Grid-Ireland Gateway Architecture One of the initial services the networks intended to offer their clients was access to OMI results. It was envisioned that this should not be passive access, but proactive promotion through which the OMI offering was always proposed to the SME if there was an OMI solution to their problem. Despite multiple attempts to identify and establish an OMI solution for a problem, we were unable to promote OMI beyond the stage of a possible option and to achieve acceptance from an SME to use OMI technology. Multiple reasons exists for this: the huge difficulties identifying an OMI option if at all available; poor packaging and immature technology; low market profile for OMI developments suggesting they are not widely used and far from being a de-facto market standard; absence of previous experiences of applying the technology; most of the hardware developed within OMI is available only as chip building blocks (macrocells) not as chip-sets. In total the OMI option was rejected, as it was perceived to be too risky by the potential user. SMEs are highly risk-sensitive and usually do not operate in volumes justifying development of ASICs that can exploit OMI results, even if the macrocells were licensable with reasonable effort. The responsibility for marketing the OMI results lies with the companies originally developing the processor core or macrocell. The User Support Networks can, not and should not, take on this marketing effort. For the macrocells to find a market with the SMEs they must be turned into chip-sets easily available with proper documentation like application notes helping the SMEs engineer systems exploiting these chips. Knowledge about the available results is a key problem and there is an imminent need for a catalogue detailing what are available out of OMI, the availability of the products, terms and conditions, and application references. Grid-Ireland Gateway Architecture John Walsh David O’Callaghan Brian Coghlan Trinity College Dublin

& Application Developers Grid Musicians Scientists & Application Developers Certificate Authorities System Managers One of the initial services the networks intended to offer their clients was access to OMI results. It was envisioned that this should not be passive access, but proactive promotion through which the OMI offering was always proposed to the SME if there was an OMI solution to their problem. Despite multiple attempts to identify and establish an OMI solution for a problem, we were unable to promote OMI beyond the stage of a possible option and to achieve acceptance from an SME to use OMI technology. Multiple reasons exists for this: the huge difficulties identifying an OMI option if at all available; poor packaging and immature technology; low market profile for OMI developments suggesting they are not widely used and far from being a de-facto market standard; absence of previous experiences of applying the technology; most of the hardware developed within OMI is available only as chip building blocks (macrocells) not as chip-sets. In total the OMI option was rejected, as it was perceived to be too risky by the potential user. SMEs are highly risk-sensitive and usually do not operate in volumes justifying development of ASICs that can exploit OMI results, even if the macrocells were licensable with reasonable effort. The responsibility for marketing the OMI results lies with the companies originally developing the processor core or macrocell. The User Support Networks can, not and should not, take on this marketing effort. For the macrocells to find a market with the SMEs they must be turned into chip-sets easily available with proper documentation like application notes helping the SMEs engineer systems exploiting these chips. Knowledge about the available results is a key problem and there is an imminent need for a catalogue detailing what are available out of OMI, the availability of the products, terms and conditions, and application references. File Systems Operating Systems Batch Systems PBS, LSF Computing Nodes Storage Logging & Bookkeeping

Grid Symphony DB DB Replica Catalog Resource Broker Input Dataset 1 gridui JDL 3 DB One of the initial services the networks intended to offer their clients was access to OMI results. It was envisioned that this should not be passive access, but proactive promotion through which the OMI offering was always proposed to the SME if there was an OMI solution to their problem. Despite multiple attempts to identify and establish an OMI solution for a problem, we were unable to promote OMI beyond the stage of a possible option and to achieve acceptance from an SME to use OMI technology. Multiple reasons exists for this: the huge difficulties identifying an OMI option if at all available; poor packaging and immature technology; low market profile for OMI developments suggesting they are not widely used and far from being a de-facto market standard; absence of previous experiences of applying the technology; most of the hardware developed within OMI is available only as chip building blocks (macrocells) not as chip-sets. In total the OMI option was rejected, as it was perceived to be too risky by the potential user. SMEs are highly risk-sensitive and usually do not operate in volumes justifying development of ASICs that can exploit OMI results, even if the macrocells were licensable with reasonable effort. The responsibility for marketing the OMI results lies with the companies originally developing the processor core or macrocell. The User Support Networks can, not and should not, take on this marketing effort. For the macrocells to find a market with the SMEs they must be turned into chip-sets easily available with proper documentation like application notes helping the SMEs engineer systems exploiting these chips. Knowledge about the available results is a key problem and there is an imminent need for a catalogue detailing what are available out of OMI, the availability of the products, terms and conditions, and application references. Output Dataset 11 Job Submit Event 2 7 5 Resource Broker Information Service 6 4 Job Submission Service 9 8 Computing Nodes Storage Job Status 10 Logging & Bookkeeping

