Real Time, Web 2.0, and Grid Systems

7,978 views
7,858 views

Published on

Discussion of Grid and Web 2.0 technologies and application to collection of real time sensors including audio/video conferencing

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
9 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
7,978
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
96
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
491
Comments
0
Likes
9
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Real Time, Web 2.0, and Grid Systems

    1. 1. Real Time, Web 2.0, and Grid Systems INGRID 2007 - Instrumenting the Grid 2nd International Workshop on Distributed Cooperative Laboratories - S.Margherita Ligure Portofino, ITALY, April 18 2007 Geoffrey Fox Computer Science, Informatics, Physics Pervasive Technology Laboratories Indiana University Bloomington IN 47401 [email_address] http:// www.infomall.org
    2. 2. Uncontroversial Ideas <ul><li>Distributed software systems are being “revolutionized” by developments from e-commerce, e-Science and the consumer Internet. There is rapid progress in technology families termed “ Web services ”, “ Grids ” and “ Web 2.0 ” </li></ul><ul><li>The emerging picture is of distributed services with advertised interfaces but opaque implementations communicating by streams of messages over a variety of protocols </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Complete systems are built by combining either services or predefined/pre-existing collections of services together to achieve new capabilities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>We can use the term Grids strictly ( Narrow or OGSA Grids ) or just call any collections of services as “ Broad Grids ” which actually is quite often done </li></ul>
    3. 3. Why Web 2.0 is Useful <ul><li>Captures the incredible development of interactive Web sites enabling people to create and collaborate </li></ul>
    4. 4. Technology Approaches <ul><li>Web Services have clearly defined protocols (SOAP) and a well defined mechanism (WSDL) to define service interfaces </li></ul><ul><ul><li>There is good .NET and Java support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The so-called WS-* specifications provide a rich sophisticated but complicated standard set of capabilities for security, fault tolerance, meta-data, discovery, notification etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Narrow Grids ” build on Web Services and provide a robust managed environment with growing adoption in Enterprise systems and distributed science (so called e-Science) </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 supports a similar architecture to Web services but has developed in a more chaotic but remarkably successful fashion with a service architecture with a variety of protocols including those of Web and Grid services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Over 400 Interfaces defined at http:// www.programmableweb.com/apis </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 also has many well known capabilities with Google Maps and Amazon Compute/Storage services of clear general relevance </li></ul><ul><li>There are also Web 2.0 services supporting novel collaboration modes and user interaction with the web as seen in social networking sites, portals, MySpace, YouTube, </li></ul>
    5. 5. Web 2.0 v Grid I <ul><li>Web 2.0 allows people to nurture the Internet Cloud and such people got Time’s person of year award </li></ul><ul><li>Whereas Narrow Grids support Internet scale Distributed Services with similar architecture </li></ul><ul><li>Maybe Narrow Grids focus on (number of) Services (there aren’t many scientists) and Web 2.0 focuses on number of People </li></ul><ul><li>Both agree on service oriented architectures but have different emphasis </li></ul><ul><li>Narrow Grids have a strong emphasis on standards and structure; Web 2.0 lets a 1000 flowers (protocols) and a million developers bloom and focuses on functionality, broad usability and simplicity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Semantic Web/Grid has structure to allow reasoning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Annotation in sites like del.icio.us and uploading to MySpace/YouTube is unstructured and free text search replaces structured ontologies </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Web 2.0 v Grid II <ul><li>Web 2.0 has a set of major services like GoogleMaps or Flickr but the world is composing Mashups that make new composite services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>End-point standards are set by end-point owners </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Many different protocols covering a variety of de-facto standards </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Narrow Grids have a set of major software systems like Condor and Globus and a different world is extending with custom services and linking with workflow </li></ul><ul><li>Popular Web 2.0 technologies are PHP, JavaScript , JSON , AJAX and REST with “ Start Page ” e.g. ( Google Gadgets) interfaces </li></ul><ul><li>Popular Narrow Grid technologies are Apache Axis, BPEL WSDL and SOAP with portlet interfaces </li></ul><ul><li>Robustness of Grids demanded by the Enterprise ? </li></ul><ul><li>Not so clear that Web 2.0 won’t eventually dominate other application areas and with Enterprise 2.0 it’s invading Grids </li></ul>The world does itself in large numbers!
    7. 7. APIs/Mashups per Protocol Distribution Number of Mashups Number of APIs REST SOAP XML-RPC REST, XML-RPC REST, XML-RPC, SOAP REST, SOAP JS Other google maps netvibes live.com virtual earth google search amazon S3 amazon ECS flickr ebay youtube 411sync del.icio.us yahoo! search yahoo! geocoding technorati yahoo! images trynt yahoo! local
    8. 8. Implication for Grids I <ul><li>I once thought Web Services were inevitable but this is no longer clear to me </li></ul><ul><li>Web services are complicated , slow and non functional </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WS-Security is unnecessarily slow and pedantic (canonicalization of XML) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WS-RM (Reliable Messaging) seems to have poor adoption and doesn’t work well in collaboration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WSDM (distributed management) specifies a lot </li></ul></ul><ul><li>There are de facto standards like Google Maps and powerful suppliers like Google which “define the rules” </li></ul><ul><li>One can easily combine SOAP (Web Service) based services/systems with HTTP messages but the “lowest common denominator” suggests additional structure/complexity of SOAP will not easily survive </li></ul>
    9. 9. Implications for Grids II <ul><li>Should one define e-Infrastructure and Cyberinfrastructure as core functionality for e-Science, e-Business etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Then Web 2.0 is one technology and Grid/Web services are another? </li></ul><ul><li>Or could define a Broad Grid to be synonymous with e-Infrastructure and allow it to be implemented with SOAP/Web Services or with HTTP-REST/Web 2.0? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>i.e. define a Broad Grid as any collection of services with message based interfaces of any protocols </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Or note that Narrowest Grid only adds ability to run jobs (JSDL, BES) and perhaps build cross-domain virtual organizations to core capabilities of Web ? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Data(base) Grid interfaces not so successful? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Google groups etc. also allow virtual organizations for some key capabilities? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>i.e. define a “ Narrow Grid ” as a standards compliant collection of Web Services </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Implications for Instruments <ul><li>We shouldn’t worry so much about SOAP and Web services but build small simple collections of services with documented interfaces </li></ul><ul><li>Messaging can be SOAP, HTTP, RTP or other binary </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Previously I thought one should always use SOAP and if necessary use “binary XML” to speed up and/or get back to native form </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not a bad idea but too complicated </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Build Instrument Grids (Broad Grid definition) that can be linked to other Broad Grids </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Grids of Grids (Systems of Systems is well known Jargon) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>This can lead to substantially higher performance , easier construction and allowed high functionality inside a given subgrid </li></ul>
    11. 11. Grids of Grids of Simple Services <ul><li>Link via methods  messages  streams </li></ul><ul><li>Services and Grids are linked by messages </li></ul><ul><li>Internally to service, functionalities are linked by methods </li></ul><ul><li>A simple service is the smallest Grid </li></ul><ul><li>We are familiar with method-linked hierarchy Lines of Code  Methods  Objects  Programs  Packages </li></ul>Overlay and Compose Grids of Grids Methods Services Component Grids CPUs Clusters Compute Resource Grids MPPs Databases Federated Databases Sensor Sensor Nets Data Resource Grids
    12. 12. Component Grids? <ul><li>So we build collections of Services which we package as component Broad Grids </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Visualization Grid </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>YouTube/MySpace Grid </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Annotation (Connotea) Grid </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Geographic Information System Grid </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sensor Grid </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Instrument Grid </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Utility Computing Grid </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Audio-Video Conferencing Grid </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Control Room Grid </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Crisis Management Grid </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data-mining Grid </li></ul></ul><ul><li>We build bigger Broad Grids by composing component Broad Grids by linking with mediated messages </li></ul>
    13. 13. Using the Grid of Grids and Core Services to build multiple application grids re-using common components. Physical Network (monitored by FS16) 7: Discovery 8:Metadata BioInformatics Grid Chemical Informatics Grid … Domain Specific Grids/Services … 4: Notification 6: Security 5: Workflow 3: Messaging 9: Management 14: Information Instrument/Sensor 12: Computing Core Low Level Grid Services 9: Management 18: Scheduling 10: Policy 15: Application Services Screening Tools Quantum Calculations 15: Application Services Sequencing Tools Biocomplexity Simulations 11: Portals 17: Collaboration Services 13: Data Access/Storage
