Social Cloud talk at KSRI Service Summit 2012


Published on

Social Cloud Presentation at the 3rd Karlsruhe Service Research Institute (KSRI) Service Summit

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Social Networks model relationships – can also model collaborations.Authentication e.g. Facebook Connect, rather than Open IDAutomated Service Provisioning ENvironment (ASPEN) [6] exposes applications hosted by Cloud providers to user communities in Facebook. The focus of ASPEN is exposing applications and sharing data within an enterprise through an intuitive and integrated environment, however this could also be applied to a scientific domain does not provision the infrastructure via FB.OpenSocial & OpenId, used by most social networking sites, andFacebook’s bespoke application framework
  • I say global infrastructure, but of course social cloud localises…
  • The value of social networking has been observed in multi- ple scientific domains as a means of facilitating collaboration. Increasingly social networks are being used to coordinate re- search communities, two such examples are MyExperiment [3] for biologists and nanoHub [4] for the nanoscience community. MyExperiment provides a virtual research environment where collaborators can share and execute scientific work- flows. nanoHub allows users to share data and transparently execute applications on distributed resource providers such as TeraGrid. While similar to a Social Cloud, MyExperiment and nanoHub each have specific sharing focuses and build their own proprietary social network stack.
  • The value of social networking has been observed in multi- ple scientific domains as a means of facilitating collaboration. Increasingly social networks are being used to coordinate re- search communities, two such examples are MyExperiment [3] for biologists and nanoHub [4] for the nanoscience community. MyExperiment provides a virtual research environment where collaborators can share and execute scientific work- flows. nanoHub allows users to share data and transparently execute applications on distributed resource providers such as TeraGrid. While similar to a Social Cloud, MyExperiment and nanoHub each have specific sharing focuses and build their own proprietary social network stack.
  • Providing a minimal move away from a non CS expert’s comfort zone.Lower/remove barriers to usability. To a larger, non expert base of users. A minimal move away from comfort zone, make the facilities fit the users rtaher than the users fit the facilities. There are many hurdles struck by putting users pushed into/on raw infrastructure, certificates particularly problematic. Old unfamilar techniques such as command lines etc. intimidating for non expert users. But the point of the social cloud is uniform over resources due to being within Social Network.A good role for a social cloud is in the early stages of a project when the costs of dedicated or leased infrastructure would be prohibitive. A Social Cloud could also be considered rather simplistically - aresource fabric overlay over a Social Network.It is not intended to replace specialist infrastructure. The social cloud is intended to be smaller, more general, adhoc and dynamic.
  • User-specific groups, defined by relationship types, are shown in the context of a Social network. In this example group A is composed of only co-worker members, whereasgroup B is formed by family members and group C includes only friends. Clearly the level of trust and mechanisms for social correction (identifying incentives and disincentives for users toparticipate) differ between groups. This figure also highlights that Social Clouds are not mutually exclusive, that is, users may be simultaneously members of multiple Social Clouds. Whereas a VO is often associated with a particular application or activity, and is often disbanded once this activity completes, a group is longer lasting and may be used in the context of multiple applications or activities.
  • The Social Storage cloud (SaaS the first implementation), The Social Cloud for public eScience, andThe Social Cloud for Collaborative Scientific Computation (IaaS or PaaS).CaaS – joke, crowd as a service. Competence as a service – buy providing computing cycles in this instance.
  • FB renders the interface, provides the social connectivity data – computation is done outside FB on our own servers.
  • Tools that are designed for NON EXPERT users!!!
  • Talk about why Facebook. Maturity. Challenges, API lacks stability.Baby steps! Obviously the end goal would be SaaS – members can provide IaaS and SaaS freely within the VRE.
  • Also an Android app. Note, we’ve cropped the Facebook UI from outside this plane. Normally you would see feeds up the side etc.
  • OCCI = Open Cloud Computing Interface, draft standard. Used for IOC and between user resources and application server.
  • ** most of our recent work has been on the scheduler, now 2 layer meta scheduler that schedules from multiple virtual clusters.Open Cloud Computing Interface (OCCI) adopted the OCCI draft specification in the SoCC for communication between user resources and the application server, as well as for communication between user resources.
  • Verified interest signatures, project signatures and signature distances through a user study.Social anchors and project champions are influencers.Studied the effects of project champions, social anchors and compute magnates through simulations on the IEEE VAST 2009 Challenge dataset.
  • Asym, researchers vs public. Not always clear what public gets out of it, hence incentives.Sym, peers, collaborations, participants on equal footing. Group/VRE ower can kick out misbehaving members.
