On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Raminder Singh <[email protected]>wrote:
> These look good to me. Can you please explain usage of > getGFacJobsFromDescriptors method? How is this different from getting the > descriptors from registry? and who should register this data? > Seems the function name is confusing. This is to filter all the gfac jobs saved in the registry using the descriptors they correspond to. For example if we want to decide whats the fastest result computational resource to execute for Gaussian Service descriptor, we can make a calculated decision from looking at the past records by filtering all the gfac jobs that corresponds to this service descriptor and looking at the duration of execution to see which gfac job took least time to complete. As you can see its not a common usecase for everyday user. > > Also a typo in updateGFacJobMetadta method name. > oops... Thanks Raminder. > > Thanks > Raminder > > On May 21, 2013, at 11:28 PM, Saminda Wijeratne 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 <[email protected] > >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 < > [email protected] > >>> 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 <[email protected] > >>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Amila Jayasekara > >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Saminda Wijeratne < > >>> [email protected] > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for the feedback Amila. a few comments inline > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Amila Jayasekara > >>>>>> <[email protected]>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 < > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>> 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 < > >>>>>>>> [email protected]> 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 < > >>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >
