As a user I don't think I would pay to run workflows. I might purchase the workflow to run on my local machine... Another idea might be to allow users to share their computing resources with the community. "Grid Appliances" has a system that works through facebook using virtual machines. Or a BOINC approach could be taken compiling each workflow for the different platforms. Even without these features, I am really impressed by Taverna and the creativity of developers. Still trying to get up to speed so I can start contributing.
~Jp On Mar 31, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > 2009/3/31 Marco Roos <[email protected]>: > >> I'm not so afraid of the 'delete-all' workflow. The dykes of >> Holland have a >>> 0% chance of flooding, but I feel quite safe ;-) >> >> Would most harm not be limited to the local machine? That may >> actually plea >> for cloud virtual machines: easy to setup and destroy again. > > Yes, one advantage of virtual machines is that you could just throw it > away after running a (I assume lengthy) workflow. The only thing left > then is to limit network access, which should be possible. > > Off-topic: > > You could even start up your own business selling Taverna workflow > execution as a cloud service - and run that on the cloud! Assuming > EC2, they charge $0.10/hour - that's about $72/month for one node > being idle. > > If you can sell execution of workflows for say.. $0.15/workflowrun, > you'll need to sell about 480 runs a month to stay even. As most > workflows don't run for a full hour, you can lower the price if the > volume goes up. If workflows take longer, you can set the price for > like $0.12/workflowrun as a startup cost, and $0.10 per additional > hour. > > If you get more customers - you simply fire up another EC2 node. > > > (One of the problems with EC2 is that they charge per hour, but you > only get a virtual machine. So even if you can fire it up on demand - > you have to wait for the virtual machine to start up - and also I > guess you would need at least one node that can take take the response > and do the on-demand startup if needed. > > Perhaps another business model would be to provide say cloud Tomcat's > (web containers) - where you put in a .war file and pay a standing > charge that is lower than $0.10/hour, and an execution charge higher > than $0.10/hour. > > On the first request to an application, the .war is deployed, the > clock starts ticking, and request is served. After some time-out > (user-specified) the .war is undeployed. If "too many" requests come > in, a second tomcat instance is thrown up and the .war deployed there > as well. If the user has ticked that his .war can't scale to multiple > containers, then the system would redistribute applications between > containers, in worst case one instance per container. If the customer > wants to scale more, he would have to recode his application to > support multiple instances) > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team > School of Computer Science > The University of Manchester > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------- > _______________________________________________ > taverna-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/taverna-users > Documentation: http://www.mygrid.org.uk/usermanual1.7/ > FAQ: http://www.mygrid.org.uk/wiki/Mygrid/TavernaFaq > Biological Services: http://www.mygrid.org.uk/wiki/Mygrid/ > BiologicalWebServices > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ taverna-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/taverna-users Documentation: http://www.mygrid.org.uk/usermanual1.7/ FAQ: http://www.mygrid.org.uk/wiki/Mygrid/TavernaFaq Biological Services: http://www.mygrid.org.uk/wiki/Mygrid/BiologicalWebServices