  • With spot pricing, both for consumption and provision of Compute Shares. Credits here = shares.Experiment naturally resource limited – potentially an artifical situation. Each VO consumes credits. Members earn credits through providing resources that can then be used in turn for computation.Global price.After preparation, the AuverGrid trace had the following characteristics:• Number of users: 401• Number of VOs: 8 (VO1: 158 users, VO2: 107 users, VO3: 16 users, VO4: 47 users, VO5: 46 users, VO6: 11 users, VO7: 10 users, VO8: 8 users)• Number of computes: 339314
  • Social Cloud talk at KSRI Service Summit 2012

    1. 1. THE SOCIAL CLOUDInfrastructure and ServicesA ‘Short’ IntroductionKris BubendorferVictoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.The 3rd Karlsruhe Service Summit 2012
    2. 2. SOCIAL NETWORKS  Are based around pre-existing relationships,  i.e. your friends and colleagues, friends of friends…  Many applications now use social networks as a platform for:  Authentication e.g. Facebook Connect  Application Portals e.g. ASPEN and PolarGrid projects  But social networks offer the potential for more than simple user authentication or provision of portals.  Social Networks represent a pre-existing web of trust inherently interwoven into the social network  How many of your friends are not trusted in some way?  Friends can be grouped based on interest and level of trust.The 3rd Karlsruhe Service Summit 2012 2
    3. 3. THE SOCIAL CLOUD  The Social Cloud is a new way of thinking about providing cloud resources and services. A Social Cloud is a resource and service sharing framework utilizing relationships established between members of a social network.  Social networks (such as Facebook, LinkedIn etc.):  provide considerable infrastructure, including authorisation and APIs for external apps.  contain many tools for managing relationships, forming groups and defining security policies.  Include basic incentive mechanisms to moderate behaviour.  This is ‘free’ global infrastructure that we can exploit. 33The 3rd Karlsruhe Service Summit 2012
    4. 4. THE SOCIAL CLOUD PARADIGM  What is different about the social cloud paradigm?  The social network comes first: It is not a cloud or collaboration environment extended with a social network, it is a social network extended with cloud functionality.  The people and their networks form the basic infrastructure, the services they access and share are formed around their unique social graph.  Individuals contribute their competencies - services that encapsulate; data, storage, computation, algorithms, etc.  The users choose how to delegate their contributions between the groups within which they collaborate 44The 3rd Karlsruhe Service Summit 2012
    5. 5. THE SOCIAL CLOUD PARADIGM - cont.  Users fulfill all roles, from provision of resources, management of collaborations through to comsumption of services and computation – access to which is performed with familiar Social Networking tools.  In some ways this turns the provision of infrastructure on its head. Rather than fitting the user to the infrastructure, we build the infrastructure around the user.  A social cloud is not crowd sourcing:  the relationships are usually* symmetric, participants are more-or-less equals who come together under some commonality of interest to benefit from sharing.  there is explicitly a pre-existing and external underlying set of relationships that connects people within a social cloud (no anonymity). 55The 3rd Karlsruhe Service Summit 2012
    6. 6. ADVANTAGES IN USABILITY Using a social cloud lowers usability barriers:  The interface and tools are already familiar to non expert (non CS) users,  Traditionally difficult authorization and access control take place transparently for the owner and users.  no visible certificate management,  single sign on and  seamless integration with Social Network functionality.  Collaborations are light-weight and dynamic, services and resources can be delegated, removed and accessed using the social network group structure.  Users share services for the duration of collaboration.  A good role for a social cloud is in the early stages of a project when the costs of dedicated or leased infrastructure would be prohibitive. 66The 3rd Karlsruhe Service Summit 2012
    7. 7. GROUPS IN A SOCIAL CLOUD  We exploit the analogy between social networking groups and dynamic virtual organizations.  Groups like virtual organizations have an intent, membership and policies that define sharing  in social networks this relates to photos, media, etc.,  we extend this in the social cloud to include services such as compute and storage.  This forms the basis for a Virtual Collaboration Environment. 77The 3rd Karlsruhe Service Summit 2012
    8. 8. THE SOCIAL CLOUD PROJECT  A collaboration between researchers at:  Victoria, KIT, Cardiff, Chicago, Berkeley…*  There are so far three implementations exploring different aspects of the Social Cloud domain:  (SaaS) Social Storage cloud (our first implementation),  (IaaS/PaaS) The Social Cloud for Collaborative Computation.  (CaaS*) The Social Cloud for public science  Plus:  Business models for the social cloud,  Incentives, economies, gamification to facilitate sharing.  The project began in 2009, with the first publication in 2010. 99The 3rd Karlsruhe Service Summit 2012
    9. 9. SOCIAL STORAGE CLOUD SaaS: A Basic Social Cloud Storage Service  Implemented as a Facebook application.  Our first experiments with a socially oriented market. Agreement 10
    10. 10. COLLABORATION & SOCIAL NETWORKS  Collaboration is desirable, but  communication and coordination is hard in practice, and  face to face meetings tend to occur only sporadically, i.e., at conferences and workshops.  Social networks can potentially provide a natural basis for collaboration, they:  decrease the effort needed to initiate a new collaborative effort, by using tools and infrastructure already familiar to and understood by most people,  Can facilitate discovery of other scientists working on similar projects, through relationships, feeds and invitations. 11 11The 3rd Karlsruhe Service Summit 2012
    11. 11. RESEARCHERS & SOCIAL NETWORKS  But, the social network itself is not a complete collaboration solution.  collaborators also often have resources they wish to share for the duration of a project, and  These resources may include documents, media, data, services, compute, storage, and so on.  Currently this is a difficult process that  Requires access to unfamiliar tools and systems outside the social network,  manual (reciprocal) user account creation etc.  sharing involves access, rights, accounting and auditing – that increases the overhead of project management. 12 12The 3rd Karlsruhe Service Summit 2012
    12. 12. RESEARCHERS & SOCIAL NETWORKS  A Social Cloud is unique in that it is completely open and adhoc – it is created, controlled and managed by its users and therefore requires only a lightweight group management infrastructure.  Difficult tasks such as authentication, group management, tools for interaction (feeds, walls, sharing etc.) are bootstrapped for free from the host social network. 13 13The 3rd Karlsruhe Service Summit 2012
    13. 13. SOCIAL CLOUD VCE ARCHITECTURE  An IaaS/PaaS platform constructed dynamically and accessed via a Facebook application.  Schedules VMs across a VCE (group/VO)  Built on top of Nimbus Cloud  Nimbus handles the VM lifecycle.  Facebook interface to:  Group/VCE management.  Create, join, leave a VCE  Delegate resources to a VCE  Monitor your VMs (also with Android)  Monitor your delegated resources.  Facebook interface, used for groups, feeds, and other project personnel coordination. 14 14The 3rd Karlsruhe Service Summit 2012
    14. 14. VM CONTROL INTERFACE 15 15The 3rd Karlsruhe Service Summit 2012
    15. 15. SOCIAL CLOUD VCE ARCHITECTURE  Application Server (logical):  The application server hosts a web application built using the Facebook public API that renders directly inside the Facebook UI, thereby giving the impression of seamless integration to users.  The application server is responsible for collecting registered user data from Facebook through the graph API and providing an interface to the Social Cloud VCE .  Within the logical Application Server there is also an Image Store, Scheduler and Context Broker. 16 16The 3rd Karlsruhe Service Summit 2012
    16. 16. PUBLIC ERESEARCH Akaholding BOINC back?What’s volunteer computing• Lack of visibilitycancer? AIDS? for Network Computing  A cure for Berkeley Open have BOINC projects Infrastructure• •• Better entry for newtotal Barriers million usersinexpensive computation  Using BOINC for in users 2.3 to cryptographic systems?• •• Unused resources for and joining projects Lack~0.5 millionidentifyingworthy causes of ease in are actively contributing• • Investigating climate change?  Making science democratic Low visibility for new projects – citizen science• Low is it 5.5of active intelligent life out there? But levels petaflops potential?  Searching forits Giving achieving contribution What do they have in common? 18
    17. 17. FACEBOOK STATISTICS On average, people on Facebook install apps more than 20 million times every day Every month, more than 500 million people use an app on Facebook or experience the Facebook Platform on other websites More than 7 million apps and websites are integrated with FacebookImagine if…• Even of Facebook’s user base joinedjoined & contributed to If 1% 0.1% of Facebook’s user base & contributed actively actively to these science projects. these science projects.• That’s .8million users vs. the current 0.5 million 8 million users vs. the current 0.5 million• Giving 9 petaflops 90 petaflops (Japan’s K Computer - 10 Petaflops) 19
    18. 18. A SOCIAL CLOUD FOR PUBLIC ERESEARCH Asymmetric rather than symmetric.  Volunteers donate a computation service to projects. Deep natural facebook integration  Social Channels  News feed  Requests  Notifications Incentive mechanisms in 3 roles to address:  Oprhaned projects (champions)  Recruitment (social anchors)  Compute contribution (magnates) Plus  Project selection (interest signatures) 20
    19. 19. 21 21The 3rd Karlsruhe Service Summit 2012
    20. 20. ARCHITECTURE 22 22The 3rd Karlsruhe Service Summit 2012
    22. 22. IF SUCCESSFUL THIS PROJECT WILL Increase visibility and engagement Provide more computational power for researchers Bring lesser known projects into the limelight Involve the public directly with research they care about. The app will launch in Q1 2012. Science benefits. Humanity benefits. 24
    23. 23. SHARING Different contexts require different models, we are exploring a range of allocation techniques in the social cloud context:  Storage – credits  Compute – shares or slices  Volunteer – gamification, incentives 25
    24. 24. SUMMARY  A new cloud paradigm, the social cloud.  Leverages existing Social Network infrastructure.  Users contribute to groups, both with resources and postings (social media) forming VCEs.  Open flexible, extensible. Global.  A social cloud defines a ‘community of interest’.  Access to resources based on implicit trust.  Potential for adhoc pay per-use ‘localised’ or micro social clouds 26 26The 3rd Karlsruhe Service Summit 2012