e-Science Technology/Middleware (Grid, Cyberinfrastructure) Gap Analysis and OMII

1. e-Science Technology/Middleware(Grid, Cyberinfrastructure)Gap Analysisand OMII SEAG Meeting DTI June 20 2003 Geoffrey Fox, Indiana University David Walker, Cardiff University Note for this presentation the terms e-Science Technology/Middleware, Grid, and Cyberinfrastructure are NOT distinguished

2. Features of Study Finished apartfrom final reviewand addition ofreferences • Draft report distributed to TAG April 28; revised June12 2003 • A: Summary • B: Technology/Project/Worldwide Service Context • C: Gaps by Category • D: Proposed Action Plan for OMII • E: Appendix of UK activities of relevance • Interviewed 80 people -- reasonably complete within the UK • Extracted and categorized over 120 comments (gaps) organized into about 35 technology areas with 5 Grid styles of operation (as in P2P) and 6 functionalities (as in Information Grid) • Developed an action plan that is being used to guide Core e-Science effort (UK OMII Open Middleware Infrastructure Initiative) to produce robust useable e-Science (Grid) infrastructure by 2006 • Interview part of project ran from mid February to early April – with worldwide review based on literature survey in April/May

3. Features of Gap Analysis • These are identified UK gaps in worldwide context; prejudice that gaps are worldwide but not mandate of study • Examined requirements and services already understood/developed for e-Science (reasonably broad coverage) and e-Business, e-Government and e-Services (inevitably rather spotty coverage) • Gaps divided into four broad areas • Near-term Technical • Education and Support • Research (not well separated from Near-term Technical) • Perception and Organization • Appendix listed over 60 significant UK services (perhaps clustered together) and tools – in the context of a total of some 150 world wide Grid services

4. 1: Architecture and Style 2: Basic Technology Runtime and Hosting Environment 10: PortalsPSE’s 7: Information 8: Compute/File Grid Services: Application Specific Resource Specific Generic 3: Security 4: Workflow 5: Notification 6: Meta-data 9: Other Information Compute Resources 11: Network Categorization of Technical Gaps and Grid Services Area of Grid Services

5. Taxonomy of Grid Functionalities Note: Term Data Grid not used consistently in community so avoided

6. Data Data Filter Filter Filter Data OGSA-DAIGrid Services Grid Data AnalysisControl Visualize Filter This Type of Grid integrates with Parallel computing e.g. HPC(x) HPC Simulation Filter Other Gridand Web Services Data Distributed Filters massage data For simulation Hybrid Grid Computing Model

7. Taxonomy of Grid Operational Style

8. WS WS WS WS 6: Domain-Specific (Application) Grid Services 5: OGSA-compliant System Grid Services 4: Key OGSA Services 3: Permeating Principles and Policies 1: Hosting Environment 2: OGSI Web service Enhancements “Central” Architecture/Functionality/Style Gaps • Substantial comments on “hosting environments” OGSI and “permeating principles” • Agreement on Web service model “Modular” Servicesnatural for distributed teams Specific Gaps “Central Services And Architecture” Central Gaps

9. Permeating Principles and Policies • Meta-data rich Message-linked Web Services as the permeating paradigm • “User” Component Model such as “Enterprise JavaBean (EJB)” or .NET. • Service Management framework including a possible Factory mechanism • High level Invocation Framework describing how you interact with system components. • This could for example be used to allow the system to built from either W3C or GGF style (OGSI) Web Services and to protect the user from changes in their specifications. • Security is a service but the need for fine grain selective authorization encourages • Policy context that sets the rules for each particular Grid. • Currently OGSA supports policies for routing, security and resource use. • The Grid Fabric or set of resources needs mechanisms to manage them. This includes automatic recording of meta-data and configuration of software. • Quality of service (QoS) for the Network and this implies performance monitoring and bandwidth reservation services. • Challenging as end-to-end and not just backbone QoS is needed. • Messaging systems like MQSeries from IBM provide robustness from asynchronous delivery and can abstract destination and allow customization of content such as converting between different interface specifications. • Messaging is built on transport mechanisms which can be used to support mechanisms to implement QoS and to virtualize ports

