1. Status of top-BDII deployment in EGI
Peter Solagna – EGI.eu
5/26/2018

2. Analysis of current scenario and performance
Summary
Survey results: top-BDII current deployment scenario in the EGI infrastructure
Analysis of current scenario and performance
Proposal for failover enhancement
5/26/2018

3. Top-BDII deployment survey
The target of the survey was:
Identify which NGIs have already experience in high availability and load balancing of top-BDII
Identify which NGIs are interested in the definition of high availability solutions for the top-BDII (e.g. cluster deployment or at client side with other resource providers)
Feedback from NGIs:
18 surveys submitted:
1~5 sites [8]: Croatia, Georgia, Lithuania, Israel, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Switzerland
6~10 sites [2]: Turkey, IGALC
11~15 sites [4]: Serbia, Poland, Greece, Ireland
16~20 sites [2]: France, Netherlands
> 25 sites [2]: Italy, Ibergrid
Most of them (17) are deploying a top-BDII (or are planning to deploy one)
Switzerland has not top-BDII deployed

4. Top-BDIIs in HA and LB Top-BDII scenarios: With HA or LB: 11
Without HA and LB: 6

5. Survey detailed result
NGI
BDII deployed in HA
Interested in studying strategies to improve the robustness of the service
Turkey NO
Georgia
YES
Hungary
Romania
Serbia
IGALC
Ireland
Poland
France
Greece
Croatia
Netherlands
Slovakia
Italy
Lithuania
Switzerland
(YES)
Israel
Portugal
9(10) YES - 8 NO
11 YES - 7 NO

6. Performaces of top-BDIIs not in HA conf.
NGIs not deploying top-BDII in HA
Aval Jan
Aval Feb
Aval Mar
Aval Apr
Aval May
Aval Jun
Aval Jul
Aval Aug
Austria 99
100 95
Australia 98 80
Belarus
Bulgaria NA
Canada
China 75
Cypro
Czech Rep.
Georgia
Hungary
IGALC 92 90 88 85
Latvia 82
Macedonia 89
Malaysia 65
Montenegro 40 50 60
ROC LA 55 72
Romania
Russia ?
Serbia
Slovenia
Turkey
Availability data from gridview
>= 98
>= 90
< 90

7. Strategies to improve top-BDII robustness
Top-BDII is a critical service that needs to be highly available.
WLCG requires 99% service availability
OSG service level target: 99% service availability
NGIs not deploying it in HA should consider one of the following strategies to improve the robustness of the service:
Organize groups of NGIs to configure failover at client side sharing their BDIIs
Configurations needed in every site for these NGIs
Groups of NGIs to configure DNS pools with their BDIIs
NGIs should coordinate to keep BDII installations aligned to avoid not uniform behaviors of the servers in the pool
Implement HA of the service at NGI level
This should be the long term solution for all the NGIs

8. Failover at client side
Option a) seems to be the easiest solution for the near future (when no resources are available for Option c) )
Currently there are already some sites that use the CERN top-BDII as a backup
Sites in UK, Romania and Russia (at least 12, but there may be more)
A better coordination could remove load from the CERN top-BDII and distribute it uniformly across the NGIs

9. Proposed grouping (1)
In the map: NGIs w/o BDII HA

10. Proposed grouping (2) B A D C E

11. Availability improvement
Theoretical availability improvement using the client side failover with the proposed grouping
The proposal is based on the geographical distribution of the BDIIs and has to be agreed.
Groups
11-Jan
11-Feb
11-Mar
11-Apr
11-May
11-Jun
11-Jul
11-Aug
Group A
100
Group B
Group C
Group D
Group E
Group SA 99 92
Group Asia
Note: the grouped availability has been calculated roughly using the monthly availability of the BDIIs in the group. It is the lower boundary

12. Feedback? Are the NGIs without HA interested in the scenario a) or b)?
Would the option a) be useful for NGIs with BDII in HA configuration?
In this way the sites that are still using CERN as a backup top-BDII may configure BDIIs that belong to different NGIs
NGIs who expressed interest in the survey:
Lithuania, Switzerland, Israel, Portugal, Georgia, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, IGALC, Ireland, Poland

13. Thank you for your attention C&C welcome