# Presentation: 818323

## Grid Monitoring Futures with Globus

- Jennifer M. Schopf
- Argonne National Lab
- April 2003

## My Definitions

- Grid:
- Shared resources
- Coordinated problem solving
- Multiple sites (multiple institutions)
- Monitoring:
- Discovery
- Registry service
- Contains descriptions of data that is available
- Expression of data
- Access to sensors, archives, etc.

## What do *I* mean by Grid monitoring?

- Different levels of monitoring needed:
- Application specific
- Node level
- Cluster/site Level
- Grid level
- Grid level monitoring concerns data
- Shared between administrative domains
- For use by multiple people
- (think scalability)

## Grid Monitoring Does Not Include...

- All the data about every node of every site
- Years of utilization logs to use for planning next hardware purchase
- Low-level application progress details for a single user
- Application debugging data (except perhaps notification of a failure of a heartbeat)
- Point-to-point sharing of all data over all sites

## Overview of This Talk

- Evaluation of information infrastructures
- Globus Toolkit MDS2, R-GMA, Hawkeye
- Insights into performance issues
- (publication at HPDC 2003)
- What monitoring and discovery could be
- Next-generation information architecture
- Open Grid Services Architecture mechanisms
- Integrated monitoring & discovery arch for GT3

## Performance and the Grid

- It’s not enough to use the Grid, it has to perform – otherwise, why bother?
- First prototypes rarely consider performance (tradeoff with dev’t time)
- MDS1–centralized LDAP
- MDS2–decentralized LDAP
- MDS3–decentralized Grid service
- Often performance is simply not known

## Globus Monitoring andDiscovery Service (MDS2)

- Part of Globus Toolkit, compatible with other elements
- Used most often for resource selection
- aid user/agent to identify host(s) on which to run an application
- Standard mechanism for publishing and discovery
- Decentralized, hierarchical structure
- Soft-state protocols
- Caching
- Grid Security Infrastructure credentials

## MDS2 Architecture

## Relational Grid Monitoring Architecture (R-GMA)

- Implementation of the Grid Monitoring Architecture (GMA) defined within the Global Grid Forum (GGF)
- Three components
- Consumers
- Producers
- Registry
- GMA as defined currently does not specify the protocols or the underlying data model to be used.

## GGF Grid Monitoring Architecture

## R-GMA

- Monitoring used in the EU Datagrid Project
- Steve Fisher, RAL, and James Magowan, IBM-UK
- Based on the relational data model
- Used Java Servlet technologies
- Focus on notification of events
- User can subscribe to a flow of data with specific properties directly from a data source

## R-GMA Architecture

## Hawkeye

- Developed by Condor Group
- Focus – automatic problem detection
- Underlying infrastructure builds on the Condor and ClassAd technologies
- Condor *ClassAd* Language to identify resources in a pool
*ClassAd Matchmaking *to execute jobs based on attribute values of resources to identify problems in a pool

## Hawkeye Architecture

## Comparing Information Systems

|  | MDS2 | R-GMA | Hawkeye |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Info
Collector | Information Provider | Producer | Module |
| Info 
Server | GRIS | Producer Servlet | Agent |
| Aggregate Info Server | GIIS | (Archiver) | Manager |
| Directory Server | GIIS | Registry | Manager |

**Notes:**
We ran a number of experiments. They were all run using the lucky cluster at argonne, and with “users” simulated at the UC nodes (evenly distributed among 20 nodes for up to 600 simulated users or queries) except in the case of R-GMA where due to architectural constraints we could only run up to about 60 users (consumers) per consumer servlet, and to have multiple consumer servlets we had to have them located at the lucky nodes (details in the paper)
All the figures are 10 minute averages, with the queries happening with a one second wait between each query (think synchronous send with a 1 second wait)

Metrics:

Throughput
Response time
Load – percentage of CPU cycles spent in user mode and system mode, recorded by ganglia
Load1 – average number of processes in the ready queue waiting to run, 1 minute average, from ganglia
Load may be high while load1 is low when a machine is running a small number of compute intensive applications. Load may be low, while load1 is high, if the same machine is trying to run a large number of applications that are blocking on I/O.

## Some Architecture Considerations

- Similar functional components
- Grid-wide for MDS2, R-GMA; Pool for Hawkeye
- Global schema
- Different use cases will lead to different strengths
- GIIS for decentralized registry; no standard protocol to distribute multiple R-GMA registries
- R-GMA meant for streaming data – currently used for NW data; Hawkeye and MDS2 for single queries
- Push vs Pull
- MDS2 is PULL only
- R-GMA allows push and pull
- Hawkeye allows triggers – push model

## Experiments

- How many users can query an information server at a time?
- How many users can query a directory server?
- How does an information server scale with the amount of data in it?
- How does an aggregator scale with the number of information servers registered to it?