    14. 14. Net Centric and Critical Infrastructure (CI) Grids built as Grids of Grids and re-using subGrids Flood Services and Filters Physical Network Registry Metadata Military Services and Filters Net Centric Grid Flood CIGrid … Electricity CIGrid … Data Access/Storage Security Workflow Notification Messaging Portals Information Management Grid Collaboration Grid Sensor Grid Compute Grid GIS Grid Core Grid Services
    15. 15. Mediation and Transformation in a Grid of Grids and Simple Services Port Port Port Port Internal Interfaces Subgrid or service Port Port Port Port Internal Interfaces Subgrid or service Port Port Port Port Internal Interfaces Subgrid or service Messaging Mediation and Transformation Services External facing Interfaces
    16. 16. Grid of Grids Builder Tool <ul><li>This provides a graphical interface to build grids from existing libraries of Services and Grids </li></ul><ul><li>Meta-data (provenance) needs to be specified </li></ul><ul><li>Grids (services) need to be linked </li></ul><ul><li>This is built by extending an existing workflow engine which is aimed at a more tightly coupled version of the builder problem </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We examined HPSearch (CGL), Taverna (Open source from UK OMII), BPEL with user interface (OMII or IU LEAD project), Eclipse </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Semantic Grid provenance “add-ons” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>We chose BPEL with an Eclipse interface </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Grid Builder Features <ul><li>The static properties set up at Grid definition stage are used to specify initial set up of services and how they are to be restarted – i.e. setting the System Metadata and Policy as on what and how to restart </li></ul><ul><li>The Grid Builder will set up and launch a dynamic monitoring framework that provides fault tolerance for services and message brokers </li></ul>
    18. 18. Dynamic Service Management Architecture Connect to Messaging Node for sending and receiving messages User writes system configuration to registry Manager processes periodically checks available resources to manage. Also Read/Write resource specific external state from/to registry Periodically Spawn WS Management Available in latest release of http://www.naradabrokering.org Always ensure up and running Always ensure up and running
    19. 19. NaradaBrokering <ul><li>Website: http://www.naradabrokering.org/ </li></ul><ul><li>Code base specifics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1425 classes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>157 packages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>300,000 lines of code </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1000 annual downloads </li></ul></ul>Stream NB supports messages and streams Queues
    20. 20. NB Features: Data Distribution <ul><li>Scalable Distributed Publish-subscribe Network </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Any number of Cooperating nodes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P2P or hierarchical </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Constraint Specifications </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Strings, Regular Expressions, SQL queries, XPath queries, & XQuery </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Support for multiple transports </li></ul><ul><ul><li>TCP, UDP, Multicast, SSL, HTTP, Parallel-TCP </li></ul></ul>[1] Building Messaging Substrates for Web and Grid Applications . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences . Vol 363, Num 1833, pp 1757-1773. 2005. [2] On the Matching Of Events in Distributed Brokering Systems . Proc of the IEEE ITCC Conf on Information Technology 2004 . [3] NaradaBrokering: A Middleware Framework and Architecture for Enabling Durable Peer-to-Peer Grids . Proceedings of the ACM/IFIP/ USENIX International Middleware Conference , 2003 .
    21. 21. NB Features: Security <ul><li>End-to-End Security </li></ul><ul><li>All Interactions Authorized </li></ul><ul><li>Copes with attack scenarios </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Replay attacks </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Secure Topics naturally support role-based secure message subscriptions </li></ul><ul><li>Transport independence of security implies can use for audio-video conferences as well as SSL </li></ul>[1] A Framework for Secure End-to-End Delivery of Messages in Publish/Subscribe Systems . Proceedings of the 7th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Grid Computing . 2006. [2] On the Secure Creation, Organization and Discovery of Topics in Distributed Publish/Subscribe Systems . International Journal of High Performance Computing and Networking .
    22. 22. NB Features: Fault Tolerance <ul><li>Sustain losses of nodes </li></ul><ul><li>Support for recovery and replays of streams </li></ul><ul><li>Customize redundancy and replay scheme for storage of messages </li></ul><ul><li>Guaranteed delivery of data </li></ul><ul><li>Track availability of all entities </li></ul>[1] Fault-Tolerant Reliable Delivery of Messages in Distributed Publish/Subscribe Systems . (To appear) Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference on Autonomic Computing . 2007. [2] A Scalable Approach for the Secure and Authorized Tracking of the Availability of Entities in Distributed Systems . Proc of 21st IEEE International Parallel & Distributed Processing Symposium . 2007. [3] A Scheme for Reliable Delivery of Events in Distributed Middleware Systems . Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Autonomic Computing . pp 328-329. 2004.
