1 / 41

The DataTAG Project

The DataTAG Project. Presented at the International workshop on Grid and distributed computing 20th April 2002, BUCHAREST Olivier H. Martin CERN - IT Division. Presentation outline. CERN networking Internet connectivity CERN Internet Exchange Point (CIXP) Grid networking requirements

hateya
Download Presentation

The DataTAG Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The DataTAG Project Presented at the International workshop on Grid and distributed computing 20th April 2002, BUCHAREST Olivier H. Martin CERN - IT Division

  2. Presentation outline • CERN networking • Internet connectivity • CERN Internet Exchange Point (CIXP) • Grid networking requirements • Evolution of transatlantic circuit costs • DataTAG project • Partners • Goals • Positioning • Grid networking issues • Concluding remarks • Appendix A: Detailed Workplan

  3. Main Internet connections at CERN Mission Oriented & World Health Org. IN2P3 Swiss NationalResearchNetwork General purpose A&R and commodity Internet connections (Europe/USA/World) WHO 2.5Gbps SWITCH 45Mbps 155Mbps Europe GEANT (1.25/2500Mbps) 1Gbps USLIC 622Mbps USA 1Gbps CERN CIXP 2.5Gbps Commercial DataTAG Research

  4. Telecom Operators & dark fibre providers: Cablecom, COLT, France Telecom, Global Crossing, GTS/EBONE, KPNQwest, LDCom(*), Deutsche Telekom/Multilink, MCI/Worldcom, SIG, Sunrise/diAx, Swisscom (Switzerland), Swisscom (France), SWITCH (**), Thermelec, VTX/Smartphone. Internet Service Providers include: 3GMobile (*), Infonet, AT&T Global Network Services (formerly IBM), Cablecom, Callahan, Carrier1, Colt, DFI, Deckpoint, Deutsche Telekom, diAx (dplanet), Easynet, Ebone/GTS, Eunet/KPNQwest, France Telecom/OpenTransit, Global-One, InterNeXt, IS Internet Services (ISION), IS-Productions, Nexlink, Net Work Communications (NWC), PSI Networks (IProlink), MCI/Worldcom, Petrel, Renater, Sita/Equant(*), Sunrise, Swisscom IP-Plus, SWITCH, GEANT, VTX, UUnet. CERN’s Distributed Internet Exchange Point (CIXP) isp isp Telecom operators c i x p isp isp isp isp isp isp CERN firewall Telecom operators Cern Internal Network

  5. Long term Data Grids networking requirements • A basic assumption of Data intensive Grids is that the underlying network is more or less invisible. • A prerequisite, therefore, is very fast links between Grid nodes • Is the hierarchical structure of European academic R&E networks and the pan-European interconnection backbone GEANT a sustainable long term model, in order to adequately support Data intensive Grids such as the LHC Grid (Large Hadron Collider)? • Are lambda Grids, feasible & affordable? • Interesting to note that the original LHC computing model which was itself hierarchical (Tier0, Tier1, etc) appears to be evolving towards a somewhat more flexible model.

  6. Evolution of LHC bandwidth requirements • LHC Bandwidth Requirements (1999) • 622 Mbps between CERN and some (or all) LHC regional centers by 2005 • “There seems to be no other way to reach the LHC target than to significantly increase the budget for external networking by a factor of 3 to5, depending on when the bandwidth should be delivered”. • LHC Bandwidth Requirements (2001) • 2.5 Gbps between CERN and some (or all) LHC regional centers by 2005 • “In any case, a great deal of optimism is needed in order to reach the LHC target!” • LHC Bandwidth Requirements (2002) • 10 Gbps between CERN and some (or all) LHC regional centers by 2006 • It is very likely that the first long haul 10Gbps circuits will already appear at CERN in 2003/2004. • What happened? • Evolution of circuit costs

  7. What happened? • As a result of the EU wide deregulation of the Telecom that took place in 1998, there is an extraordinary situation today where circuit prices have gone much below the most optimistic forecasts! • However, as a result, many Telecom Operators are having serious difficulties and it is very hard to make predictions about the evolution of prices in the future? • Technology still improving fast, 3 to 10 Tbps per fiber, with more colors/lambdas per fiber and faster lambdas…. • Installation costs are increasing rather than decreasing… • Will the unavoidable consolidation result in stable, increasing or decreasing prices? • Only time will tell us!

