perfsonar development work

[Herbert Souza <>]

Hi all,

 

I did not participate of the confCall() of active form (because of microphone problems) but I heard all.

 

In relation to this email it follows below my replies.

 
>2. Maybe (II)-RNP could be combined with (I)-I2/ESNET? But RNP has
>already had its own LS. So, it depends on them.

Yes it does not have problem in combine with the (I)-I2/ESNET. But for an active participation we would like to participate with a LS deployed in RNP.

Thanks and best regards!

Nicolas Simar
 <> escreveu:
>  Hi all,
>
> We had a little brainstorm with Maciej and Vedrin on the Lookup server 
> as input for Thursday discussion.
>
> Those are the main points which came out of it:
>
> 1) Because of the multi-LS is distributed, we would be better off 
> starting with several LSes rather than a single one. The transition 
> later on would be easier.
> 2) Because we don't know yet the capabilities of a LS in term of 
> handeling information, it would be best to have several LSes with a 
> different amount of information store on them (variation of number of 
> interfaces and number of services registered at it, this would give us 
> some clues about their capabilities). Vedrin mention that with the 
> current tests he has been doing, he don't expects the LS to be able to 
> support more than few
>  hundreds of interfaces.
> 3) In ordre to get more feedback on deployed instance of the LS (find 
> bugs, etc) , it would be best to have several NRENs deploying the LS. 
> Three more that currently would be ideal.
>
> The suggestion would be to have 5 LS deployed with all the services 
> registering at them. Maciej wrote a quite sensible proposal on how 
> ideally they could group together, allowing us to observe the behavior 
> (see below). Basically, the suggestion would be that all the NRENs 
> within a groups would register their service to a single LS (one of them 
> volunteering to deploy it).
>
> My proposal is to install several LSes for:
>    (institutions, number of interfaces, country/area)
>
> (I) North America (2 MAs, 498 interfaces)
>   - ESNET         415   US
>   - Internet2      83   US [*]
>
> (II) South America (1MA, 63 interfaces)
>   - RNP            63   Brazil [*]
>
> (III) Central Europe (3MA, 24 interfaces)
>   -
>  PIONIER-RRD    23   Poland [*]
>   - PIONIER-SQL     1   Poland
>   - CESNET          -   Czech Rep.
>
> (IV) Western Europe (2MAs, 317 interfaces)
>   - GEANT          45   UK
>   - SWITCH        272   Switzerland [*]
>
> (V)  South-East Europe (6MAs, 201 interfaces)
>   - GRNET          24   Greece
>   - CARNET          8   Croatia
>   - ISTF-J         80   Bulgaria [*]
>   - ISTF-P         80   Bulgaria
>   - MREN            2   Serbia and Montenegro
>   - SEEREN          7   South-East Europe
>
> (VI) Nothern Europe (Scandinavia) (1MA, 969 interfaces)
>   - UNINETT       969   Norway [*]
>
> ======
> Notes:
> ======
>
> 1. [*] are potential places where LSes should/could be deployed
>
> 2. Maybe (II)-RNP could be combined with (I)-I2/ESNET? But RNP has
> already had its own LS. So, it depends on them.
>
> 3. PSNC has really small amount of data, and it could be combined with
> other group, but I it's already been installed and I'd
>  like to have
> other deployment as well. Moreover, the PSNC LS might be the newest one
> (I assume it's already been the newest one supporting Result Codes)
>
> 4. In the future we can move some interfaces to PSNC from other Lookup
> Services it the number of interfaces will be growing up in other areas.
>
>
>
> Maciej and Vedrin mentioned that it would be of value if at least two 
> NRENs could deploy the latest LS as it contains error code. It has also 
> the advantage that developpers of visualisation services can test that 
> feature).
>
> It is proposed to:
>   (I), (II) and probably (VI) be perfSONAR 1.0 LS
>   (III), (V) and maybe (IV) be perfsonar 1.0a (snapshot on wiki)
>
> So an NREN would have the choice between deploying
> 1. the released LS:
> - pros: it has been tested and work with the released MA, it is easy to 
> install (installation scripts)
> - cons: the troubleshooting is more difficult as no errors codes
> or
> 2. the
>  latest version of the LS (Maciej to indicate which version so 
> that a single one is used and not four different latest versions)
> - pros: it contains erros codes which helps the troubleshooting in case 
> of problem.
>
> Cheers,
> Nicolas
>
> Eric L. Boyd wrote:
> > Greetings,
> > 
> > I'd like to propose a meeting for next week to discover operational 
> > support for perfSONAR discovery requests.
> > 
> > In effect, we should discuss deploying the centralized lookup server 
> > (v1.0) supported operationally by the project in the short term until we 
> > have working, deployed instances of the Multi-LS.
> > 
> > I'd like to propose Thursday, July 27, at 10 AM ET.
> > 
> > I'd like to ensure sufficient critical mass to have this discussion, so 
> > please let me know if you can make it. Otherwise
> > 
> > --Eric
> > 
>
> --
>  
> Nicolas
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> Nicolas Simar
> Network Engineer
>
> DANTE - www.dante.net
>
> Tel - BE: +32 (0) 4 366 93 49
> Tel - UK: +44 (0)1223 371 300
> Mobile: +44 (0) 7740 176 883
>
> City House, 126-130 Hills Road
> Cambridge CB2 1PQ
> UK
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
>
>  
>

Herbert Monteiro Souza

NUPERC - UNIFACS

E-mail alternativo:

Cel.: 55 (71) 88029549

Tel. Com.: 55 (71)3300179

---

O Yahoo! está de cara nova. Venha conferir!