## Testbed

- Lucky cluster at Argonne
- 7 nodes, each has two 1133 MHz Intel PIII CPUs (with a 512 KB cache) and 512 MB main memory
- Users simulated at the UC nodes
- 20 P3 Linux nodes, mostly 1.1 GHz
- R-GMA has an issue with the shared file system, so we also simulated users on Lucky nodes
- All figures are 10 minute averages
- Queries happening with a one second wait between each query (think synchronous send with a 1 second wait)

## Metrics

- Throughput
- Number of requests processed per second
- Response time
- Average amount of time (in sec) to handle a request
- Load
- percentage of CPU cycles spent in user mode and system mode, recorded by Ganglia
- High when running small number compute intensive aps
- Load1
- average number of processes in the ready queue waiting to run, 1 minute average, from Ganglia
- High when large number of aps blocking on I/O

## Performance of Information Servers vs. Number of Users

**Notes:**
The information server is the most heavily accessed component in a monitoring and information service. We evaluated the performance of the information servers for three systems—the MDS GRIS, the R-GMA ProducerServlet, and the Hawkeye Agent—when a large number of users accessed it concurrently.
10 info collectors each

MDS GRIS throughput has a near linear relationship with the number of concurrent users if the data is in cache. Its throughput, however, does not exceed 2 queries per second when the data is not in cache, suggesting that data caching is very important to support a large number of users. We observe throughput thresholds for the information servers that did not cache data.  We believe this is because the network on the server side can no longer handle the traffic from the queries, which limits the number of concurrent queries presented to the information server, and so the throughput does not rise above a set level. 
With respect to response time behavior, the GRIS results show stable performance (approximately 4 seconds per query) for 50 concurrent users or more if the GRIS has data in cache. Otherwise the performance is much worse.  For the R-GMA ProducerServlet, the response time grows almost linearly with the number of users, indicating that for larger number of users the system should be configured to have multiple ProducerServlets for the same information to allow better scaling. The Hawkeye Agent had under a 10 second response time per query until 500 users are tested, quite likely because the Hawkeye Agent does not hold the indexed resident database as the Hawkeye Manager and it has to retrieve new information for each query. 

## Experiment 1 Summary

- Caching can significantly improve performance of the information server
- Particularly desirable if one wishes the server to scale well with an increasing number of users
- When setting up an information server, care should be taken to make sure the server is on a well-connected machine
- Network behavior plays a larger role than expected
- If this is not an option, thought should be given to duplicating the server if more than 200 users are expected to query it

## Directory Server Scalability 

**Notes:**
The second functionality we tested was the scalability of the directory server with the number of users. In particular, we examined the performance of the MDS GIIS, the R-GMA Registry and the Hawkeye Manager. 
10 info providers, up to 600 users

## Experiment 2 Summary

- Because of the network contention issues, the placement of a directory server on a highly connected machine will play a large role in the scalability as the number of users grows
- Significant loads are seen even with only a few users, it will be important that this service be run on a dedicated machine, or that it be duplicated as the number of users grows.

## Information Service Throughput vs. Num. of Information Collectors

## Experiment 3 Summary

- Too many information collectors is a performance bottleneck
- Caching data helps
- Alternatively, register to more instances of information servers with each handling a subset of the collectors

## Overall Results

- Performance can be a matter of deployment
- Effect of background load
- Effect of network bandwidth
- Performance can be affected by underlying infrastructure
- LDAP/Java strengths and weaknesses
- Performance can be improved using standard techniques
- Caching; multi-threading; etc.