  8. Evolution of transatlantic circuit costs • Since 1995, we have been tracking the prices of transatlantic circuits in order to assess the budget needed to meet the LHC bandwidth targets: • The following scenarios have been considered: • conservative (-20% per year) • very plausible (-29% per year, i.e. prices halved every two years) • Moore’s law (-37% per year, i.e. prices halved every 18 months) • optimistic (-50% per year) • N.B. Unlike raw circuits, where a price factor of 2 to 2.5 for 4 times the capacity is usually the norm, commodity Internet pricing are essentially linear (e.g. 150 CHF/Mbps)

  9. The DataTAG Project http://www.datatag.org

  10. Funding agencies Cooperating Networks

  11. EU partners

  12. Associated US partners

  13. The project • European partners: INFN (IT), PPARC (UK), University of Amsterdam (NL) and CERN, as project coordinator. • INRIA (FR) will join in June/July2002. • ESA/ESRIN (IT) will provide Earth Observation demos together with NASA. • Budget: 3.98 MEUR • Start date: January, 1, 2002 • Duration: 2 years (aligned on DataGrid) • Funded manpower: ~ 15 persons/year The DataTAG Project

  14. US Funding & collaborations • US NSF support through the existing collaborative agreement with CERN (Eurolink award). • US DoE support through the CERN-USA line consortium. • Significant contributions to the DataTAG workplan have been made by Andy Adamson (University of Michigan), Jason Leigh (EVL@University of Illinois), Joel Mambretti (Northwestern University), Brian Tierney (LBNL). • Strong collaborations already in place with ANL, Caltech, FNAL, SLAC, University of Michigan, as well as Internet2 and ESnet. The DataTAG Project

  15. In a nutshell • Two main focus: • Grid related network research (WP2, WP3) • Interoperability between European and US Grids (WP4) • 2.5 Gbps transatlantic lambda between CERN (Geneva) and StarLight (Chicago) around July 2002 (WP1). • Dedicated to research (no production traffic) • Fairly unique multi-vendor testbed with layer2 and layer 3 capabilities • In principle open to other EU Grid projects as well as ESA for demonstrations The DataTAG Project

  16. Multi-vendor testbed with layer3 as well as layer2 capabilities INFN (Bologna) STARLIGHT (Chicago) Abilene CERN (Geneva) GEANT ESnet 1.25Gbps Juniper Juniper 2.5Gbps Cisco 6509 M M Alcatel Alcatel Starlight GBE 622Mbps Cisco Cisco M= Layer 2 Mux The DataTAG Project

  17. Goals • End to end Gigabit Ethernet performance using innovative high performance transport protocols. • Assess & experiment inter-domain QoS and bandwidth reservation techniques. • Interoperability between some major GRID projects in Europe and North America • DataGrid, possibly other EU funded Grid projects • PPDG, GriPhyN, Teragrid, iVDGL (USA) The DataTAG Project

  18. UK SuperJANET4 NL SURFnet GEANT IT GARR-B DataTAG project NewYork Abilene STAR-LIGHT ESNET CERN MREN STAR-TAP Major 2.5 Gbps circuits between Europe & USA

  19. Project positioning • Why yet another 2.5 Gbps transatlantic circuit? • Most existing or planned 2.5 Gbps transatlantic circuits are for production, which makes them basically not suitable for advanced networking experiments that require a great deal of operational flexibility in order to investigate new application driven network services, e.g.: • deploying new equipment (routers, G-MPLS capable multiplexers), • activating new functionality (QoS, MPLS, distributed VLAN) • The only known exception to date is the Surfnet circuit between Amsterdam & Chicago (Starlight) • Concerns: • How far beyond Starlight can DataTAG extend? • How fast will US research network infrastructure match that of Europe! The DataTAG Project

  20. The STAR LIGHT • Next generation STAR TAP with the following main distinguishing features: • Neutral location (Northwestern University) • 1/10 Gigabit Ethernet based • Multiple local loop providers • Optical switches for advanced experiments • The STAR LIGHT will provide 2*622 Mbps ATM connection to the STAR TAP • Started in July 2001 • Also hosting other advanced networking projects in Chicago & State of Illinois N.B. Most European Internet Exchanges Points have already been deployed along the same principles. The DataTAG Project

  21. Major Grid networking issues • QoS (Quality of Service) • still largely unresolved on a wide scale because of complexity of deployment • TCP/IP performance over high bandwidth, long distance networks • The loss of a single packet will affect a 10Gbps stream with 200ms RTT (round trip time) for 5 hours. During that time the average throughput will be 7.5 Gbps. • On the 2.5Gbps DataTAG circuit with 100ms RTT, this translates to 38 minutes recovery time, during that time the average throughput will be 1.875Gbps. • Line Error rates • A 2.5 Gbps circuit can absorb 0.2 Million packets/second • Bit error rates of 10E-9 means one packet loss every 250 mseconds • Bit error rates of 10E-11 means one packet loss every 25 seconds • End to end performance in the presence of firewalls • There is a lack of high performance firewalls, can we rely on products becoming available or should a new architecture be evolved? • Evolution of LAN infrastructure to 1Gbps then 10Gbps • Uniform end to end performance The DataTAG Project

  22. Single stream vs Multiple streams effect of a single packet loss (e.g. link error, buffer overflow) Streams/Throughput 10 5 1 7.5 4.375 2 9.375 10 Avg. 7.5 Gbps Throughput Gbps 7 5 Avg. 6.25 Gbps Avg. 4.375 Gbps 5 Avg. 3.75 Gbps 2.5 T = 2.37 hours! (RTT=200msec, MSS=1500B) Time T T T T The DataTAG Project

  23. Concluding remarks • The dream of abundant bandwith has now become a hopefully lasting reality! • Major transport protocol issues still need to be resolved. • Large scale deployment of bandwidth greedy applications still remain to be done, • Proof of concept has yet to be made. The DataTAG Project

