1. Open Grid Computing Environments www.collab-ogce.org
Marlon Pierce (IU)
&
Gopi Kandaswamy (RENCI)

2. OGCE Software
A bundled set of JSR 168 compatible portlets and services for building Grid portals (“Science Gateways”).
Build with GridSphere.
Can will work with uPortal.
Sakai has new JSR 168 Container
Others possible
Porltets include
GT2 and GT4 GRAM Job submission
GridFTP file transfer
GPIR clients (can work with Teragrid, for example)
PURSe grid registration system.
Condor
MyProxy credential management
Miscellaneous (Iframes)

3. Supporting Grid Portlet Development
Portlets are built using the Java COG 4’s abstraction layer (developed as part of the project).
Hides the difference between Globus versions
We have developed a set of JSF Tag Libraries to simplify Grid portlet development.
We support JSR 168 Velocity for historical interest.

4. Some OGCE Portal Collaborations
RENCI TeraGrid BioPortal
LEAD Portal
TeraGrid User Portal
TeraGrid Visualization Portal
CIMA Crystallography Portal
VLAB Portal Project
Numerous other projects that come and go:
PittGrid Portal, UNC-Charlotte Visualization Portal, DES and LSST Astronomy Portals, IU System Portals

13. Future Directions (1/3)
General Trend: we want to align with TeraGrid Science Gateways efforts.
User logging and reporting
Par of TG User Portal now
Generate reports such as
Top 10 users of the portal,
Most frequently used applications and the average response times of each
Applications used by individual users.
Auditing and accounting
Modified GRAM client and server running on TG
Provide the user with a list of submitted workflows and jobs along with allocation used totals per workflow and job.
Associated portlets
Enhanced GPIR capabilities (including MDS data)
Predictor portlets (with NWS) (see TG User Portal)

14. Future Directions (2/3) Better support for computational experiments.
Generic Service Toolkit (Gopi will describe).
Other tools (adapted from the LEAD project)
Experimental builder portlets
Metadata management services for tracking and storing all aspects of a workflow.

15. Future Directions (3/3) We need better packaging. Some improvements:
Currently use Maven 1 with some strategic Ant and shell scripts.
Some improvements:
More customizable: just download and build what you want
Ensuring all dependencies are met
Smaller download footprint
Maven 2 can do some of these things but it has reliability issues
You have to download dozens and dozens of jar files to build your initial repository.
Typically doesn’t work 100% the first time.

16. Future Directions (4/3)
We need to consider “Web 2.0” approaches for Science Gateways.
See general material from Monday’s workshop.
These are in general compatible with SOA (assuming build your services correctly).
But the implication on portals/gateways should be dramatic.
We have to decide how much we can shoe-horn into the JSR 168/286 specs.