270 likes | 370 Views
Build 2 System Testing, Transition & Deployment. PDS MC F2F Mountain View, CA Emily Law December 1 st , 2011. Outline. Test Approach & Process Progress Today Test Results Transition Drivers & Concept Transition Progress Today Deployment Systems Risks Onward System Review II RFA.
E N D
Build 2 System Testing, Transition & Deployment PDS MC F2F Mountain View, CA Emily Law December 1st, 2011
Outline • Test Approach & Process • Progress Today • Test Results • Transition Drivers & Concept • Transition Progress Today • Deployment Systems • Risks • Onward • System Review II RFA
Testing Approach • Perform software testing to ensure compliance with requirements & usability • Drive system improvement • Align testing with incremental builds • Test system under CM • Document test plan, report and issues • Perform regression test
Testing Process • Software Test per system build • Unit Test perform by EN development staff • Integration Test perform by EN operations staff following Test Plan and Procedures • Node Instance Test perform by Nodes staff • Defects and issues • Utilize JIRA for issue tracking • Report • Collect metrics and document test results
Progress Today • EN completed Build 1a, 1c, 1d and 2a system I&T against requirements • Documented I&T test plans, procedures and reports • Posted at Build Deliverables EN pages • Issues recorded @ JIRA • Some Nodes deployed various Build 1 increments and performed testing
Build 1d Node Test Results • Nodes were asked to exercise the Validate Tool, Harvest Tool and Registry Service. • The test scenario included validation and registration of an example bundle. • Participating Nodes: • ATMOS, GEO, IMG-JPL, IMG-USGS, PPI, SBN, SBN-PSI • Test results: • Each Node was ultimately successful in completing the exercise. • Some issues were encountered with the Apache Tomcat installation. One Node encountered corrupted configuration files from the unpacking step. • Several suggestions for documentation improvements were captured and implemented. • Other suggestions for installation improvements and requests for functionality were queued for future consideration.
Build 2a System Test Results • EN tested functionality of Registry, Harvest, Security, Validate, and performance of Registry • Test cases: 26 • Requirements verified: 60 • Anomalies: 3 minor defects, will be fixed in Build 2b • Key issues: None
Build 2 Scope • Begin PDS4 label design for LADEE and MAVEN; Begin planning/testing migration • Deploy a PDS4 standard that supports the Policy on “Acceptable PDS4 Data Formats” • Transition the central catalog to the registry infrastructure • Deploy early PDS4 software tools and services
Transition Concept • Allow for phased transition to PDS4 over time • Existing PDS3 pipelines will remain supported during life of mission • Support ingestion and distribution of PDS4 data when ready • Missions and IPDA partners can transition when they want to • Ensure PDS will serve data from PDS3 and PDS4 repositories • Ensure there’s no impact to existing data providers nor users
Users Current PDS3 Support Datasets + Products Current Missions (e.g MER,CAS) PDS3 Archive @ DNs PDS3 Services Datasets + Products Dataset Metadata (PDS3) Central Catalog PDS3 Pipeline PDS3 Ingest Homepage Dataset Metadata
Transition to PDS4 Support Current Missions (e.g., MER,CAS) PDS3 Archive @ DNs Datasets + Products Central Catalog PDS3 Services PDS3 Pipeline PDS3 Ingest Harvest Product Metadata (PDS3) Dataset Metadata (PDS3) Dataset Metadata (PDS3) Users toPDS4 Transform PDS Homepage PDS4 Registry Metadata Index PDS4 Archive @ DNs PDS4 Ingest PDS4 Pipeline PDS4 Services NOTE: PDS3 Services phased out overtime New Missions (e.g.,MAVEN)
Progress Today • Deployed Build 2a infrastructure • Installed and configured Build 2a software • Installed and configured Build 2a mirror site • Migrated 100% of central catalog to Build 2a registry • Developed failover and fallback capabilities
System Today PDS – Load Balancer http://mirpds @ UMD http://pds http://pds-engineering http://starbrite http://starbase http://pdsdlb3 PDS Site Eng. Site Profile Server PDS Database PDS Site Eng. Site Profile Server Product Server PDS Blog PDS Databases PDS Storage
Build 2 Testing Enivornment PDS – Load Balancer Registry UI Registry Service Report Service Security Service PDS4 Database
PDS4 Layout PDS – Load Balancer http://mirpds @ UMD http:// pds-engineering http:// pds http:// starbrite http:// starbase http:// pdsdlb3 http:// pdsops http:// pdsops2 Registry UI Registry Service Report Service Security Service PDS Site Eng. Site Profile Server Registry Database PDS Site Eng. Site Profile Server Product Server PDS Blog Registry UI / Service Registry Report SecurityService PDS Databases PDS Storage Registry Databases 15
Build 2 System PDS – Load Balancer Switch (Data Catalog Search) Data Catalog Search http://mirpds @ UMD PRIMARY Registry UI Registry Service Report Service Security Service PDS Site Eng. Site Profile Server Registry Database STANDBY PDS Site Eng. Site Profile Server PDS Central Database PDS – website PDS – Engineering Central Catalog Search PDS – Ingestion Profile Server Product Server PDS Blog PDS – website PDS – Engineering PDS – Ingestion Profile Server Product Server PDS Blog Registry Search Registry UI Registry Service Registry Report Security Report Registry Database PDS3 @ EN PDS4 @ EN PDS3 System PDS4 System
Transition to Build 2b • Perform Build 2b testing • Install and configure Build 2 system • Deploy Build 2b (including mirror site) in January 2012, allowing phased deployment at the Nodes
SDR II RFA Summary • A total of 8 RFAs • 1 kudo • 2 clarification of presentation diagrams • 2 documentation • 1 addressed by registry service • 1 addressed by search design and protocol • 1 addressed by data migration planning
Test Results • EN tested scalability of Registry. Each artifact (~2 artifacts per product) takes 0.1 seconds to register, 0.1 to view, 0.2 to delete for up to 1M artifacts. So a Harvest of 10k labels should take 2*10000*0.1 seconds, i.e. 35 minutes. • 3 minor defects • Validate does not accept individual schema files • Registry, not Harvest, does not assign a GUID to a registered artifact • Registry status not updated after submission