  24. Workplan (1) • WP1: Provisioning & Operations (P. Moroni/CERN) • Will be done in cooperation with DANTE & National Research & Education Networks (NREN) • Two main issues: • Procurement (largely done already for what concerns the circuit, equipment still to be decided). • Routing, how can the DataTAG partners access the DataTAG circuit across GEANT and their national network? • Funded participants: CERN(1FTE), INFN (0.5FTE) • WP5: Information dissemination and exploitation (CERN) • Funded participants: CERN(0.5FTE) • WP6: Project management (CERN) • Funded participants: CERN(2FTE) The DataTAG Project

  25. Workplan (2) • WP2: High Performance Networking (Robin Tasker/PPARC) • High performance Transport • tcp/ip performance over large bandwidth*delay networks • Alternative transport solutions using: • Modified TCP/IP stack • UDP based transport conceptually similar to rate based TCP • End to end inter-domain QoS • Advance network resource reservation • Funded participants: PPARC (2FTE), INFN (2FTE), UvA (1FTE), CERN(1FTE) The DataTAG Project

  26. Workplan (3) • WP3: Bulk Data Transfer & Application performance monitoring (Cees deLaat/UvA) • Performance validation • End to end user performance • Validation • Monitoring • Optimization • Application performance • Netlogger • Funded participants: UvA (2FTE), CERN(0.6FTE) The DataTAG Project

  27. WP4 Workplan(Antonia Ghiselli & Cristina Vistoli / INFN) • Main Subject: • Interoperability between EU and US Grids services from DataGrid, GriPhyN, PPDG and in collaboration with iVDGL, for the HEP applications. • Objectives: • Produce an assessment of interoperability solutions • Provide test environment to LHC Applications to extend existing use-cases to test interoperability of the grid components • Provide input to a common Grid LHC architecture • Plan EU-US Integrated grid deployment • Funded participants: INFN (6FTE), PPARC (1FTE), UvA (1FTE) The DataTAG Project

  28. WP4 Tasks Assuming the same grid basic services (gram,gsi,gris) between the differen grid projects, the main issues are: • 4.1 resource discovery, coord. C.Vistoli • 4.2 security/authorization, coord. R.Cecchini • 4.3 interoperability of collective services between EU-US grid domains, coord. F.Donno • 4.4 test applications, contact people from each application : • Atlas / L.Perini, CMS / C.Grandi, • Alice / P.Cerello The DataTAG Project

  29. DataTAG/WP4 framework and relationships Grid projects: DataGrid PPDG Griphyn LCG Globus Condor ….. input feedback ….. Grid Interoperability Activities: DataTAG/WP4 iVDGL HICB/HIJTB GGF Integration stardardization Proposals ….. Applications: LHC experiments CDF Babar ESA The DataTAG Project

  30. WP4.1 - Resource DiscoveryObjectives • Enabling an interoperable system that allows for the discovery and access of the Grid services available at participant sites of all Grid domains, in particular between EU and US Grids. • Compatibility of the Resource Discovery System with the existent components/services of the available GRID systems. The DataTAG Project

  31. Task 4.1 Time Plan • Reference agreement document on resource discovery schema by 31st of May 2002 • “INTERGRID VO” MDS test by 31st of July 2002 • Evaluation of the interoperability of multiple Resource Discovery Systems (FTree, MDS, etc…) by 30th of September 2002 • Network Element by 31st of December 2002 • Impact of the new Web Services Technology by 31st of June 2003 • Identify missing components. by 31st of June 2003 • Final deployment. by 31st of December 2003 The DataTAG Project

  32. WP4.2 - Objectives • Identify Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (AAA) mechanisms allowing interoperability between grids • Compatibility of the AAA mechanisms with the existing components/services of the available GRID systems. The DataTAG Project

  33. Task 4.2 Time Plan • Reference document • Issues • Minimum requirements for DataTAG CA’s; • Analysis of available authorization tools and policy languages and their suitability (in cooperation with the DataGrid Authorization WG); • Mapping of the policies of the VO domains; • Information exchange protocol between the authorization systems; • Feasibility study of an accounting system (in cooperation with the DataGrid WP1); First draft: 31 July 2002 Final version: 30 April 2003 • Deployment First: 30 September 2002 Final: 31 December 2003 The DataTAG Project

  34. WP4.3 / WP4.4 - Objectives • Identify grid elements in EU and US grid projects, Identify common components in the testbeds used by the HEP experiments for semi-production activities in EU and US and classify them in an architectural framework. • Plan and Setup “InterGrid VO” environment with common EU-US services. • Deployment of an EU-US VO domain in collaboration with iVDGL. The DataTAG Project

  35. Task 4.3/4.4 Time Plan The time plan will follow the schedule of each experiment • Study of exp. Layout and Classification – first result by 31st of June 2002 • First deployment (already started) by 31st of September 2002 • First report of integration and interoperability issues by 30th of December 2002 • First working version of a VO EU-US domain by 31st of June 2003 • Complete deployment. by 31st of December 2003 The DataTAG Project

More Related