1. 1 Component-based Grid Environment for Programming Scientific Applications Maciej Malawski

2. 2 Outline Problem: programming applications on Grid Programming models and virtualization CCA + H2O Extensions to the environment Applications and tests Summary and future work

3. 3 Experience (CrossGrid) Grid is complex

4. 4 Problem – how to program grid applications Scientific applications:  Compute intensive  May be data-intensive  Often custom-made  Written in many programming languages (e.g. Fortran)  Collaborative Current practice on Grid:  “Write a JDL scripts which submits a shell script as a batch job, which uses SSH to launch a process on the head node of the cluster to serve as a proxy for communication...” (from CGW'06 presentation by ICM)  “Submit a shell script which queries the LFC catalog, retrieves TAR archive from SE using GRIDFTP, unpacks the archive, runs another computing script, stores the output on SE and registers in LFC catalog.” - a biomedical application (CGW'06) Problems with scientific computing (IPDPS'05 panel discussion):  Software  Software... engineering

5. 5 Two key challenges Programming model  Suitable for the distributed environment  Allowing to manage complex applications  Supported by standards  Supporting scientific applications  Facilitating programming Virtualization  Hiding the complexity of heterogeneous environment  Allowing to dynamically create/acquire pools of resources on demand

6. 6 Research objectives Concept of programming environment for scientific applications on Grid  Analysis of programming models for grid applications  Identification of desired features of programming environment Prototype implementation and feasibility study Verification of the model and prototype with typical applications Thesis (provisional):  Extended Component model may be used for creating grid environment for programming and running complex scientific applications.

7. 7 Many programming models MPI, PVM Custom protocols Tuple spaces, HLA Distributed objects Active objects Components Skeletons Service Oriented Architectures, Web Services

8. 8 Virtualization: state of the art (incomplete) Globus GRAM, Condor, VDT, gLite, Unicore  large-scale batch job oriented submission systems Virtual Workspaces: using Globus to submit VMWare (or other type) virtual machines to create a Condor pool of resources, which can be in turn accessible using Globus Toolkit  Cannot call it lightweight solution! SOA – everything accessible as Web Service  Efforts to support dynamic service deployment Component model: a container provides a virtualization layer for hosting components  Dynamic deployment directly embedded into a programming model - (component = unit of deployment)

9. 9 What are components? A unit of software development/deployment/reuse  i.e. has interesting functionality  Ideally, functionality someone else might be able to (re)use  Can be developed independently of other components Interacts with the outside world only through well-defined interfaces Can be composed with other components  “Plug and play” model to build applications  Composition based on interfaces Hosted in a framework/container responsible for other services (communication, security)

10. 10 Benefits of Component-based Approach Enables composing applications from blocks which originally were not designed to be combined Addresses software complexity issues Many frameworks provide language interoperability Enformcement of separation of interface from implementation Facilitates managing third party libraries Allows easy swapping of implementation Increases software productivity Mature and successful technology in business and desktop applications

11. 11 Components vs. Web Services Component:  Formal models for component programming (e.g. Fractal)  May be created on-demand, e.g. more components deployed when needed  Explicitly declare required interfaces (uses ports) – can be directly connected – no need to pass invocation data via central workflow engine  May have parallel connections  Does not require SOAP as a protocol

12. 12 Proposed approach to building grid environment Use a component model Apply a virtualization layer Design a base component environment with a set of desired features Extend the environment features

13. 13 Desired features of Grid components Scalable to different environments (from laptops to HPC clusters)  lightweight platform  dynamic, pluggable, reconfigurable at runtime Facilitated deployment on shared resources  Virtualization (creating dynamic workspaces)  Dynamic (hot) deployment Communication adjusted to various levels of coupling  P2P, WANs, LANs, intercluster connections, direct binding in one process  supporting parallelism Supporting multiple languages  allowing easy adaptation of legacy code  combining Java flexibility with optimized Fortran libraries Facilitating programming  composable in space and in time  taking advantage of semantic description and reasoning Adapted to unreliable Grid environment  supporting dynamic and interactive reconfiguration of connections, locations, bindings  providing support for migration and checkpointing Interoperability with grid standards  Web Services – SOAP, WSDL, possibly WSRF  Grid Component Model (ProActive/Fractal)

14. 14 State of the art – examples of solutions (incomplete) Scalable to different environments (from laptops to HPC clusters)  HPC: CCAFFEINE, GridCCM  Lightweight: XCAT, ProActive, ICENI Facilitated deployment on shared resources  ProActive, XCAT (using Globus) Communication adjusted to various levels of coupling  CCAFFEINE – direct binding, MPI; XCAT – SOAP  optimized communication: IBIS, GridCCM  Parallel, collective communication: GridCCM, IBIS, ProActive Supporting multiple languages  legacy code: BABEL  Interoperability: CORBA, SOAP Facilitating programming  composable in space and in time: XCAT, ICENI, GCM – hierarchical  Skeleton approach: HOC, ASSIST  taking advantage of semantic description and reasoning: ICENI, Semantic Web Services Adapted to unreliable Grid environment  dynamic and interactive reconfiguration: ProActive, XCAT, Web Services model  migration and checkpointing: Proactive, XCAT Interoperability with grid standards  Web Services – XCAT, ProActive  Grid Component Model: ProActive reference implementation

15. 15 Base for the Solution: CCA and H2O Common Component Architecture (CCA)  Component standard for HPC  Uses and provides ports described in SIDL  Support for scientific data types  Existing tightly coupled (CCAFFEINE) and loosely coupled, distributed (XCAT) frameworks H2O  Java-based distributed resource sharing platform  Providers setup H2O kernel (container)  Allowed parties can deploy pluglets (components)  Separation of roles: decoupling Providers from deployers Providers from each other  RMIX: efficient multiprotocol RMI extension

16. 16 Example scenarios of H2O 1. Provider = deployer e.g. resource = legacy application 2. Reseller:= developer = deployer e.g. computational service offered within a grid system 3. Client = deployer e.g. client runs custom distributed application on shared resources

17. 17 Features of the environment Scalable to different environments (from Laptops to HPC clusters) – lightweight platform: use H2O – dynamic, pluggable, reconfigurable at runtime: dynamic CCA model + H2O kernel facilities Facilitated deployment on shared resources – Static virtualization by using H2O kernel as a daemon – Dynamic virtualization using a pool of transient H2O kernels created on-demand Communication adjusted to various levels of coupling – Offered by RMIX library of H2O – Parallel extensions for CCA: multiple ports Facilitating programming – Composition in time: Low-level Python or Ruby Scripting, High-level: Virolab/GridSpace programming environment – Semantic description: under development within Virolab Supporting multiple languages – Integration of RMIX with Babel – Integration of MOCCA with Babel – pending Interoperability with grid standards – Web Services – future work (technically feasible: either RMIX of embedded server – Xfire) – Grid Component Model (ProActive/Fractal) interoperability – recent work Adapted to unreliable Grid environment – supporting dynamic and interactive reconfiguration of connections, locations, bindings – providing fault-tolerance support: migration and checkpointing – future work

18. 18 MOCCA – a basic component framework Each component is a separate pluglet  Dynamic remote deployment of components  Components packaged as JAR files  Security: Java sandboxing, detailed access policy Using RMIX for communication – efficiency, multiprotocol interoperability Flexibility and multiple scenarios – as in H2O MOCCA_Light: pure Java implementation  Java API or Jython and Ruby scripting for application asssembly http://www.icsr.agh.edu.pl/mambo/mocca

19. 19 Dynamic virtualization A pool of computing resources may be created by submitting a number of H2O kernels on many Grid sites Application components may be deployed on the kernels belonging to the pool Virtual resource pool may be used by a single user or shared for collaboration Interaction with cluster nodes in private network – JXTA transport (needs more testing)

20. 20 Communication extension: RMIX over JXTA Fully operational RMI implementation running over JXTA P2P network Methods can be invoked on remote objects located behind firewalls or NATs Our implementation of JXTA socket factories manages all the JXTA connectivity transparently from user’s point of view

21. 21 Parallelism: Extensions of CCA for Multiple Ports and Connections Multiple users of one provides port (easy part)  Single provides port  Naming convention for client components (client1, client2,...) Single client of multiple providers:  Need multiple uses ports on the client side  Use ParameterPort of CCA to parametrize the number of uses ports  Client component creates a required number of uses ports  Naming convention for server components and uses port names Extension of CCA BuilderService: MultiBuilder  Creation of multiple components  Handling multiple connections Client 2... Server Component Client 1 Client N Server 2 Client... Server 1 Server N

22. 22 Support for composition in space and in time Declarative vs. imperative programing Composition in space  Graph of component connections  ADL – Application Description Language  Supported by MOCCAccino Composition in time  Workflow model (script)  Centralized execution  Currently supported low- level scripting in Jython and JRuby  High-level scripting developed within Virolab

23. 23 Composition in space - Moccaccino ADLM (ADL for MOCCAccino) – XML based language for:  Describing types and number of components and their connections  Concept of hierarchical component groups  Optional information to specify resources  Hints for deployment of components (whether they are computation intensive or communication intensive). Application Manager – responsible for:  Discovering available kernel pool  Planning optimal location of components  Deploying components in specified kernels  Connecting components

24. 24 Moccacino usage

25. 25 Motivation for multiprotocol and multilanguage interoperability Grids are heterogeneous Multiple programming languages – in single application  Java for middleware  C for system programming  FORTRAN for computing  Python for scripting Multiple protocols – in single application  High speed local networks (Myrinet)  TCP/SSL/TLS in WAN  SOAP for loosely coupled message exchange  Overlay P2P networks for traversing private network boundaries (NATs) Context: MOCCA component framework

26. 26 Multilanguage Solution - Babel SIDL – Scientific Interface Definition Language  Standard for CCA Components  Supports arrays and complex types  Focus on interfaces Babel:  SIDL parser  Code generator  Runtime library Intermediate Object Representation (IOR)  Core of Babel object  Array of function pointers  Generated code in C package example version 1.2 { class Hello { string hello( in string hello); } // user defined non-static methods: /** * Method: hello[] */ public java.lang.String hello_Impl ( /*in*/ java.lang.String hello ) { // DO-NOT-DELETE splicer.begin(example.Hello.hello) // Insert-Code-Here {example.Hello.hello} (hello) return ”Server says: ” + hello; // DO-NOT-DELETE splicer.end(example.Hello.hello) } /** * Method: hello[] */ char* example_Hello_hello( /*in*/ example_Hello self, /*in*/ const char* hello);

27. 27 Currently: Babel for Local Applications All Babel objects in one process Implemented in CCAFFEINE framework Existing multilanguage CCA components – see CCA tutorial Java application Fortran native library SIDL C++ native library SIDL Babel IOR

28. 28 Our Solution Babel + RMIX Implementation of Babel RMI extensions – generic mechanism of method invocation (reflection) – Dynamic loading of communication library – No need for code generation and compilation Java application Fortran native library SIDL C++ native library SIDL Babel IOR RMIX library Babel IOR Network SIDL RMIX library SIDL

29. 29 Interoperability with Grid Component Model (CoreGRID) Based on Fractal Model Deployment Functionalities Asynchronous and extensible port semantics Collective Interfaces Autonomicity and adaptivity thanks to “autonomic” and “dynamic” controllers Support for language neutrality and interoperability Component Identity Binding Controller LifeCycle Controller Content Controller Content Controller

30. 30 Motivation for interoperability Framework interoperability is an important issue for GCM Existing component models and frameworks for Grids  CCA, CCM Already existing „legacy” components ProActive/Fractal and H2O/MOCCA – alternative Java-based frameworks for distributed computing: can they interoperate?

31. 31 Fractal vs. CCA Similarities: general for most component models  Separation of interface from implementation  Composition by connecting interfaces Differences  Fractal components are reflective (introspection) vs. the CCA components are given initiative to add/remove ports at runtime  BindingController in Fractal vs. BuilderService in CCA  No ContentController in CCA (and no hierarchy)  Factory interface in Fractal vs. BuilderService in CCA  AttributeController in Fractal vs. ParameterPort in CCA  No ADL in CCA

32. 32 Approaches to integration Single component integration  Wrapping a CCA component into a primitive GCM one  Allow to use a CCA component in a GCM framework Framework interoperability  Ability for two component frameworks to interoperate  Allow to connect a CCA component assembly (running in a CCA framework) to a GCM component application

33. 33 Solutions to typing issues 1.Generate the type of a wrapped CCA component at runtime (at initialization)  Pros: fully automated  Cons: restricts to usage of ports which are declared by CCA component during initialization (at setServices() call) 2.Manual description of a CCA component in ADL format  Pros: Generic solution  Cons: Require additional task from developer 3.(Semi)automatic generation of ADL May combine approach 1. and 2. 4.Reuse existing CCA type specifications (SIDL, CCAFFEINE scripting, others – not standardized)

34. 34 Technical approach – CCA controller Creates glue components for all ports (client and server) Connects glue to CCA system (using CCA builder) and to membrane (using BC)

35. 35 Glue Components Server Glue:  Deployed as Fractal component  Uses MOCCA client code to delegate invocation to CCA interface  Can be also deployed on H2O kernel Client Glue:  Deployed as CCA component in H2O kernel  Launches ProActive runtime in H2O kernel  Creates Fractal component in this runtime Both:  Can be generated from the interface type (TODO)

36. 36 ProActive + MOCCA MOCCA invocations are synchronous  Composite (membrane) should be synchronous to avoid deadlocks  Or, we may consider generating glue with wrapped types (IntWrapper, etc) – this changes types of interfaces Class loading issues  The classes generated by ProActive runtime must be visible to the code running in H2O kernel  The RMI class loading works fine if the codebase is set properly on ProActive side

