestions, but have general thoughts on the topic.

We have two types of accounts - individual accounts and community accounts and two types of
allocations, again individual and community (gateway). The possibilities of job submission
and data movement are:

1 - individual accounts with no allocation (most campuses employ this approach and let fair
share take care of equitable distribution)
2 - individual accounts using individual allocation (XSEDE like shared infrastructure and
some campuses)
3 - community accounts using community allocation 
4 - community accounts using individual allocations (xsede power users who have added community
account to their allocations). 

After reading through this thread, seems like your changes will enable 1, 2 and 4. I initially
thought this will only target 1 and 2 scenarios. But the same backend logic can serve scenario
4 as well. 

But as you state, the usability issues are the key. For scenario 4, we probably should present
a smaller form with subset of the fields (probably just the allocation/project number). 

I agree that resource_owner will be misleading. How about longer and self descriptive names
so there is no disambiguation:

“community_accounts”  - the default option (assumes community allocations) — users will
not be presented with any resource level settings 
“individual_accounts” - this can cover both allocation and no allocation scenarios but
using individual accounts. 
“community_account_individual_allocation” - just the project number field for scenario

Again, not creative thoughts, so please feel free to ignore.


> On Oct 11, 2016, at 8:24 AM, Christie, Marcus Aaron <> wrote:
> Mark,
> Yes. Today when a user logs in they see a dashboard with "Browse Projects" and "Browse
Experiments" buttons. The idea is, if the use has this new role they will see another row
of buttons, "Compute Resources", "Storage Resources" and "Credential Store".
> 'resource_owner' sounds to me like someone who actually owns or manages a resource instead
of someone who merely has an allocation or account on a resource.  But that's just what it
sounds like to my ear. What do others on the list think?
> Thanks,
> Marcus
> From: Miller, Mark <>
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 3:38 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: Personal compute/storage preferences for campus portals
> Hi Marcus, this sounds quite interesting. Do you mean that only users with this role
will see the tabs for adding resource in their UI?
> Would the title of resource_owner be descriptive?
> Mark
>   <>
> From: Christie, Marcus Aaron [] 
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:06 AM
> To:
> Subject: Personal compute/storage preferences for campus portals
> Hello All,
> I don't think I've written to this list yet, so let me introduce myself. My name is Marcus
Christie and I work in the Science Gateways Group at IU with Suresh and other Airavata developers.
 I'm looking forward to contributing to Airavata.
> I'm currently working on creating a UI in PGA for a portal user to add their own compute
and/or storage resource allocations ( <>​).
I recently met with Suresh and Eroma to discuss some UI concerns with how this will impact
existing users of PGA that are today using the gateways allocation.  The problem is it could
be confusing for users who don't have their own compute/storage allocations to see the new
options in PGA for adding compute/storage allocations.  Also there are some additional UI
concerns if a user has both the option to use a gateway allocation on a compute resource and
also their own personal allocation (for example, when creating an experiment, does the user
have two options for the compute resource, one with their own allocation and one with the
gateway allocation?)
> What we decided to do, at least for now, is to add a new role, similar to the gateway
user role ("gateway-user"), that if a user has this new role then they can add their own compute/storage
resource allocations. Also, if they have this new role they can only submit jobs to compute
resource for which they have registered their own resource allocation.
> I'm not quite sure what to call the new role. In the meeting we referred to this new
role as a "campus user" role, since that is the use case we are targeting. That doesn't seem
generic enough of a name, is there a better name to give to this role? I'm thinking about
adding to pga_config.php:
>   'personal-allocation-user-role-name' => 'campus-user'
> I'm open to suggestions on the name of the role.
> Thanks,
> Marcus
> ​

View raw message