The Anatomy of Grid Resource Management

Conference paper

Abstract

Grid resource management is a highly studied research field since grids were born. Though well-designed, evaluated, and widely used resource brokers and meta-schedulers have been developed, new capabilities are still required; the most wanting one is interoperability. Existing solutions cannot cross the borders of current middleware systems that are lacking the support of these requirements. In this chapter we first investigate the current resource management solutions from the lowest to the highest level of abstraction, then we examine and compare the building blocks of these systems. The presented anatomy helps the users grasp the basics of their operation and the researchers to identify common components and open issues. We highlight remote instrumentation as one of these issues, and meta-brokering, which enables higher level resource management by establishing communication among existing grid brokers or utilizing them in a centralized manner. The latter is a forerunner of an ongoing grid revolution by implementing a service-oriented knowledge utility (SOKU) service, which is to serve future generation grids.

Keywords

Grid interoperability Grid resource management Grid broker Grid scheduler Grid meta-broker Remote instrumentation 

References

  1. 1.
    M.D. Assuncao, R. Buyya, and S. Venugopal. InterGrid: A Case for Internetworking Islands of Grids. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience (CCPE), 20(8):997–1024, Jul. 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Y. Etsion and D. Tsafrir. A Short Survey of Commercial Cluster Batch Schedulers. Technical Report 2005–13, School of Computer Science and Engineering, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel, May 2005.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. Foster and C. Kesselman. The Globus project: A status report. In Proceedings of the Heterogeneous Computing Workshop, pp. 4–18, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Frizziero, M. Gulmini, F. Lelli, G. Maron, A. Oh, S. Orlando, A. Petrucci, S. Squizzato, and S. Traldi. Instrument element: A new grid component that enables the control of remote instrumentation. In Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid (Ccgrid’06), vol. 00, p. 52, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, May 16–19, 2006.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Global Grid Forum. Job Submission Description Language. http://www.ggf.org/documents/ GFD.56.pdf
  6. 6.
    Grid Workflow Forum. http://www.gridworkflow.org/
  7. 7.
    A. Iosup, D.H.J. Epema, T. Tannenbaum, M. Farrellee, and M. Livny. Inter-operating grids through delegated matchmaking. In Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC07), Reno, Nevada, Nov. 2007.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Kacsuk and G. Sipos. Multi-grid, multi-user workflows in the P-GRADE Grid Portal. Journal of Grid Computing, 3:1–18, Feb. 2006.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Kertesz and P. Kacsuk. Grid meta-broker architecture: Towards an interoperable grid resource brokering service. In CoreGRID Workshop on Grid Middleware in Conjunction with Euro-Par 2006, pp. 112–116, Dresden, Germany, Aug. 28–29, 2006. Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Kertesz and P. Kacsuk. Meta-broker for future generation grids: A new approach for a high-level interoperable resource management. In CoreGRID Workshop on Grid Middleware in Conjunction with ISC’07 conference, Dresden, Germany, June 25–26, 2007.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Kertesz and P. Kacsuk. A taxonomy of grid resource brokers. Sixth Austrian-Hungarian Workshop on Distributed and Parallel Systems (DAPSYS 2006) in Conjunction with the Austrian Grid Symposium 2006, pp. 201–210, Austria, Sep. 21–23, 2006.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Kertesz, I. Rodero, and F. Guim. Data model for describing grid resource broker capabilities. In CoreGRID Workshop on Grid Middleware in Conjunction with ISC’07 Conference, Dresden, Germany, Jun. 25–26, 2007.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. Krauter, R. Buyya, and M. Maheswaran. A taxonomy and survey of grid resource management systems for distributed computing. Software: Practice and Experience (SPE), 32(2): 135–164, Feb. 2002. ISSN: 0038-0644.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Next Generation Grids Report. Future for European Grids: GRIDs and Service Oriented Knowledge Utilities Vision and Research Directions 2010 and Beyond, Dec. 2006. NGG3.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    OGF Grid Scheduling Architectures Work-Group. https://forge.grid-forum.org/sf/-projects/gsa-rg
  16. 16.
    RINGrid Project Webpage. http://www.ringrid.eu/.
  17. 17.
    I. Rodero, J. Corbalan, F. Guim, L.L. Fong, Y.G. Liu, and S. Masoud Sadjadi. Looking for an evolution of grid scheduling: Meta-brokering. In Proceedings of the Second CoreGRID Workshop on Middleware at ISC2007, Dresden, Germany, Jun. 2007.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Vazquez, E. Huedo, R.S. Montero, and I.M. Llorente. Evaluation of a utility computing model based on the federation of grid infrastructures. Euro-Par 2007, pp. 372–381, Rennes, France, Aug. 28, 2007.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Yu and R. Buyya. A taxonomy of scientific workflow systems for grid computing. SIGMOD Rec., ACM Press, 34:44–49, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research InstituteBudapestHungary
  2. 2.GUP, Johannes Kepler UniversityLinzAustria

Personalised recommendations