WP3 plenary meeting London, Jan 17-18, 2006 Status of the Virtual Institute Marco Danelutto...

Managed by

WP3 plenary meetingLondon, Jan 17-18, 2006

Status of the Virtual Institute

Marco DaneluttoWorkpackage leader

University of Pisa - Italy

European Research Network on Foundations, Software Infrastructures and Applications for large scale distributed, GRID and Peer-to-Peer Technologies

Programming Model Virtual institute2

Contents

Results of the review meeting

Status of the Virtual Institute activities

Outline of the meeting



Contents







• Technical and competent reviewers• Stefano Campadello Nokia research, Finland• Alexander Schill Dresden Univ. of Technology, Germany• Michael Hoevenaars ING, Amsterdam, The Netherlands• Erich Schikuta University of Vienna, Austria• Alfred Geiger T-Systems, Germany

• “Quite interactive” review process

• WP3 presentation (as of slides sent) – Objectives (tasks)– Roadmap (D.PM.01)– Partners (composition, dynamics)– Results (sample)– Integration activities (visits, workshops)– Extra (projects, conferences, etc.)



Main observations (WP3)

1. Relationship with “the rest of the world”

1. How do you position? Which kind of interaction?

2. Reference/prototype implementation needed

1. A: need fundings!

3. Security !!!

4. Industry

1. Excellence => fundings and industry interaction

2. Industry interaction must be strengthened



Main answers

• We are taking into account previous / concurrent experiences

– (also as recommended from SAB 05 in Barcelona)

• Security is (to be) one of the research groups

– Task force vs. horizontal task even in WP3

• Industry

– We should do better

• Reference implementation

– Forthcoming (hopefully)

– Lightweight specification for openness



Review: next JPA

• JPA presented

– evolution of JPA1

– Continuity + research groups (named themes …)

– More focused research topics

– Involvement in standardization bodies

• Observations

– Standardization bodies participation NEEDED!

– More “critic” deliverables, outlining differences with the existing

– Fundamental M30 (all partners using GCM or distinguishing activities w.r.t. GCM) !!!



Personal comments

• Good referee process

– Better than expected !

• Nice interaction with referees and officers

• No major comments to wp3

– But the ones we already know!

• Needed a better coordination between partners

– Review result of part of us

• Needed more activity on common tasks

– Some comments may be avoided …



Contents






Participants (dynamics)

FHG

left almost immediately (December 2004)

due to financial / management problems

UNCL

left workpackage activities at the end of first year

kind of “Microsoft effect”

active participation in roadmap definition and in WP3 meetings

14 participants left

ISTI/CNR, IC, INRIA, QUB, WWU Muenster, UCAM, UCHILE, UNIPASSAU, UNIPI, UOW, UPC, EIA-FR, VUA, VTT



Partner and first year activities

No Joint papers Short visits Fellowships MeetingsCNR/ISTI 4 3 1 0 3FHG 8 0 0 0 0IC 12 0 1 0 3INRIA 14 8 13 1 3QUB 21 1 3 0 3WWU MUENSTER 22 3 2 1 3UCAM 24 0 0 0 2UCHILE 26 0 3 0 1UNCL 33 0 0 0 3UNIPASSAU 34 0 1 0 3UNIPI 35 7 9 1 3EIA-FR 36 0 1 1 3UOW 37 6 2 1 3UPC 38 1 3 0 3VUA 39 1 2 0 3VTT 40 0 0 0 3



First year “financial” issues

Most AC partners were unable to justify MM with hired people

too small fundings

too late hiring

At the moment the underspent money is reported to the second year

Situation *must* be corrected during the second year



Meetings

Charleroi meeting

first “de visu” meeting of all partners

Jan 2004, Pisa meeting

roadmap outlined

Barcelona meeting (Jun 2005)

Fractal and research groups

Sophia Antipolis, Oct 2005 meeting

first “explicit” Task 1.1 session

D.PM.02 design session



Electronic meetings

Decided in Barcelona

No followup

- collect addresses (chat, Skype, iChat, Messanger, …) on a private WEB page

- exploit existing framework

(EIA-FR Switch facilities tested (3 partners))

- spare “explorative” and finalization short visits



Web Site



Web site (2)



Short visits

Quite a large number

20 during the first year

Involving 11 of 14 partners

Main integration tool

Need to be enhanced

Web site with the one page report !

almost nobody is submitting such info ---> wiki?

Inactive partners (!)



Fellowships

• Fellow: Marcelo Pasin (full WP3 fellowship)Subject: Object oriented environment for HPC applications on the GRID First institute: Haute Ecole Spécialisée de Suisse Occidentale with Pierre KuonenSecond institute: University of Pisa with Marco DaneluttoDuration: 14 months

• Fellow: Nikolaos Parlavantzas (Joint fellowship WP7 WP3)Subject: Dynamic software components composition in GRID environments First institute: University of Westminster with Vladimir GetovSecond institute: INRIA with Denis CaromelDuration: 18 months

• Fellow: Catalin Dumitrescu (Joint fellowship WP3 WP6)Subject: Scheduling algorithms for higher-order components on the GRIDFirst institute: University of DelftSecond institute: University of MuensterDuration: 18 months



Technical Reports

Currently

TR-0001 Optimization Techniques for Implementing Parallel Skeletons in Distributed Environments

TR-0002 Behavior Customization of Parallel Components for Grid Application Programming

TR-0007 Characterization of the performance of ASSIST programs

TR-0014 Parallel program/component adaptivity management

TR-0016 Automatic mapping of ASSIST applications using process algebra

Are from WP3 (5 out of 17)

All papers submitted (joint ones) should become TR !!!