Grid-Ireland Architecture Distributed gateways: TCD, UCD, NUIG, DIAS, UCD One of the initial services the networks intended to offer their clients was access to OMI results. It was envisioned that this should not be passive access, but proactive promotion through which the OMI offering was always proposed to the SME if there was an OMI solution to their problem. Despite multiple attempts to identify and establish an OMI solution for a problem, we were unable to promote OMI beyond the stage of a possible option and to achieve acceptance from an SME to use OMI technology. Multiple reasons exists for this: the huge difficulties identifying an OMI option if at all available; poor packaging and immature technology; low market profile for OMI developments suggesting they are not widely used and far from being a de-facto market standard; absence of previous experiences of applying the technology; most of the hardware developed within OMI is available only as chip building blocks (macrocells) not as chip-sets. In total the OMI option was rejected, as it was perceived to be too risky by the potential user. SMEs are highly risk-sensitive and usually do not operate in volumes justifying development of ASICs that can exploit OMI results, even if the macrocells were licensable with reasonable effort. The responsibility for marketing the OMI results lies with the companies originally developing the processor core or macrocell. The User Support Networks can, not and should not, take on this marketing effort. For the macrocells to find a market with the SMEs they must be turned into chip-sets easily available with proper documentation like application notes helping the SMEs engineer systems exploiting these chips. Knowledge about the available results is a key problem and there is an imminent need for a catalogue detailing what are available out of OMI, the availability of the products, terms and conditions, and application references. Resource Centres: NUIG, UCD, DIAS, UCC, … CPU & disk farms Local management Grid Operations Centre [TCD] Gateway deployment National services Central management

Grid-Ireland Gateway LOGICAL Architecture gridnm gridui gridmon gridstore gridgate gridinstall 1Gbps switch UPS Servers x 6 Level-3 switch UPS Safe One of the initial services the networks intended to offer their clients was access to OMI results. It was envisioned that this should not be passive access, but proactive promotion through which the OMI offering was always proposed to the SME if there was an OMI solution to their problem. Despite multiple attempts to identify and establish an OMI solution for a problem, we were unable to promote OMI beyond the stage of a possible option and to achieve acceptance from an SME to use OMI technology. Multiple reasons exists for this: the huge difficulties identifying an OMI option if at all available; poor packaging and immature technology; low market profile for OMI developments suggesting they are not widely used and far from being a de-facto market standard; absence of previous experiences of applying the technology; most of the hardware developed within OMI is available only as chip building blocks (macrocells) not as chip-sets. In total the OMI option was rejected, as it was perceived to be too risky by the potential user. SMEs are highly risk-sensitive and usually do not operate in volumes justifying development of ASICs that can exploit OMI results, even if the macrocells were licensable with reasonable effort. The responsibility for marketing the OMI results lies with the companies originally developing the processor core or macrocell. The User Support Networks can, not and should not, take on this marketing effort. For the macrocells to find a market with the SMEs they must be turned into chip-sets easily available with proper documentation like application notes helping the SMEs engineer systems exploiting these chips. Knowledge about the available results is a key problem and there is an imminent need for a catalogue detailing what are available out of OMI, the availability of the products, terms and conditions, and application references. gridinstall: boot server for others gridgate: site entry point gridstore: site temporary storage gridmon: information service gridui: submission user interface gridnm: network monitor

