> I disagree with how you apply them. Ultimately, the aggregates
> make allocation decisions, not the the SM. It makes no difference
> whether the client talks directly to an aggregate (initially to request
> resources and later to control the resources it was allocated) or
> funnels those allocation-requests/control-requests through an
> intermediate SM (which is really serving an aggregation function...
> to overload that term).
I disagree with this. It does matter, since in the former case the
Clearinghouse cannot control allocation decisions, and in the latter
case it can. I am assuming that your SM serves some Clearinghouse
function. I also partially disagree with the assertion that only
aggregates make allocation decisions.
In Orca, AMs delegate partial control over allocation decisions to
Clearinghouses. So, while AMs may have the final say about who gets
resources and when, when they delegate some of this power to a
Clearinghouse we assume that they are trustworthy (e.g., they aren't
lying to the Clearinghouse; if they are they get punished). In this
case the user goes through the Clearinghouse for allocation decisions
(e.g., requests tickets), and then redeems tickets at an AM (e.g., to
control resources through an API exposed by the AM). So requests here
do not go directly to the AM.
-David
_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg
