1. OMIS Approach to Grid Application Monitoring Bartosz Baliś Marian Bubak Włodzimierz Funika Roland Wismueller

2. X# AGENDA Introduction Monitoring architecture – sensors (local monitors, application monitors) – service managers Performance – efficient data gathering – scalability of grid-scale monitoring Producer / consumer communication protocol Comparison to DATAGRID Experience Conclusion

3. X# Introduction Need for monitoring applications – improve performance – localize bugs For these purposes – specialized tools needed – debuggers, performance analyzers, visualizers, etc. Tools composed of two modules – user interface – monitoring module

4. X# Introduction (cont’d) Main issues of monitoring on Grid – scale of Grid enormous – many applications, many users, high distribution, high heterogeneity – simply porting existing environments not sufficient! A solution: – underlying universal monitoring system – well defined interface to tools Experience with OMIS / OCM: PVM  MPI, port of tools – next step – move to Grid?

5. X# Monitoring architecture Compliance with GMA (Grid Monitoring Architecture) – producer / consumer model Sensors – producers of performance data Tools – consumers of the data Direct communication between producers and consumers Producers located via e.g. a directory service

6. X# Sensors Collect performance data from applications Two types of sensors – local monitors (process sensors) – application monitors

7. X# Sensors (cont’d) Local monitors – one per node – collect data only from processes on this node – publish themselves in the directory service Application monitors – embedded parts of applications – collect data on various events, e.g. function calls – may improve efficiency and portability – interact with local monitors

8. X# Monitoring Architecture

9. X# Service managers Tool + local monitors – one consumer, multiple producers Intermediate entity: service manager – handles requests coming from a tool – splits them into sub-requests for local monitors – collects replies from local monitors – assembles them into a single reply for the tool Both producer (of data for tools) and consumer (of data from local monitors) Offers the functionality of local monitors but on a per- application basis

10. X# Application Monitors Part of the monitoring system embedded in the application’s processes – have acces to the application address space! Many possible usages – efficient data gathering and storing – may take over some of the local monitor’s tasks – may be used to dynamically load monitoring extensions – even more for multithreaded applications

11. X# Application Monitors – debugging example A debugger wants to access a process’ address space Standard system mechanisms: ptrace, /proc – /proc more powerful yet platfom-dependant – synchronous control Via application monitors  request from the debugger to access the data – portable, asynchronous – question: how to ensure that application monitors are not corrupted by the application?

12. X# Performance Efficient data gathering – data production much more frequent than retrieval – frequency and time of access – difficult to predict Scalability – grid-scale monitoring system – distributed vs. centralized

13. X# Efficient data gathering Local storing – performance data first stored locally, in the context of application processes – on request, passed to local monitors – saves communication and context switches between application and local monitor processes Efficient data structures – performance data initially preprocessed – summarized information stored in e.g. counters and integrators

14. X# Scalability Decentralization  multiple service managers instead of one Possible approaches – fixed number of service managers, each responsible for part of the system – one service manager starting for every monitored application

15. X# Fixed number of SMs

16. X# One SM per application

17. X# Scalability (cont’d) In the first approach – more tight cooperation between service managers will be necessary In the second approach – local monitors must have the ability to serve multiple service managers – service managers locate local monitors via directory service

18. X# Communication protocol Based on the OMIS specification OMIS = On-line Monitoring Interface Specification – specification of a universal interface between tools and a monitoring system – supports various types of tools – allows for easy extending Necessary Grid-specific extensions (e.g. for authentication)

19. X# Comparison to DATAGRID Monitoring approach – DG: (semi-)on-line – CG: on-line Architecture – DG: centralized distributed (local monitors and one main monitor) – CG: distributed (local monitors and multiple service managers)

20. X# Comparison to DATAGRID (cont’d) Data collection – DG: local storing with trace buffering or counters – CG: local storing with preprocessing (counters, integrators) Communication protocol – DG: Not specified – CG: OMIS

21. X# Experience OMIS-based monitoring system for clusters of workstations – OCM OMIS-based tools – PATOP (performance analysis), DETOP (debugging), others... Local storing and efficient data structures (counters and integrators) proved to be very efficient – full monitoring overhead of about 4% Instrumentation techniques used induce zero- overhead when monitoring inactive

22. X# Summary Demand for accurate data from monitoring tools Monitoring data handling: production / consumption A general scheme of monitoring compliant with GMA Need of an advanced monitoring infrastructure Concepts of OMIS will be extended to fit Grid