    23. 23. NB Features: Discovery of Brokers and Topics [1] On the Discovery of Brokers in Distributed Messaging Infrastructures . Proc. of the IEEE Cluster 2005 Conference. [2] On the Secure Creation, Organization and Discovery of Topics in Distributed Publish/Subscribe Systems . International Journal of High Performance Computing and Networking . [ 3] A Grid Framework for Visualization Services in the Earth Sciences . Journal of Pure and Applied Geophysics . Volume 163, Numbers 11-12, 2006. pp 2467-2483. Birkhäuser Verlag. <ul><li>All discovery is Secure and Authorized </li></ul><ul><li>Discover closest broker </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Assimilate new broker additions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Discover topics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Topic Provenance identifies publisher and allowed subscribers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Load-balance resources </li></ul>
    24. 24. NB Features: Qualities of Service ( QoS ) <ul><li>Jitter reduction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Buffering & Time spacing services </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Global Timestamps </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Network Time Protocol </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Time ordering </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Coping with large payloads </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Compression & Decompression </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fragmentation & Coalescing </li></ul></ul>[1] Message-Based Cellular Peer-to-Peer Grids: Foundations for Secure Federation and Autonomic Services . Journal Of Future Generation Computer Systems . Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 401-415. [2] Worldwide Messaging Support for High Performance Real-time Collaboration . Proc of the UK e-Science Programme AHM 2005 [3] Implementing a NTP-Based Time Service within a Distributed Brokering System . Proc of the ACM International Conference on the Principles and Practice of Programming in Java .
    25. 25. NB Features: Web Services Support <ul><li>WS-Reliable Messaging </li></ul><ul><li>WS-Reliability </li></ul><ul><li>WS-Eventing </li></ul><ul><li>SOAP </li></ul><ul><li>Not as important as I thought </li></ul><ul><li>Comes with full WS-Management suite for dynamic broker management </li></ul>[1] Scalable, Fault Tolerant Management in a Service-Oriented Architecture . (To appear) Proc of the 2007 IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Distributed Computing (HPDC). [2] Deploying the NaradaBrokering Substrate in Aiding Efficient Web & Grid Service Interactions . Proceedings of the IEEE . Vol 93, No 3. pp 564-577. March 2005. [3] On the Costs for Reliable Messaging in Web/Grid Service Environments . Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on e-Science & Grid Computing .
    26. 26. NB Features: Miscellaneous <ul><li>JMS Compliant </li></ul><ul><li>C++ bridge </li></ul><ul><ul><li>JNI </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sockets-based </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Legacy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interfaced with JXTA as example of P2P operation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>High Performance and tested Java code </li></ul><ul><li>Open source at http://www.naradabrokering.org </li></ul>
    27. 27. These measurements are messages from client to broker and back using latest Java 1.6 release that is about twice performance of earlier releases
    28. 28. 2 ms per broker in distributed case
    29. 30. Average Video Delays (OLD Data) UDP Performance when NaradaBrokering used for audio-video conferencing Latency ms # Receivers One session Multiple sessions 30 frames/sec
    30. 31. GlobalMMCS Service Architecture Gateways convert to uniform XGSP Messaging High Performance (RTP) and XML/SOAP and .. Use Multiple Media servers to scale to many codecs and many versions of audio/video mixing NB Scales as distributed Web Services NaradaBrokering Key idea: Use of queues in NaradaBrokering to build multipoint MCU This works well and Naradabrokering is reliable for day long continuous runs Motivated UDP (as well as TCP) support in NaradaBrokering GlobalMMCS is not very reliable software SIP H323 Access Grid Native XGSP Admire Media Servers Filters Session Server XGSP-based Control NaradaBrokering All Messaging
    31. 32. Collaboration Grid Improvements: HSD – Hybrid Shared Display <ul><li>HSD builds on a combination of Classic Shared Display (CSD) and Video Shared Display (VSD) </li></ul><ul><li>Sharing an application either uses video VSD (low resolution, copes with rapid change) or exact encoding CSD (as in WebEx or VNC) which can’t keep up with rapidly changing areas </li></ul><ul><li>HSD Approach: Use image processing algorithm to find the video or fast changing regions in the shared application window, and encode them using video codec e.g. H.261 and MPEG4 to save network bandwidth while retaining good visual quality on rest of shared frame which uses RLE etc. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Average pixel rate of change in video window > 100 rate of change in non-video part of shared window </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Need synchronized UDP and TCP transmissions to transport both components </li></ul>