Pubblications

• About 20 publications by single partners related to topics of the Programming model Virtual institute

• About 15 joint publications by partners of the Virtual institute

• Startup

– more activity expected while going on

– as effect of achieved integration



Publication data base

Thierry’s email last week

SAB recommedation

All partners

must contribute

Useful tool for

Integration and

Advertisement!

Bibtex and PDF

needed



JPA2: MM



JPA2: deliverables

Some committments here

- workshop at M30



JPA2: milestones



JPA2: research groups (1)

• Programming models for the single componentwhich are the more suitable programming models that can be exploited in the implementation of a single component

• Communications (inter and intra component)point to point and collective communication implementation and optimisation

• Primitive component definitionmechanisms and formalisms to be used to define a component

• Hierarchical component compositionall the details related to the definition of new components out of the composition of existing ones

• Advanced programming modelsnew programming models that offer the programmer more advanced tools and higher level mechanisms to implement grid applications on top of the component model



JPA2: research groups (2)

• Performance modelsthe possibility to model the behaviour of component execution in such a way unexpected behavior can be discovered by monitoring execution parameters and comparing the measured parameters with the theoretically predicted ones

• Adaptivityall those techniques that can be used to automatically/autonomically adapt component behavior to grid changing features (faulty nodes and links, varying loads, unpredictable hot spots, etc.)

• Component run time supportconcerning the features/mechanisms needed to run components on grids as well as the (optimized) run time systems supporting component execution

• Component semanticsconcerning all the aspects related to the definition of formal and informal component and component compositions semantics

• Interoperabilitythat is all the problems related to the possibility to run component programs interacting constructively with non component software built according to existing grid standards as well as with component software developed according to different component models



JPA2: research groups

• Securitynot in the JPA (fault !) but we *must* take it into account

• Interaction with other CoreGRID work packages aimed at providing the other CoreGRID work packages with the results produced within WP3 by the research groups listed above and gathering requisites/requirements and suggestions from the other work packages, in particular from those that will eventually use the GCM or implement the Grid platforms aimed at supporting GCM. Within the M13 – M30 period, close interaction is expected with the other CoreGRID work packages so that both those institutes will consider using GCM in their specific activities. WP3 will also benefit from the suggestions/requirements coming from those work packages while refining/developing the GCM.

o Interaction with national/international standard institutes/committees aimed at promoting the results achieved within WP3 at different levels. We expect that during the M13 – M30 period the partners of WP3 will start participating in such institutes/committees activities and that partners of CoreGRID WP3 will participate in committees designing/defining new research frameworks at both national and international level.



Research groups

Responsibles needed

Proposal: if no resp. and/or no participants >>>> remove (JPA2?)Programming models of single component (EIA-FR)Communications (WWU-Muenster)Primitive component definition (INRIA/OASIS+IRISA)Hierarchical component definition (INRIA/OASIS)Advanced programming models (UPC,UNIPI)Performance models (ISTI/CNR)Adaptivity (UNIPI,INRIA/IRISA)Component run time support (VUA)Component semantics (INRIA/OASIS)Interoperability (UOW)Security (UCHILE)Interaction with other VIStandards



Projects (new ones!)

One proposal in call 5 (sep05) (no news as of today, still waiting)

GridCOMP STREP (INRIA leader, UNIPI, UOW, ISTI/CNR + … )provide reference/prototype implementation of GCM as ofD.PM.02 on top of existing, open source middleware

DFG research action proposed:

MetaGrid: Metadata and Metaprogramming for the Grid.German joint research action (DFG-Schwerpunktprogramm).Funding for 20+ researchers, 6 years, ~9M EUR,

granting decision expected in May 2006.Interaction with CoreGRID planned, WP3 initiators:

UNIPASSAU, WWU Muenster, ZIB (plus four others).



Positioning w.r.t. NGG reports (1&2)

Software view (with implications for architecture and user view) addressing:Programming grid through abstractions

GCM combines parallel & distributed programming practices in a coherent way

Invisible grid scenarioGCM implementation encapsulates all grid related concerns

dynamicity & heterogeneity handling, middlewareinterface, resource discovery & management, …

Self-* issuestargeted in the run time support / component framework

Currently going to be addressed Relationships/requirements on Network Centric OS

which features can be moved to OS ?



Positioning w.r.t. NGG3 (SOKUs)

NGG3

public in this period

moving from services to SOKUs (Service Oriented Knoweldge Utilities)

Still central point (research issue)

raising the level of abstraction (programming environments)

Comment from a referee: “what if components are no more trendy?”



Contents






Program



Program

Wednesday, January 18th9.00 - 9.30 Status of the Institute Danelutto9.30 - 11.00 GCM D.PM.02 Henrio11.00 - 11.30 Coffe break11.30 - 12.30 Discussion on GCM deliverable All participants12.30 - 14.30 Lunch14.30 - 15.00 Roadmap 1.0 (D.PM.01) Danelutto15.00 - 16.00 Roadmap 2.0: general discussion All participants16.00 - 16.30 Coffe break16.30 - 18.00 Roadmap 2.0: discussion and assessment

All participants

Thursday, January 19th9.00 - 13.00 Presentation of partner's current activity

(10-20 min each) All participants





Date post:	18-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

WP3 plenary meeting London, Jan 17-18, 2006 Status of the Virtual Institute Marco Danelutto...

Documents