## So what could monitoring be?

- Basic functionality
- Push and pull (subscription and notification)
- Aggregation and Caching
- More information available
- More higher-level services
- Triggers like Hawkeye
- Viz of archive data like Ganglia
- Plug and Play
- Well defined protocols, interfaces and schemas
- Performance considerations
- Easy searching
- Keep load off of clients

## Topics

- Evaluation of information infrastructures
- Globus Toolkit MDS2, RGMA, Hawkeye
- Throughput, response time, load
- Insights into performance issues
- What monitoring and discovery could be
**Next-generation information architecture**
**Open Grid Services Architecture mechanisms**
**Integrated monitoring & discovery arch for GT3**

## Open Grid Services Architecture (OGSA)

- Defines standard interfaces and behaviors for distributed system integration, especially:
- Standard XML-based service information model
- Standard interfaces for push and pull mode access to service data
- Notification and subscription

## Key OGSI concept - serviceData

- Every service has it’s own service data
- OGSA has common mechanism to expose a service instance’s state data to service requestors for query, update and change notification
- Monitoring data is “baked right in”
- Service-level concept, not host-level concept

## serviceData

- Every Grid Service can expose internal state as **serviceData elements**
- An XML element of arbitrary complexity
- Each service has a **serviceData set**
- The collection of **serviceData Elements** (**SDEs**)
- Example: state of a host is exposed as an SDE by GRAM.
- Similar to MDS2 GRIS functionality, but in each service (rather than once per host)

## Example:Reliable File Transfer Service

- File
- Transfer

*Internal*
*State*

*Data transfer operations*

## MDS3 Monitoring and Discovery System 

- Consists of a various components
- Core functionality
- Information providers
- Higher level services
- Clients

## Core Functionality

- Xpath support
- XPath is a language that describes a way to locate and process items in XML docs by using an addressing syntax based on a path through the document's logical structure or hierarchy
- Xindice support – native XML database
- Registry support

## Schema Issues

- Need to keep track of service data schema
- Avoid conflicts
- Find the data easier
- Should really have unified naming approach
- All of the tool are schema-agnostic, but interoperability needs a well-understood common language

## MDS3 Information Providers in June Release

- All the data currently in core MDS2
- Full data in the GLUE schema for compute elements (CE)
- Ganglia information provider for cluster data will also be available from Ganglia folks (with luck)
- Service data from RFT, RLS, GRAM
- GT2 to GT3 work
- GridFTP server data
- Software version and path data
- Documentation for translating your GT2 information provider to a GT3 information provider

## MDS3 Higher Level Products

- Higher-level services can perform actions on service data collected from other services
- Part of this functionality can be provided by a set of building blocks provided
- Provider interface: GRIS-style API for writing information providers
- Service Data Aggregator: set up subscriptions to data for other services, and publish it as a single data stream
- Hierarchy Builder: allow for hierarchy of aggregators

## MDS3 Index Server

- Simplest higher-level service is the caching index service
- Much like the GIIS in MDS2
- Will have configurablity like an GIIS hierarchy
- Will also have PHP-style scripts, much as available today

## Slide 39

## Clients currently in GT3

- findServiceData command line client
- Same functionality of grid-info-search
- C bindings
- Core C bindings provide findServiceData C function
- findServiceData command line client gives an example of using it to parse out information (in this case, registry contents)

## Service Data Browser

- GUI client to display service data from any service
- Extensible for data-specific visualization
- A version was released with GT3 alpha
- http://www.globus.org/ogsa/releases/ alpha/docs/infosvcs/sdbquickstart.html

## Comparing Information Systems

|  | MDS2 | R-GMA | Hawkeye | MDS3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Info
Collector | Info. Provider | Producer | Module | Service (SDEs) |
| Info 
Server | GRIS | Producer Servlet | Agent | Service (service data set) |
| Agg. Info Server | GIIS | (Archiver) | Manager | Index Service |
| Directory Server | GIIS | Registry | Manager | Index Service |

## Is this enough?

- No!
- Many places where additional help developing MDS3 is needed

## We Need More Basic Information

- Interfaces to other sources of data
- GPT data
- Other monitoring systems
- Others?
- Service data from other components
- Every service has service data
- OGSA-DAI
- Will need to interface on schema

## We Will Need More GUIs and Clients

- Additional GUI visualizers may be implemented to display service data specific to a particular port type (as part of service data browser)
- Additional Client interfaces possibly
- Integration into current portals, brokers

## We Need MoreHigher Level Services

- We have a couple planned
- Archiving service
- Trigger template

## Post-3.0 release: Archiving Service

- Will allow subscription to service data
- Logging in a flexible way
- Well defined interfaces for mining
- Open questions:
- Best way to store time-series of arbitrary XML?
- Best way to query this archive?
- Link to OGSA-DAI?
- Link to other archivers?

## Post-3.0 release: Trigger Template

- Will provide a template to allow subscription to data, reasoning about that data, and a course of action to take place
- Essentially, a gateway service between OGSA Notifications and some other notification framework, with filtering of notifications
- Example: Subscribe to disk space information, send mail to sys admin when it reached 90% full
- Needed: trigger template and several small examples of common triggers, and documentation for how users could extend them or write new ones.

