Difference between revisions of "Regionalized GOCDB use cases"

From EGIWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Use case #1)
(Dependencies with other regionalized tools)
Line 21: Line 21:
  
 
====Dependencies with other regionalized tools====
 
====Dependencies with other regionalized tools====
# The regional nagios and the regional dashboards would have to consolidate information based on what is available on the regional GOCDB. Since SAM is not migrating to ATP, I do not really understand what would be the consequencies.  
+
# The regional nagios and the regional dashboards would have to consolidate information based on what is available on the regional GOCDB. Since regional Nagios are now using ATP, probably an ATP regional view should be available also.  
 
# ActiveMQ message chain would have to be done from regional nagios to regional dashboards.  
 
# ActiveMQ message chain would have to be done from regional nagios to regional dashboards.  
 
<!-- end use case block -->
 
<!-- end use case block -->

Revision as of 16:54, 5 April 2011

Main EGI.eu operations services Support Documentation Tools Activities Performance Technology Catch-all Services Resource Allocation Security


Current status of regionalization

Currently there is a regionalized installation for GOCDB, but it is a stand-alone instance. It is not possible to automatically synchronize the data in the local installation with the central one. Please see: https://wiki.egi.eu/wiki/GOCDB_Regionalisation_Plans


Use cases

Use case #1

Hierarchical arquitecture for GOCDB

Use case description

NGIs could benefit from a GOCDB hierarchical arquitecture with two layers: regional GOCDBs populating the bottom layer, and the EGI central GOCDB installation populating the top layer. Information would flow from the bottom layer to the top layer, with the possibility to filter data when sending to upper level.

This setup would allow the introduction of local sites in the regional infrastructure (regional nagios and the regional dashboard) without propagating that local site information to EGI and beyond the NGI scope.

(Note: Sorry, I didn't understood if the following scenario is completly absorbed in the GOCDB Regionalisation Plans. Therefore, I stated here once again)

Dependencies with other regionalized tools

  1. The regional nagios and the regional dashboards would have to consolidate information based on what is available on the regional GOCDB. Since regional Nagios are now using ATP, probably an ATP regional view should be available also.
  2. ActiveMQ message chain would have to be done from regional nagios to regional dashboards.


For other use cases, please see: https://wiki.egi.eu/wiki/GOCDB_Regionalisation_Plans