Grid-Ireland Gateway PHYSICAL Architecture gridstore gridgate gridinstall 1Gbps switch UPS gridmon gridnm gridui Servers x 3 Level-3 switch UPS Safe 3 servers run as virtual machines One of the initial services the networks intended to offer their clients was access to OMI results. It was envisioned that this should not be passive access, but proactive promotion through which the OMI offering was always proposed to the SME if there was an OMI solution to their problem. Despite multiple attempts to identify and establish an OMI solution for a problem, we were unable to promote OMI beyond the stage of a possible option and to achieve acceptance from an SME to use OMI technology. Multiple reasons exists for this: the huge difficulties identifying an OMI option if at all available; poor packaging and immature technology; low market profile for OMI developments suggesting they are not widely used and far from being a de-facto market standard; absence of previous experiences of applying the technology; most of the hardware developed within OMI is available only as chip building blocks (macrocells) not as chip-sets. In total the OMI option was rejected, as it was perceived to be too risky by the potential user. SMEs are highly risk-sensitive and usually do not operate in volumes justifying development of ASICs that can exploit OMI results, even if the macrocells were licensable with reasonable effort. The responsibility for marketing the OMI results lies with the companies originally developing the processor core or macrocell. The User Support Networks can, not and should not, take on this marketing effort. For the macrocells to find a market with the SMEs they must be turned into chip-sets easily available with proper documentation like application notes helping the SMEs engineer systems exploiting these chips. Knowledge about the available results is a key problem and there is an imminent need for a catalogue detailing what are available out of OMI, the availability of the products, terms and conditions, and application references.

Grid-Ireland Gateway Architecture public network firewall gridinstall repository net tracer UPS gridstore gridnm gridui UML gridgate gridmon 1Gbps switch VLAN0 1Gbps switch VLAN1 One of the initial services the networks intended to offer their clients was access to OMI results. It was envisioned that this should not be passive access, but proactive promotion through which the OMI offering was always proposed to the SME if there was an OMI solution to their problem. Despite multiple attempts to identify and establish an OMI solution for a problem, we were unable to promote OMI beyond the stage of a possible option and to achieve acceptance from an SME to use OMI technology. Multiple reasons exists for this: the huge difficulties identifying an OMI option if at all available; poor packaging and immature technology; low market profile for OMI developments suggesting they are not widely used and far from being a de-facto market standard; absence of previous experiences of applying the technology; most of the hardware developed within OMI is available only as chip building blocks (macrocells) not as chip-sets. In total the OMI option was rejected, as it was perceived to be too risky by the potential user. SMEs are highly risk-sensitive and usually do not operate in volumes justifying development of ASICs that can exploit OMI results, even if the macrocells were licensable with reasonable effort. The responsibility for marketing the OMI results lies with the companies originally developing the processor core or macrocell. The User Support Networks can, not and should not, take on this marketing effort. For the macrocells to find a market with the SMEs they must be turned into chip-sets easily available with proper documentation like application notes helping the SMEs engineer systems exploiting these chips. Knowledge about the available results is a key problem and there is an imminent need for a catalogue detailing what are available out of OMI, the availability of the products, terms and conditions, and application references. cluster network

