1 / 12

WS-Agreement in AssessGrid

WS-Agreement in AssessGrid. James Padgett Collaborative Architectures and Performance Group jamesp@comp.leeds.ac.uk. Best Effort resource provision is not a motivator for Grid commercialisation.

claire-mcdowell
Download Presentation

WS-Agreement in AssessGrid

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WS-Agreement in AssessGrid James Padgett Collaborative Architectures and Performance Group jamesp@comp.leeds.ac.uk

  2. Best Effort resource provision is not a motivator for Grid commercialisation • Ownership and use of Grid resources has economic value since resource owners may choose to charge rather than freely share and provision their resources. • Service Level Agreements (SLAs) provide one artefact to enable Grid commercialisation • Agreeing an SLA is a business riskfor both a consumer and provider • Agreements on resource provisioning may not only include the provider’s commitment to execute a task or provide the resources but also include terms about performance levels and penalties (provisioning).

  3. AssessGrid Actors End-users approach the Grid in order to perform specific tasks. In order that their task is completed, they negotiate access to resources using SLA requests The broker acts as a matchmaker between the end-users and providers, providing a time/cost/risk optimised assignment of SLA requests to SLA offers. Providers offer access to resources through formal SLA offers specifying risk, price and penalty. Providers need well-balanced infrastructures, so they can maximise the Quality of Service and minimise the number of SLA violations.

  4. AssessGrid System Architecture • End-user • Portal • Broker • Risk Assessor • Confidence Service • Workflow Assessor • Provider • Negotiator • Scheduler • Risk Assessor • Consultant Service

  5. AssessGrid Usage Scenario • Broker negotiates on behalf of the end-user • SLA are negotiated using WS-Agreement (WS-A) • Grid middleware and Grid fabric enhanced with risk assessment and “data” service • Confidence service • Consultant service • Risk assessment based on historical data • returns ranked list of SLA offers with adjusted risk

  6. AssessGrid SLA Offers • Published risk enables End-users to compare different SLA offers • Risk of failure, price, and penalty fee • Broker’s Reliability measure classifies which offers are reliable

  7. WS-Agreement SLA Structure SLAs state the terms of agreements between a consumer and provider as a contract for the provider to perform a service or to provide agreed resources. Name identifies the SLA Context defines key facts about the agreement like the agreement initiator / responder and the service provider – they can be different The terms are made up of those which describe the service offering and the active guarantees Service Description Terms (SDT) describe the requirements of the agreement Guarantee Terms describe aspects of the agreement which the parties are contractually obliged to uphold – often they reference the SDTs

  8. AssessGrid SLA Template

  9. Problems along the way ... • Globus • Based on Axis 1, unable to support WS-Agreement: • substitutionGroup (see next slide) • WSA – implemented using dated WS-Addressing spec, therefore can‘t talk to other major WS-Agreement implementation WSAG4J • WSRF – implemented using non-standard spec

  10. ...problemantic content <xs:complexType name="OfferItemType"> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="wsag:Location" /> <xs:element name="ItemConstraint"> <xs:complexType> <xs:choice minOccurs="0"> <xs:group ref="xs:simpleRestrictionModel" /> <xs:group ref="xs:typeDefParticle" /> </xs:choice> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:any processContents="lax" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" /> </xs:sequence> <xs:attribute name="Name" type="xs:string" /> </xs:complexType> Provides:xs:minExclusive,xs:minInclusive, … Provides:xs:all, xs:choice,xs:sequence…

  11. ...the solution <xs:complexType name="OfferItemType"> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="wsag:Location" /> <xs:element name="ItemConstraint"> <xs:complexType> <xs:any/> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:any processContents="lax" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" /> </xs:sequence> <xs:attribute name="Name" type="xs:string" /> </xs:complexType>

  12. Related Work • AssessGrid • www.assessgrid.eu • WS-Agreement • http://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg • Globus • www.globus.org • WSAG4J: • http://packcs-e0.scai.fraunhofer.de/mss-project/wsag4j/index.html • IBM Cremona • http://awwebx04.alphaworks.ibm.com/ettk/demos/wstkdoc/cremona/README.htm

More Related