## Other Possible HigherLevel Services

- Site Validation Service
- Job Tracking Service
- Interfacing to Netlogger?

## We Need Security

- Need I say more?

## Summary

- Current monitoring systems
- Insights into performance issues
- What we really want for monitoring and discovery is a combination of all the current systems
- Next-generation information architecture
- Open Grid Services Architecture mechanisms
- MDS3 plans
- Additional work needed!

## Thanks

- Testbed/Experiment support and comments
- John Mcgee, ISI; James Magowan, IBM-UK; Alain Roy and Nick LeRoy at University of Wisconsin, Madison;Scott Gose and Charles Bacon, ANL; Steve Fisher, RAL; Brian Tierney and Dan Gunter, LBNL.
- This work was supported in part by the Mathematical, Information, and Computational Sciences Division subprogram of the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research, U.S. Department of Energy, under contract W-31-109-Eng-38. This work also supported by DOESG SciDAC Grant, iVDGL from NSF, and others.

## Additional Information

- MDS3 technology coordinators
- Ben Clifford (_[benc@isi.edu](mailto:benc@isi.edu)_)
- Jennifer Schopf (_[jms@](mailto:jms@mcs.anl.gov)__[mcs](mailto:jms@mcs.anl.gov)__[.](mailto:jms@mcs.anl.gov)__[anl](mailto:jms@mcs.anl.gov)__[.](mailto:jms@mcs.anl.gov)__[gov](mailto:jms@mcs.anl.gov)_)
- Zhang, Freschl and Schopf, “A Performance Study of Monitoring and Information Services for Distributed Systems”, to appear in HPDC 2003
- _[http://people.](http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~hai/hpdcv25.doc)__[cs](http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~hai/hpdcv25.doc)__[.](http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~hai/hpdcv25.doc)__[uchicago](http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~hai/hpdcv25.doc)__[.](http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~hai/hpdcv25.doc)__[edu](http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~hai/hpdcv25.doc)__[/~](http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~hai/hpdcv25.doc)__[hai](http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~hai/hpdcv25.doc)__[/hpdcv25.doc](http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~hai/hpdcv25.doc)_
- MDS-3 information
- Soon at _[www.globus.org/mds](http://www.globus.org/mds)_

## Extra Slides

## Why Information Infrastructure?

- Distributed, often complex, performance-critical nature of Grids & apps demands tools for
- Discovering available resources
- Discovering available sensors
- Integrating information from multiple sources
- Archiving and replaying historical information
- These and other functions are provided by an information infrastructure
- Many projects are concerned with design, deployment, evaluation, and application

## Performance of GIS Information Servers vs. Number of Users

**Notes:**
The information server is the most heavily accessed component in a monitoring and information service. We evaluated the performance of the information servers for three systems—the MDS GRIS, the R-GMA ProducerServlet, and the Hawkeye Agent—when a large number of users accessed it concurrently.
10 info collectors each

MDS GRIS throughput has a near linear relationship with the number of concurrent users if the data is in cache. Its throughput, however, does not exceed 2 queries per second when the data is not in cache, suggesting that data caching is very important to support a large number of users. We observe throughput thresholds for the information servers that did not cache data.  We believe this is because the network on the server side can no longer handle the traffic from the queries, which limits the number of concurrent queries presented to the information server, and so the throughput does not rise above a set level. 
With respect to response time behavior, the GRIS results show stable performance (approximately 4 seconds per query) for 50 concurrent users or more if the GRIS has data in cache. Otherwise the performance is much worse.  For the R-GMA ProducerServlet, the response time grows almost linearly with the number of users, indicating that for larger number of users the system should be configured to have multiple ProducerServlets for the same information to allow better scaling. The Hawkeye Agent had under a 10 second response time per query until 500 users are tested, quite likely because the Hawkeye Agent does not hold the indexed resident database as the Hawkeye Manager and it has to retrieve new information for each query. 

## Performance of GIS Information Servers vs. Number of Users

## Performance of GIS Information Servers vs. Number of Users

## Performance of GIS Information Servers vs. Number of Users

## Directory Server Scalability 

**Notes:**
The second functionality we tested was the scalability of the directory server with the number of users. In particular, we examined the performance of the MDS GIIS, the R-GMA Registry and the Hawkeye Manager. 
10 info providers, up to 600 users

## Directory Server Scalability

## Directory Server Scalability

## Directory Server Scalability