    32. 33. Screen capturing Region finding Video encoding SD screen data encoding Network transmission ( RTP ) Network transmission ( TCP ) Video Decoding (H.261) SD screen data decoding Rendering Rendering Screen display HSD Flow Presenter Participants Through UDP NaradaBrokering VSD CSD Through TCP NaradaBrokering
    33. 35. eSports System for Real time multipoint video sharing and annotation <ul><li>Real time Archive and instant replay of NaradaBrokering native events; 200 ms delay on a replayed video stream across continental USA </li></ul><ul><li>Uses NaradaBrokering distributed replicated storage service to save and recall all video stream packets in < 200ms </li></ul><ul><li>Uses NaradaBrokering Time service to remove jitter and replay with faithful time intervals between packets </li></ul><ul><li>Supports Web Service version of extended RTSP for VCR style video manipulation services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>As all records stored, one can rewind to any point on a real time (200 ms delayed) replay stream </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Utilizing WS-Context Service as standards compliant distributed fault tolerant high performance metadata service; </li></ul><ul><li>Transporting all messages through NaradaBrokering messaging middleware </li></ul>
    34. 36. eSports System and Streaming Services T=NaradaBrokering Topic
    35. 37. eSports System Interface (Recording)
    36. 38. eSports System Interface (Replay)
    37. 39. Explanation of User Interface
    38. 40. Performance Tests (WAN – UCSD Results)
    39. 41. Cost of Storage 0 1 2 3 repositories Topology C Topology D Topology E Topology F
    40. 42. Old and New (Web 2.0) Community Tools <ul><li>del.icio.us , Connotea , Citeulike, Bibsonomy, Biolicious manage shared bookmarks </li></ul><ul><li>MySpace, YouTube, Bebo, Hotornot, Facebook, or similar sites allow you to create (upload) community resources and share them; Friendster , LinkedIn create networks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.slideshare.net http:// www.gliffy.com </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Google documents , Wikis and Blogs are powerful specialized shared document systems </li></ul><ul><li>ConferenceXP and WebEx share general applications </li></ul><ul><li>Google Scholar tells you who has cited your papers while publisher sites tell you about co-authors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Windows Live Academic Search has similar goals </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Kazaa , Instant Messengers , Skype , Napster , BitTorrent for P2P Collaboration – text, audio-video conferencing, files </li></ul><ul><li>Note sharing resources creates (implicit) communities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Social network tools study graphs to both define communities and extract their properties </li></ul></ul>
    41. 43. Connotea <ul><li>Connotea is run by Nature and is useful for collecting research links </li></ul><ul><li>Here is 177 parallel computing links selected on Meeting </li></ul><ul><li>Useful extension of del.icio.us </li></ul>
    42. 44. “Best Web 2.0 Sites” -- 2006 <ul><li>Extracted from http://web2.wsj2.com/ </li></ul><ul><li>Social Networking </li></ul><ul><li>Start Pages </li></ul><ul><li>Social Bookmarking </li></ul><ul><li>Peer Production News </li></ul><ul><li>Social Media Sharing </li></ul><ul><li>Online Storage (Computing) </li></ul>
    43. 45. Mashups v Workflow? <ul><li>Mashup Tools are reviewed at http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=63 </li></ul><ul><li>Workflow Tools are reviewed by Gannon and Fox http://grids.ucs.indiana.edu/ptliupages/publications/Workflow-overview.pdf </li></ul><ul><li>Both include scripting in PHP, Python, sh etc. as both implement distributed programming at level of services </li></ul><ul><li>Mashups use all types of service interfaces and do not have the potential robustness (security) of Grid service approach </li></ul><ul><li>Typically “pure” HTTP ( REST ) </li></ul>Why are Grids replacing scripts (Perl, PHP, Python) with arcane XML (as in BPEL) PHP is much better understood than BPEL and easier to read …. Not quite fair as need to standardize PHP variables
    44. 46. Grid Workflow Datamining in Earth Science <ul><li>Work with Scripps Institute </li></ul><ul><li>Grid services controlled by workflow process real time data from ~70 GPS Sensors in Southern California </li></ul>NASA GPS Earthquake GIS Mashup or Grid consisting of mix of Web 2.0 functionality (Google Maps), Web services for results of Hidden Markov Analysis and our GIS data, Web 2.0 services for Google maps internal data Workflow scripted in JavaScript Streaming Data Support Transformations Data Checking Hidden Markov Datamining (JPL) Display (GIS) Real Time Archival
