Performance Working Group Meeting of 22-JULY-2008
at Joint Techs 2008, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Carla Hunt, (Chair)
Dan Magorian, MAX
Jason Zurawski, Internet2
Aaron Brown, Internet2
Brian Tierney, ESnet
Mike Rechtenbaugh, USGS
Ken Lindahl, UC Berkeley
Michael Van Norman, UCLA
John Haskins, UC Santa Cruz
Siegrid Rickenbach, UC Berkeley
Vyto Grigaliunas, Fermilab
Dan Pritts, Internet2
Mike LaHaye, Internet2
Steven Karp, University of Arkansas Main Campus
Joseph Swift, Clemson U.
Matt Crawford, Fermilab
Celeste Anderson, Univ. So Calif/Pacific Wave
Joe Metzger, ESnet
Tom Throckmorton, MCNC
Brian Yates, Drexel University
Matt Zekauskas, Internet2
Alan Verlo, University of Illinois at Chicago
Jeff Boote, Internet2 (flywheel)
Emily Eisbruch, Internet2 (scribe)
Carla welcomed the group. Attendees stated their goals for the Performance working group. These included:
• Want to leverage PerfSONAR and NPToolkit to study end-to-end performance
• Interested in learning about measurement tools and PerfSONAR
• Want to employ tools to understand more about what's happening on my network.
• Interested in getting Layer 1 access
• Want to make sure perfSONAR is addressing the needs of the community.
• Performance troubleshooting
• Monitoring performance on international connections (Hawaii, Australia)
The performance tool developers would like community input on:
• Mandate/list of what community wants (are end-to-end performance tools still the highest priority, as was indicated a few years back in the Internet2 Community's end-to-end performance initiative?)
• Performance tool use cases
• Testing of tools
• Providing feedback/documentation of what's hard to figure out so that tools can be made easier to use.
It was noted that the goal of Internet2 performance tools is NOT to replace processes, but to leverage things people already doing, and to be useful in a multi-domain environment.
The group discussed how much performance data campuses and connectors are willing to make public. There is a need to determine what kind of access policies (SAML assertions) make sense for the community at large.
- Scope/Structure of Working Groups -
The scope of the various Internet2 working groups in the network/performance area was reviewed.
The NTAC (Network Technical Advisory Committee) has chartered 4 working groups:
1. Performance (perfSONAR and various other tools)
Note: The PerfSONAR WG is under the Performance WG
3. Info Services (discovery and topology)
4. Transport (Pheobus)
Eric Boyd will convene a meeting of the leaders of these 4 working groups to clarify roles.
- Task Forces -
After discussion, the group established these three task forces to function under the Performance working group umbrella.
Members as of
Campus and RONs Requirements
Ken Lindahl, UC Berkeley,
Michael Van Norman, Matt Zekauskas
Packaging, configuration mgmt, best practices, recommendations for what measurements and what data are most useful.
Dan Magorian, Mid-Atlantic Crossroads (MAX) ,
Mike Rechtenbaugh, Matt Zekauskas, Aaron Brown
- How to gather statistics at Layer 1?
What kinds of access policies (SAML assertions) make sense for the community at large?
- Structure Moving Forward -
• The task force chairs will convene their task forces.
• The entire Performance WG will have monthly phone meetings.
Carla will send out an email to establish the monthly phone meetings, perhaps using Meeting Wizard to find a time.
• There will be a face-to-face meeting of the WG at the Internet2 Fall Member Meeting in New Orleans.
- Intellectual Property Policy Reminder -
All Internet2 Working Groups operate under the Internet2 Intellectual Property Framework. Working group members should review the policy at http://www.internet2.edu/membership/ip.html.