airavata-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Shenoy, Gourav Ganesh" <>
Subject Re: Monitoring System Diagram
Date Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:03:53 GMT

Good work with the architecture. But I think the "request to monitor via helix mechanism"
and "output to helix orchestration" are very crucial pieces here – which need to be detailed.
Rest of it is kind of trivial, but what is important is how this system blends in to the Helix
design. Do you think you can add more details to the above statements?

Once again, you are heading in the right direction – good job!

Thanks and Regards,
Gourav Shenoy

From: Apoorv Palkar <>
Reply-To: "" <>
Date: Monday, July 24, 2017 at 1:14 PM
To: "" <>
Subject: Monitoring System Diagram

K Dev,

I have attached a architecture diagram for the monitoring system. Currently the challenges
we are facing is that GFAC is heavily tied to the monitoring system via task execution. The
ultimate goal to separate this from the current GFAC. I understand Marlon doesn't want me
looking at the code too much to avoid bias. I have glanced at some specifics/couple lines
to get an idea of how monitoring is currently implemented in Airavata.

Previously, I had been working on the parsing of the particular emails: PBS, slurs, UGA, etc.
Over the weekend, I ran some performance matrix tests on the current parsing code as Shameera
suggested. The current code written is quite balanced in terms of large scale processing.
It is able to quickly parse the emails and still maintain a high degree of simplicity. I improved
on a couple lines without using regex, however the code proved to be highly unmaintainable.
As shameera/marlon pointed out, these emails change relatively frequently as servers/machines
are upgraded/replaced. It is important for this code to be highly maintainable.

In addition to this, I have been working with Supun to develop a new architecture for the
mailing list. At first, there was a debate on whether to use Zookeeper and/or Redis in a global
state. I conducted some research to identify the pros and cons of each technology. As Suresh/Gourav
suggested, airaveata currently uses zookeeper. Also, zookeeper would provide less overhead
than a database such as Regis. A big problem with this development strategy is the complexity
of the code we will have to write. In the scenario of multiple GFaCs, a global zookeeper makes
some sense. However the problem comes if a job is cancelled. This can potentially cause edge
case scenario problems where say GFaC A accidentally processes GFAC B's emails. Therefore,
we have to imagine on a low level, a clever implementation of locks for who needs to access
data and who doesn't. This can prove to be a hassle.

Another potential solution we can have is to implement a work queue similar to our job submission
in Airavata. The work queue delegates the work of parsing/reading emails to multiple gfacs.
This potentially could avoid lock/thread/dangerous situations. If a GFAC fails somehow, there
needs to be a mechanism in place to handle the particular emails that GFAC is handed. We still
have to decide on the correct implementation before the code can be implemented. I've been
also working on the Thrift/RabbitMQ scenario, where data is parsed, serialized, and then sent
over the network. I will upload the code by today/tomorrow.

SHOUT OUT @Marcus !
View raw message