    45. 47. Web 2.0 uses all types of Services <ul><li>Here a Gadget Mashup uses a 3 service workflow with a JavaScript Gadget Client and PHP services </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 is NOT just client side as sometimes claimed </li></ul>
    46. 48. Web 2.0 APIs <ul><li>http://www.programmableweb.com/apis currently (April 17 2007) 415 Web 2.0 APIs with GoogleMaps the most used in Mashups </li></ul><ul><li>This site acts as a “ UDDI ” for Web 2.0 </li></ul>
    47. 49. The List of Web 2.0 API’s <ul><li>Each site has API and its features </li></ul><ul><li>Divided into broad categories </li></ul><ul><li>Only a few used a lot ( 39 API’s used in more than 10 mashups ) </li></ul><ul><li>RSS feed of new APIs </li></ul>
    48. 50. 3 more Mashups each day <ul><li>For a total of 1799 April 17 2007 (3.9 a day over last month) </li></ul><ul><li>Note ClearForest runs Semantic Web Services Mashup competitions (not workflow competitions) </li></ul><ul><li>Some Mashup types : aggregators, search aggregators, visualizers, mobile, maps, games </li></ul>Growing number of commercial Mashup Tools
    49. 51. Indiana Map Grid (Mashup) GIS Grid of “Indiana Map” and ~10 Indiana counties with accessible Map (Feature) Servers from different vendors. Grids federate different data repositories (cf Astronomy VO federating different observatory collections)
    50. 52. Browser + Google Map API Cass County Map Server (OGC Web Map Server) Hamilton County Map Server (AutoDesk) Marion County Map Server (ESRI ArcIMS) Browser client fetches image tiles for the bounding box using Google Map API. Tile Server requests map tiles at all zoom levels with all layers. These are converted to uniform projection, indexed, and stored. Overlapping images are combined. Must provide adapters for each Map Server type . The cache server fulfills Google map calls with cached tiles at the requested bounding box that fill the bounding box. Google Maps Server Tile Server Cache Server Adapter Adapter Adapter
    51. 53. Mash Planet Web 2.0 Architecture http://www.imagine-it.org/mashplanet Display too large to be a Gadget
    52. 54. Searched on Transit/Transportation Searched on Transit/Transportation
    53. 55. Grid-style portal as used in Earthquake Grid <ul><li>The Portal is built from portlets – providing user interface fragments for each service that are composed into the full interface – uses OGCE technology as does planetary science VLAB portal with University of Minnesota </li></ul>
    54. 56. Portlets v. Google Gadgets <ul><li>Portals for Grid Systems are built using portlets with software like GridSphere integrating these on the server-side into a single web-page </li></ul><ul><li>Google (at least) offers the Google sidebar and Google home page which support Web 2.0 services and do not use a server side aggregator </li></ul><ul><li>Google is more user friendly! </li></ul><ul><li>The many Web 2.0 competitions is an interesting model for promoting development in the world-wide distributed collection of Web 2.0 developers </li></ul><ul><li>I guess Web 2.0 model will win! </li></ul>Note the many competitions powering Web 2.0 Mashup Development
    55. 57. Typical Google Gadget Structure <ul><li>… Lots of HTML and JavaScript </Content> </Module> </li></ul>Portlets build User Interfaces by combining fragments in a standalone Java Server Google Gadgets build User Interfaces by combining fragments with JavaScript on the client Google Gadgets are an example of Start Page technology See http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=8
    56. 58. HTTP v SOAP v WS-* v Grid <ul><li>Quote from user trying to use ClearForest SOAP API when first released: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ How about a REST interface or at least a simpler web interface with a GET or POST form (minus the frames). This would be a preferable option for many mashup environments, compared to SOAP.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ClearForest offered a REST API within the week. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Microsoft DSS is an interesting high performance service infrastructure supporting SOAP and HTTP http:// msdn.microsoft.com /robotics/ . </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Runs well on multicore as well as distributed systems </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Mashups can support multiple protocols but “equilibrium” is an evolution to simplest protocols as advantage of complicated protocols gets thrown away </li></ul>
    57. 59. Timing of HP Opteron Multicore as a function of number of simultaneous two-way service messages processed (November 2006 DSS Release) <ul><li>Measurements of Axis 2 shows about 500 microseconds – DSS is substantially faster </li></ul>DSS Service Measurements
    58. 60. So there is more or less no architecture difference between Narrow Grids and Web 2.0 and we can build e-infrastructure or Cyberinfrastructure with either architecture (or mix and match) We should bring Web 2.0 People capabilities to Grids (eScience, Enterprises) We should use most convenient services for a given problem See Enterprise 2.0 discussion at http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe / Mashups are workflow (and vice versa) Portals are start pages and portlets could be gadgets

    ×