10. World Wide Grid Service Activities I • This was implicit in original report for TAG and now is being made explicit based on interviews plus survey of major worldwide activities • Commercial activities especially those of IBM, Avaki, Platform, Sun, Entropia and United Devices • The GT2 and GT3 Globus Toolkits. Here we effectively covering not just the Globus team but the major projects such the NASA Information Power Grid that have blazed the trail of “productizing” Grids. • Note that we can “already” see GT3 (Grid Service) like functionality from GT2 wrapped with the various (Java, Perl, Python, CORBA) CoG kits. So GT2 capabilities can be classified as Services • Trillium (GriPhyn, iVDGL and PPDG) and NeesGrid; the major NSF (DoE for PPDG) projects in the USA. • Condor from the University of Wisconsin which is being integrated into Grid services through the Trillium and NMI activities. • The NSF Middleware Initiative (NMI) packaging a suite of Globus, Condor and Internet2 software. • This has overlaps with the VDT (Virtual Data Toolkit from GriPhyn)

11. World Wide Grid Service Activities II • Unicore (GRIP), GridLab, the European Data Grid (EDG) and LCG (LHC Computing Grid) • Many other (20) EU Projects but these have most of technology development • Storage Resource Broker SRB-MCAT from SDSC • The DoE Science Grid and related activities such as the Common Component Architecture (CCA) project • Examination of services from a collection of portal projects in the US from Argonne, Indiana, Michigan, NCSA and Texas. • This includes best practice discussion from Global Grid Forum in portals. • Review of contributions to the recent book Grid Computing: Making the Global Infrastructure a Reality edited by Fran Berman, Geoffrey Fox and Tony Hey, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England, ISBN 0-470-85319-0, March 2003 • This includes other major projects like Cactus, NetSolve, Ninf • Some 6 Core and other application specific UK e-Science Projects

12. Types of Grid R3 Lightweight P2P Federation and Interoperability Core Infrastructure and Hosting Environment Service Management Component Model Service wrapper/Invocation Messaging Security Services Certificate Authority Authentication Authorization Policy Workflow Services and Programming Model Composition/Development Languages and Programming Compiler Enactment Engines (Runtime) Notification Services Metadata and Information Services Basic including Registry Semantically rich Services and meta-data Information Aggregation (events) Provenance Information Grid Services OGSA-DAI/DAIT Integration with compute resources P2P and database models Compute/File Grid Services Job Submission Job Planning Scheduling Management Access to Remote Files, Storage and Computers Replica (cache) Management Virtual Data Parallel Computing Other services including Grid Shell Accounting Fabric Management Visualization Data-mining and Computational Steering Collaboration Portals and Problem Solving Environments Network Services Performance Reservation Operations Categories of Worldwide Grid Services

13. Features of Worldwide Grid Services • UK activities have a strong web service and Information Grid emphasis • Important compute/file activities as well (White Rose, RealityGrid, UK part of EDG etc.) • Non UK activities are dominantly focused on compute/file Grids • Submit jobs in distributed UNIX shell (Gridshell) fashion • Gather data from instruments (accelerator, satellite, medical device); process in batch mode mapping between filesets • Little emphasis on lightweight or R3 Grids but NSF in USA and EDG have aimed at better support and software quality • EDG has useful “tension” between technology and application focus working groups • NMI and even GT3 have changed packaging and added service view – have not changed “underlying” architecture for robustness • Coordinated set of Portal activities in USA • Little work on integrating parallel computing and Grid although TeraGrid in USA could change this • Gaps are omissions/deficiencies in UK or worldwide Grid services of importance to UK e-Science

14. Central Gaps:Gaps in Grid Styles and Execution Environment • Need for both robust (fault tolerant) and lightweight (suitable for small groups) Grid styles identified • Peer-to-peer style supports smaller decentralized virtual organizations • Noted opportunities for modern middleware ideas to be used – lightweight, message-based • Noted that Enterprise JavaBeans not optimized for Science which has high volume dataflow • Federated Grid Architecture natural for integration of heterogeneous functionality, style and security • Bioinformatics and other fields require integration of Information and Compute/File Grids

15. R1 R2 Enterprise Grid Dynamic light-weight Peer-to-peer Collaboration Training Grid Students Information Grid Compute Grid Campus Grid Teacher Overlapping Heterogeneous Dynamic Grid Islands

16. (a) Layered OGSA Grid Application Service Application Service Application Service Core Service Core Service Core Service Core Service OGSA Interface (b) Federated OGSA Grid Appl. Service Appl. Service Appl. Service Appl. Service Core Service Core Service Core Service Core Service Core Service Core Service Grid-1 Grid-2 OGSA Mediation OGSA or non OGSA Interface-1 OGSA or non OGSA Interface-2

