« Return to Thread: clearinghouses (or not)
Re: clearinghouses (or not)
by Robert P Ricci
::
Rate this Message:
Thus spake Larry Peterson on Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:06:43AM -0400:
> Anyone care to comment on the general issue of these competing
> strategies:
>
> User manages multiple Aggregates (SM functionality runs on client
> and user requests go directly to the aggregates)
>
> versus
>
> Clearinghouse manages multiple Aggregates (SM functionality runs
> on server with all user requested funneled through the SM)
We've been going with the former - the Flash client I've used for demos
at the last two GECs is contacting each AM, with the clearinghouse
merely telling the client where to find AMs. This page describes how it
works today:
http://www.protogeni.net/trac/protogeni/wiki/SliceCreation
Let me add that I think it is highly likely that there are some SMs that
are run, not on user desktops, but as managed services used by many
clients. Keeping them separate from the clearinghouse is still a good
idea, I think.
> and MOST IMPORTANTLY, we remove the
> burden of creating a one-size-fits-all SM (and a one-size-fits-all rspec
> that describes to that SM exactly what the user wants).
Totally agree - particularly with the RSpec, I've always believed the
story we talked about some time ago that the RSpec is something of a
"machine language", that are about describing resources, not experiments
- and thus it is entirely appropriate for an SM to export some higher
level topology/experiment description language to users (like, say, and
NS file :), and this gets "compiled" in some way to RSpec to request the
resources necessary to run the experiment. (Of course, if the
higher-level language is describing more than just resources, not all of
it will end up in RSpecs)
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------
| Robert P Ricci <ricci@...> | <ricci@...>
| Research Associate, University of Utah Flux Group
| www.flux.utah.edu | www.emulab.net
\-----------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg
> Anyone care to comment on the general issue of these competing
> strategies:
>
> User manages multiple Aggregates (SM functionality runs on client
> and user requests go directly to the aggregates)
>
> versus
>
> Clearinghouse manages multiple Aggregates (SM functionality runs
> on server with all user requested funneled through the SM)
We've been going with the former - the Flash client I've used for demos
at the last two GECs is contacting each AM, with the clearinghouse
merely telling the client where to find AMs. This page describes how it
works today:
http://www.protogeni.net/trac/protogeni/wiki/SliceCreation
Let me add that I think it is highly likely that there are some SMs that
are run, not on user desktops, but as managed services used by many
clients. Keeping them separate from the clearinghouse is still a good
idea, I think.
> and MOST IMPORTANTLY, we remove the
> burden of creating a one-size-fits-all SM (and a one-size-fits-all rspec
> that describes to that SM exactly what the user wants).
Totally agree - particularly with the RSpec, I've always believed the
story we talked about some time ago that the RSpec is something of a
"machine language", that are about describing resources, not experiments
- and thus it is entirely appropriate for an SM to export some higher
level topology/experiment description language to users (like, say, and
NS file :), and this gets "compiled" in some way to RSpec to request the
resources necessary to run the experiment. (Of course, if the
higher-level language is describing more than just resources, not all of
it will end up in RSpecs)
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------
| Robert P Ricci <ricci@...> | <ricci@...>
| Research Associate, University of Utah Flux Group
| www.flux.utah.edu | www.emulab.net
\-----------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg
« Return to Thread: clearinghouses (or not)
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
