Re: Network Control Architecture

[Gigi Karmous-Edwards <gigi@xxxxxxxx>]

Harvey,

Thank you for the information below. It seems that both MonALISA and 
PerfSONAR will have to co-exist. I think  it will be extremely helpful 
to the community if MonALISA could be open source. Is this possible? In 
my opinion that will make a huge difference adaptability of MonALISA.

Gigi

--------------------------------------------

Gigi Karmous-Edwards
Principal Scientist
Advanced Technology Group
http://www.mcnc.org
MCNC 
RTP, NC, USA
+1 919-248 -4121
gigi@xxxxxxxx
--------------------------------------------



Harvey Newman wrote:

> PerfSONAR is just beginning to develop a fraction of the services and 
> functions
> that MonALISA has had in operation for a long time.
>
> It is also not obvious that PerfSONAR will engage a full time systems 
> architect to
> try to reproduce the real-time services architecture with a 
> sufficiently powerful
> multithreaded engine to schedule and drive the services, a fully 
> distributed services
> architecture that has no single point of failure, a mutually-aware set of
> agents, a robust high - performance messaging infrstructure, etc. It 
> would not
> be easy and it has rarely, if ever, been done before. In case how a 
> fully fledged
> PerfSONAR would compare to ML is a future consideration. It won't be
> sufficiently function by the time the LHC is starting to do physics, 
> by mid-2008.
> And ML will conitnue to advance and grapple with the real situation at 
> the LHC.
>
> PerfSONAR will not touch the end systems. ML does cover this aspect 
> fully, as we need to
> distinguish end-system performance, load and configuration issues from 
> network issues.
>
> Since PerfSONAR is the agreed upon direction, and the services it 
> fields will be
> relatively simple, we are sure we can interface to those and provide 
> the interfaces
> as needed. That is already the case for the PerfSONAR monitoring sone 
> today.
>
> Regards
> Harvey
>
> Gigi Karmous-Edwards wrote:
>
> > Hi Harvey,
> >
> > How does MonAlisa compare with the effort of PerfSONAR 
> > (www.perfsonar.net).?
> >
> >
> > Gigi
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > Gigi Karmous-Edwards
> > Principal Scientist
> > Advanced Technology Group
> > http://www.mcnc.org
> > MCNC RTP, NC, USA
> > +1 919-248 -4121
> > gigi@xxxxxxxx
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > Harvey Newman wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We strongly recommend using MonALISA real-time, fully distributed 
> > > services to do this.
> > > We need non-stop real-time operations that are proven to be robust 
> > > and globally scalable,
> > > with no single point of failure. Also the intelligence in the agents 
> > > both in the network and end-systems
> > > allow us to understand what is going on, and take action end-to-end.
> > > .
> > > Hence our technology choices for US LHCNet and UltraLight.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Harvey
> > >
> > > PS ML is currently monitoring and updating > 1M parameters at 340 
> > > sites.
> > >
> > > Gigi Karmous-Edwards wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear All,
> > > >
> > > > At the last GLIF control plane meeting in Minneapolis (meeting 
> > > > minutes will be sent tomorrow to the list) we had several 
> > > > discussions on interoperability between the different networks. We 
> > > > drew a diagram on the white board with input from the participants. 
> > > > The outcome was an action item on me to send out a high level 
> > > > functional diagram on the framework for interoperability (sorry for 
> > > > the delay). We expanded the notion of network resource in the 
> > > > control plane working group to include other resources as well, 
> > > > such as compute, storage, instruments, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Enclosed are three very high level slides discussing the framework 
> > > > and the high level functional components included  in a "Resource 
> > > > Broker " and a "Network Resource Manager". Several of you in the 
> > > > meeting had comments on the interfaces we need to standardize. I 
> > > > propose we start with the "Grid Network Interface"  GNI, first.
> > > >
> > > > We also agreed to work with both the GLIF community and standard 
> > > > bodies like OGF to develop these interfaces. I look forward to your 
> > > > comments.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Gigi