Grid-Ireland MiniGateway PHYSICAL Architecture Servers x 1 Level-3 switch UPS Safe 5 servers run as virtual machines gridinstall 1Gbps switch UPS gridnm gridui gridmon gridstore gridgate One of the initial services the networks intended to offer their clients was access to OMI results. It was envisioned that this should not be passive access, but proactive promotion through which the OMI offering was always proposed to the SME if there was an OMI solution to their problem. Despite multiple attempts to identify and establish an OMI solution for a problem, we were unable to promote OMI beyond the stage of a possible option and to achieve acceptance from an SME to use OMI technology. Multiple reasons exists for this: the huge difficulties identifying an OMI option if at all available; poor packaging and immature technology; low market profile for OMI developments suggesting they are not widely used and far from being a de-facto market standard; absence of previous experiences of applying the technology; most of the hardware developed within OMI is available only as chip building blocks (macrocells) not as chip-sets. In total the OMI option was rejected, as it was perceived to be too risky by the potential user. SMEs are highly risk-sensitive and usually do not operate in volumes justifying development of ASICs that can exploit OMI results, even if the macrocells were licensable with reasonable effort. The responsibility for marketing the OMI results lies with the companies originally developing the processor core or macrocell. The User Support Networks can, not and should not, take on this marketing effort. For the macrocells to find a market with the SMEs they must be turned into chip-sets easily available with proper documentation like application notes helping the SMEs engineer systems exploiting these chips. Knowledge about the available results is a key problem and there is an imminent need for a catalogue detailing what are available out of OMI, the availability of the products, terms and conditions, and application references.

Grid-Ireland MiniGateway Architecture public network firewall One of the initial services the networks intended to offer their clients was access to OMI results. It was envisioned that this should not be passive access, but proactive promotion through which the OMI offering was always proposed to the SME if there was an OMI solution to their problem. Despite multiple attempts to identify and establish an OMI solution for a problem, we were unable to promote OMI beyond the stage of a possible option and to achieve acceptance from an SME to use OMI technology. Multiple reasons exists for this: the huge difficulties identifying an OMI option if at all available; poor packaging and immature technology; low market profile for OMI developments suggesting they are not widely used and far from being a de-facto market standard; absence of previous experiences of applying the technology; most of the hardware developed within OMI is available only as chip building blocks (macrocells) not as chip-sets. In total the OMI option was rejected, as it was perceived to be too risky by the potential user. SMEs are highly risk-sensitive and usually do not operate in volumes justifying development of ASICs that can exploit OMI results, even if the macrocells were licensable with reasonable effort. The responsibility for marketing the OMI results lies with the companies originally developing the processor core or macrocell. The User Support Networks can, not and should not, take on this marketing effort. For the macrocells to find a market with the SMEs they must be turned into chip-sets easily available with proper documentation like application notes helping the SMEs engineer systems exploiting these chips. Knowledge about the available results is a key problem and there is an imminent need for a catalogue detailing what are available out of OMI, the availability of the products, terms and conditions, and application references. gridinstall repository net tracer gridnm UPS UML gridui gridmon gridgate gridstore 1Gbps switch VLAN0 1Gbps switch VLAN1 cluster network

One of the initial services the networks intended to offer their clients was access to OMI results. It was envisioned that this should not be passive access, but proactive promotion through which the OMI offering was always proposed to the SME if there was an OMI solution to their problem. Despite multiple attempts to identify and establish an OMI solution for a problem, we were unable to promote OMI beyond the stage of a possible option and to achieve acceptance from an SME to use OMI technology. Multiple reasons exists for this: the huge difficulties identifying an OMI option if at all available; poor packaging and immature technology; low market profile for OMI developments suggesting they are not widely used and far from being a de-facto market standard; absence of previous experiences of applying the technology; most of the hardware developed within OMI is available only as chip building blocks (macrocells) not as chip-sets. In total the OMI option was rejected, as it was perceived to be too risky by the potential user. SMEs are highly risk-sensitive and usually do not operate in volumes justifying development of ASICs that can exploit OMI results, even if the macrocells were licensable with reasonable effort. The responsibility for marketing the OMI results lies with the companies originally developing the processor core or macrocell. The User Support Networks can, not and should not, take on this marketing effort. For the macrocells to find a market with the SMEs they must be turned into chip-sets easily available with proper documentation like application notes helping the SMEs engineer systems exploiting these chips. Knowledge about the available results is a key problem and there is an imminent need for a catalogue detailing what are available out of OMI, the availability of the products, terms and conditions, and application references. End