| 58 | |
| 59 | == Session Summaries == |
| 60 | In the Developer Working Sessions, we had in depth discussions on |
| 61 | several ongoing GENI aggregate and clearinghouse development topics, |
| 62 | particularly Speaks-for, AMSoil, Omni as a library, and long lived slices. |
| 63 | |
| 64 | On Monday, we spent the entire session discussing the planned |
| 65 | implementation of Speaks-for credentials, allowing experimenters to |
| 66 | explicitly authorize a tool to act on their behalf, without forcing |
| 67 | tools to impersonate experimenters. Rob Ricci demonstrated a browser |
| 68 | based tool for generating Speaks-for credentials in |
| 69 | Javascript. Marshall Brinn asserted that GENI should support an early |
| 70 | version of this infrastructure by GEC18. |
| 71 | We then had an open discussion on |
| 72 | how this tool and infrastructure will work, with questions about |
| 73 | aggregates of aggregates and authenticating tools. We ran out of time |
| 74 | before hearing from Ted Faber on ABAC or Aaron Helsinger on stitching. |
| 75 | |
| 76 | Tuesday we began with a review by Sarah Edwards of how tool developers can use Omni as |
| 77 | the engine for developing more powerful, experimenter friendly |
| 78 | tools. Omni is used this way for simple scripts like ready-to-login, |
| 79 | behind the scenes in the GENI Portal and GENI Desktop, and is the basis of an |
| 80 | experimental Awesome Omni (awemni) effort. Sarah also reviewed best |
| 81 | practices for embedding Omni in other tools (such as caching |
| 82 | credentials), and a wish |
| 83 | list of future enhancements to Omni. |
| 84 | |
| 85 | A highlight of the session was an invited presentation by Tom Rothe |
| 86 | representing OFELIA, describing AMSoil. AMSoil is the framework Tom built for |
| 87 | developing GENI aggregates, which is open source, pluggable, and being |
| 88 | used to develop several aggregates among our European collaborators. |
| 89 | |
| 90 | Niky Riga led a lively discussion of how GENI and GENI aggregates |
| 91 | should support 'long lived slices' - slices that remain active for |
| 92 | months or years. Niky cited a number of possible use cases, and issues |
| 93 | that such slices must address: updating an existing set of resources, |
| 94 | aggregate maintenance, unplanned outages, reserving scarce resources, |
| 95 | and policy for permitting reservations longer than the aggregate |
| 96 | default. |
| 97 | |
| 98 | Ilya Baldin (ExoGENI) and Rob Ricci (InstaGENI) offered their |
| 99 | thoughts and fielded questions on how their aggregates might deal with |
| 100 | these concerns. |
| 101 | |
| 102 | Ilya argued that long lived slices must be robust to outages and |
| 103 | downtimes. He suggested that perhaps the AM API should support image |
| 104 | migration in the future, allowing slices to migrate processes around |
| 105 | planned maintenance. He noted that a current ExoGENI development |
| 106 | effort is to improve state recovery over planned maintenance. Update() |
| 107 | will be supported in ExoGENI, but not for at least 6 months. |
| 108 | |
| 109 | Rob noted that their data suggests many GENI experimenters |
| 110 | under-utilize their allocated resources; experimenters reserve the resources |
| 111 | for 5 days, and actively use them only for a couple hours. He |
| 112 | indicated that in the near future the default sliver lifetime at |
| 113 | InstaGENI will |
| 114 | likely be shortened, and they may start refusing to renew slivers that |
| 115 | have been mostly idle. InstaGENI support for Update() will happen |
| 116 | after several other nearer term development efforts, so likely not |
| 117 | before the next GEC. |
| 118 | |
| 119 | Rob split slices into three categories: days, weeks, and forever. Most |
| 120 | users need resources only for days, and the current process fits |
| 121 | that. Experimenters who need resources for weeks could perhaps use a |
| 122 | special credential allowing renewing for longer than the default |
| 123 | maximum. Rob argued that experiments requiring resources practically |
| 124 | 'forever' are few enough that they should be handled manually on a |
| 125 | case by case basis. In their experience, there are so few of these |
| 126 | that developing a general solution would not be cost effective. |
| 127 | |
| 128 | We ran out of time before reviewing the planned common clearinghouse |
| 129 | APIs, which are intended to be supported at the GENI Clearinghouse, |
| 130 | the ProtoGENI clearinghouse, as well as at Fed4Fire and OFELIA in |
| 131 | Europe. |
| 132 | |