17. Many Gaps in Generic Services • Some gaps like Workflow and Notification are to make production versions of current projects • Appendix shows workflow from DAME, DiscoveryNet, EDG, Geodise, ICENI, myGrid, Unicore plus Cardiff, NEReSC …. • RGMA and Semantic Grid offer improved meta-data and Information services compared to UDDI and MDS (Globus) • Need comprehensive federated Information service • Security requires architecture supporting dynamic fine-grain authorization • UK e-Science has pioneered Information Grids but gap is continuation of OGSA-DAI, integration with other services and P2P decentralized models • Functionality of Compute/File Grids quite advanced but services probably not robust enough for LCG or Campus Grids

18. Gaps in Other Grid services • Portals and User Interfaces – Noted gap that not using Grid Computing Environment “best practice” with component based user-interfaces matching component-based middleware • Programming Models (using workflow runtime) • Fabric Management (should be integrated with central service management and Information system), Computational Steering, Visualization, Datamining, Accounting, Gridmake, Debugging, Semantic Grid tools (consistent with Information system), Collaboration, provenance • Application-specific services • Note new production central Infrastructure can support both research and production services of this type

19. Technology Repository and TestbedTeam Architecture and Project Coordination Distributed Sub-project Teams Some Non-Technical Gaps (Sections 9 and 11) ACTION PLAN • Some confusion as to “future” of Grid software and how projects should evolve to match evolution of Globus, OGSA etc. • Correspondingly need special attention to education (training) in rapidly changing technologies • Need dedicated testbeds and repositories • Current e-Science projects are typically aimed at “demonstrator” and not broadly deployable “production” software • Correct initial strategy and supports new focus for next phase of core e-Science

20. Action Plan (UK-OMII) Structure • Technology Repository and Testbed Team (MTT) • Compliance testing • Track, training coordination with pro-active alerting technology status/directions • Approximately 6 people • Architecture and Project Coordination (SECT) • Agile Software Engineering and Project Management • Central technology architecture and development • Work with Advisory board (eSSEAB) meeting about once per month initially • 6-12 “professional” people in 1-2 physical sites (single leadership) • Clear relationship to application requirements • Some debate as to “where architecture is” (eSSEAB or SECT) • Distributed Sub-project Teams • “Independent” activities as now but aiming at deployable production software with software engineering and deployment done through SECT/MTT • Set of focused workshops to refine key services and architecture • e.g. service management, messaging, workflow, integration of OGSA-DAI with Compute/File Grids (just a representative set)

21. Central UK-OMII Projects • Develop Grid infrastructure supporting • Robust Reliable Resilient (R3) Essential • Lightweight and Desirable • Peer-to-peer styles Desirable • Could involve asynchronous messaging, federated security (fine-grain authorization), “e-ScienceBean”, invocation frameworks “virtualizing” service component structure and allowing Grids to have either OGSI-compliant or traditional web services • Integrate network monitoring/ reservation/ management including end-to-end network operations • Support critical policies like security, provenance • Powerful Service management (Research needed here but appears to us that clear how to do much better than current systems) • Need to either federate and/or interoperate a world of “Grid Islands”

22. Positioning of UK OMII • Support W3C/OASIS standards and if possible avoid forcing users to build services that need more than standard Web service tools • OGSI supported as an option with invocation framework (hosting environment) supplying this and other additional functionality as needed • Work with OGSA to produce interface standards that are outside W3C/OASIS today (e.g. job submit) • Try to move standards to W3C • Is it correct or useful to suggest OGSA look at federation rather than/as well as interoperability? • Likely to need OGSA-OMII “standards” where GGF has yet to decide • Decide on honest and defensible positioning wrt existing projects such as IBM, Avaki, Globus • All Software registered by MTT/SECT should use OGSA/OMII service model

23. Essential Services in Action Plan(layer 4) • Application level Notification as opposed to low-level notification needed in service management • Workflow runtime supporting transactions and high volume dataflow • Different e-Science programming models/languages can use same runtime and be developed independently • Federated Distributed Information System • From low level service registration through high-level semantic metadata (separated or integrated) • Support of service semantics most quoted “gap” (Semantic Grid leadership important) • Support P2P, Central (MDS style) and service-based (SDE) metadata • Here as elsewhere can collaborate with GT3, EDG …

24. Specific Grid Services (layers 5, 6) • Core Domain Grid Services cover the critical Services for major Grid functionalities • Information Grid: OGSA-DAIT • Compute/File Grid: work with LCG, EDG (follow on), Trillium(USA) on robust infrastructure • New central (R3) architecture affects strategy • Include Campus Grid support • Hybrid Grids (Complexity Grids) integrating computing (filters, transformations) possibly on major parallel computing facilities and data repository access for Bioinformatics, Environmental (Earth) Science, Virtual Observatories …… • Other Services as identified in Gap Analysis with distributed teams working on different services in concert with central team for software engineering and OGSA interfaces as appropriate