37. 37 Communication Intensive Application Benchmark Simplified scenario:  2 components  Provides port: receive and send-back array of double (ping-pong) Tested on local Gigabit Ethernet and on transatlantic Internet between Atlanta and Krakow 2.4 GHz Linux machines Comparison with XCAT

38. 38 Small Data Packets Factors: SOAP header overhead in XCAT Connection pools in RMIX

39. 39 Large Data Packets Encoding (binary vs. base64) CPU saturation on Gigabit LAN (serialization) Variance caused by Java garbage collection

40. 40 Automatic Flow Composer Example Compose application graph from initial data (e.g. initial ports) or incomplete graph First implemented for XCAT framework Easy migration to MOCCA Modification of code required (xcat.Port) Similar performance for XCAT and MOCCA (exchange of text documents)

41. 41 Other applications Domain decomposition (some student toy apps) Data mining using Weka (as a Virolab example)

42. 42 Gold Cluster Application Components  Starter – a „driver” component for the application, provides a Go port  Configuration generator – random initial configurations  Simulated annealing – compute intensive simulation component  Storeroom – used for keeping results and statistics  Gather – auxiliary component for passing molecules Ports  Molecule – offers getMolecule() method  Control ports – for steering the application

43. 43 Resources and Results Using heterogeneous infrastructure – available ad- hoc  Local machine SSH access  Cluster in CYFRONET PBS  CrossGrid tesbed (LCG based middleware) Clusters in PSNC Poznan and IFCA Santander Java VMs already installed Cluster nodes allow remote point-to-point communication (MPICH-enabled: no firewalls!) Problem size grows with number of nodes (weak scaling)

44. 44 Future work Optimization algorithms (scheduling) for ADL and scripting models Monitoring support (Gemini) Formal model (adapted from GCM) Further integration with Babel More applications

45. 45 Summary Analysis of programming models for Grid, selection of component model Design and implementation of CCA framework based on H2O platform Extending applicability of H2O for dynamically created pools of resources (user-centric or ad-hoc created Vos) Extensions for parallel-distributed CCA components Support for time and space composition modes by high- level scripting and ADL-based application Towards multilanguage interop Supporting interoperability between component models

46. 46 Key papers Maciej Malawski, Dawid Kurzyniec, and Vaidy Sunderam. MOCCA – towards a distributed CCA framework for metacomputing. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on High-Level Parallel Programming Models and Supportive Environments (HIPS2005), 2005. IEEE Computer Society Maciej Malawski, Marian Bubak, Michał Placek, Dawid Kurzyniec, and Vaidy Sunderam. Experiments with distributed component computing across Grid boundaries. In Proceedings of the HPC-GECO/CompFrame workshop in conjunction with HPDC 2006, 2006. P. Jurczyk, M. Golenia, M. Malawski, D. Kurzyniec, M. Bubak, V. S. Sunderam, Enabling Remote Method Invocations in Peer-to-Peer Environments: RMIX over JXTA, in: Roman Wyrzykowski, Jack Dongarra, Norbert Meyer, Jerzy Wasniewski (Eds.), Parallel Processing and Applied Mathematics: 6th International Conference, PPAM 2005, Poznan, Poland, September 11-14, 2005, Revised Selected Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3911, Springer, 2006, pp. 667-674 M. Malawski, D. Harezlak, M. Bubak, Towards Multiprotocol and Multilanguage Interoperability: Experiments with Babel and RMIX, in: M. Bubak, M. Turała, K. Wiatr (Eds.), Proceedings of Cracow Grid Workshop - CGW'05, November 20-23 2005, ACC-Cyfronet UST, 2006, Kraków, pp. 266-278. M. Bubak, M. Malawski, M. Placek, Using MOCCA Component Environment for Simulation of Gold Clusters, in: M. Bubak, M. Turała, K. Wiatr (Eds.), Proceedings of Cracow Grid Workshop - CGW'05, November 20-23 2005, ACC-Cyfronet UST, 2006, Kraków, pp. 295-299.

47. 47 Acknowledgements Vaidy Sunderam, Dawid Kurzyniec – Emory University, Atlanta Daniel Harężlak, Michał Placek Tomek Bartyński, Eryk Ciepiela, Joanna Kocot, Przemysław Pelczar, Iwona Ryszka Paweł Jurczyk, Maciej Golenia Tomasz Gubała, Marek Kasztelnik, Piotr Nowakowski Ludovic Henrio, Matthieu Morel, Francoise Baude, Denis Caromel – Sophia-Antipolis, France Marian Bubak