On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Amila Jayasekara <thejaka.am...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I am bit concerned about the names. Are we assuming that API users has > knowledge about GFac ? > OR else we can just remove "GFac" substring and have method names like > "void > updateJobMetadta(..)" > You have a point there Amila. Perhaps we can name them as "Application" rather than GFac since we already have the notion of an application descriptor in the API. wdyt? > Thanks > Amila > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <samin...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > Following API functions are added for the ProvenanceManager[2], > > > > boolean isGFacJobExists(String gfacJobId) > > void addGFacJob(GFacJob job) > > void updateGFacJob(GFacJob job) > > void updateGFacJobStatus(String gfacJobId, GFacJobStatus status) > > void updateGFacJobData(String gfacJobId, String jobdata) > > void updateGFacJobSubmittedTime(String gfacJobId, Date submitted) > > void updateGFacJobCompletedTime(String gfacJobId, Date completed) > > void updateGFacJobMetadta(String gfacJobId, String metadata) > > GFacJob getGFacJob(String gfacJobId) > > List<GFacJob> getGFacJobsForDescriptors(String serviceDescriptionId, > String > > hostDescriptionId, String applicationDescriptionId) > > List<GFacJob> getGFacJobs(String experimentId, String > workflowExecutionId, > > String nodeId) > > > > Thoughts are welcome!!! > > > > > > 2. > > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/airavata/trunk/modules/airavata-client/src/main/java/org/apache/airavata/client/api/ProvenanceManager.java > > > > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <samin...@gmail.com > > >wrote: > > > > > But I thought the providers are part of the GFac (not as a separate > > > service). If not then the providers should report to GFac. Orelse there > > is > > > no way the GFac knows what status to update which data to update etc. > > Does > > > the current GFac implementation support this? > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Amila Jayasekara < > > thejaka.am...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> I think that should be handled at a more upper layer like Workflow > > >> Interpretter or GFac. In FT perspective it is better if providers are > > >> stateless. One reason is we dont have control over some providers and > > and > > >> there will be many places writing to disk if we implement the > > persistence > > >> logic at provider level. > > >> > > >> Thanks > > >> Amila > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Saminda Wijeratne < > samin...@gmail.com > > >> >wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Amila Jayasekara > > >> > <thejaka.am...@gmail.com>wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Saminda Wijeratne < > > >> samin...@gmail.com > > >> > > >wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks for the feedback Amila. a few comments inline > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Amila Jayasekara > > >> > > > <thejaka.am...@gmail.com>wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Hi Saminda, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Great suggestion. Also +1 for Dhanushka's proposal to have > > >> > > > > serialize/de-serilized data. > > >> > > > > Few suggestions, > > >> > > > > 1. In addition to successful/error statuses we need other > status > > >> for > > >> > > > nodes > > >> > > > > & workflows > > >> > > > > and workflows. > > >> > > > > E . g :- > > >> > > > > node - started, submitted, in-progress, failed, successful > > etc > > >> ... > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Sorry if I was too vague. Yes we have more fine-grain statuses > for > > >> > > workflow > > >> > > > and node[1]. We will have a much fine-grained level of > granuality > > >> for a > > >> > > > GFacJob status. > > >> > > > public static enum GFacJobStatus{ > > >> > > > SUBMITTED, //job is submitted, possibly waiting to start > > >> > > executing > > >> > > > EXECUTING, //submitted job is being executed > > >> > > > CANCELLED, //job was cancelled > > >> > > > PAUSED, //job was paused > > >> > > > WAITING_FOR_DATA, // job is waiting for data to continue > > >> > > executing > > >> > > > FAILED, // error occurred while job was executing and > the > > >> job > > >> > > > stopped > > >> > > > FINISHED, // job completed successfully > > >> > > > UNKNOWN // unknown status. lookup the metadata for more > > >> > details. > > >> > > > } > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 2. This data will be useful in implementing FT and Load > Balancing > > in > > >> > each > > >> > > > > component. Sometime back we had discussions to make GFac > > >> stateless. > > >> > So > > >> > > > who > > >> > > > > is going to populate this data structure and persist it ? > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > That is a very good question... :). This summer is going to be a > > >> long > > >> > > > one... ;) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > What I meant is which component is doing persistence ? (GFac or WF > > >> > > Interpretter). Not the actual person who is going to implement it > > :). > > >> > > > > >> > hih hih.... > > >> > Well its going to be whatever the provider respondible for managing > > the > > >> job > > >> > lifecycle. For example GRAMProvider should be responsible for > > recording > > >> all > > >> > the data relating to the GRAM jobs its working with. > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 1. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/airavata/trunk/modules/workflow-model/workflow-model-core/src/main/java/org/apache/airavata/workflow/model/graph/Node.java > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks > > >> > > > > Amila > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Saminda Wijeratne < > > >> > > samin...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > >wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thats is an excellent idea. We can have the job data field > to > > be > > >> > the > > >> > > > > > designated GFac job serialized data. The whatever > GFacProvider > > >> > should > > >> > > > > > adhere to it. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I'm still inclined to have the rest of the fields to ease of > > >> > querying > > >> > > > for > > >> > > > > > the required data. For example if we wanted all attempts on > > >> > executing > > >> > > > > for a > > >> > > > > > particular node of a workflow or if we wanted to know which > > >> > > application > > >> > > > > > descriptions are faster in execution or more reliable etc. > we > > >> can > > >> > let > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > > query language deal with it. wdyt? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Danushka Menikkumbura < > > >> > > > > > danushka.menikkumb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Saminda, > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I think the data container does not need to have a generic > > >> > format. > > >> > > We > > >> > > > > can > > >> > > > > > > have a base class that facilitate object > > >> > > > serialization/deserialization > > >> > > > > > and > > >> > > > > > > let specific meta data structure implement them as > required. > > >> We > > >> > get > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > > > Registry API to serialize objects and save them in a meta > > data > > >> > > table > > >> > > > > > (with > > >> > > > > > > just two columns?) and to deserialize as they are loaded > off > > >> the > > >> > > > > > registry. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Danushka > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Saminda Wijeratne < > > >> > > > samin...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > > > >wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > It has being apparent more and more that saving the data > > >> > related > > >> > > to > > >> > > > > > > > executing a jobs from the GFac can be useful for many > > >> reasons > > >> > > such > > >> > > > > as, > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > debugging > > >> > > > > > > > retrying > > >> > > > > > > > to make smart decisions on reliability/cost etc. > > >> > > > > > > > statistical analysis > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thus we thought of saving the data related to GFac jobs > in > > >> the > > >> > > > > registry > > >> > > > > > > in > > >> > > > > > > > order to facilitate feature such as above in the future. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > However a GFac job is potentially any sort of computing > > >> > resource > > >> > > > > access > > >> > > > > > > > (GRAM/UNICORE/EC2 etc.). Therefore we need to come up > > with a > > >> > > > > > generalized > > >> > > > > > > > data structure that can hold the data of any type of > > >> resource. > > >> > > > > > Following > > >> > > > > > > > are the suggested data to save for a single GFac job > > >> execution, > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > *experiment id, workflow instance id, node id* - > pinpoint > > >> the > > >> > > node > > >> > > > > > > > execution > > >> > > > > > > > *service, host, application description ids *- pinpoint > > the > > >> > > > > descriptors > > >> > > > > > > > responsible > > >> > > > > > > > *local job id* - the unique job id retrieved/generated > per > > >> > > > execution > > >> > > > > > > > [PRIMARY KEY] > > >> > > > > > > > *job data* - data related executing the job (eg: the rsl > > in > > >> > GRAM) > > >> > > > > > > > *submitted, completed time* > > >> > > > > > > > *completed status* - whether the job was successfull or > > ran > > >> in > > >> > to > > >> > > > > > errors > > >> > > > > > > > etc. > > >> > > > > > > > *metadata* - custom field to add anything user wants > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Your feedback is most welcome. The API related changes > > will > > >> > also > > >> > > be > > >> > > > > > > > discussed once we have a proper data structure. We are > > >> hoping > > >> > to > > >> > > > > > > implement > > >> > > > > > > > this within next few days. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > > > > Saminda > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
