Carla Hunt, (Chair)
Ken Lindahl, UC Berkeley
Ana Lucia De Moura, RNP Brazil
Yasuchi Kitamura, APAN
Shawn McKee, University of Michigan
Frank Van Lingen, Cal Tech
Sherilyn Evans (for Eric Liu), CENIC
John T. Killebrew, NCREN
Chester Ruszczyk, MIT Haystack
Steven Senger, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
James Deaton, ONENET
Mark Johnsonk, NCREN
Eric Boyd, Internet2
Andrew Lake, Internet2
Matt Zekauskas, Internet2
Susan Evett, Internet2
Jeff Boote, Internet2 (flywheel)
Emily Eisbruch, Internet2 (scribe)
Carla welcomed the group.
She announced that regular Performance Working Group calls will be held the 4th Monday of every month at noon, starting Monday, November 24, 2008.
Carla reviewed the current status of the three task forces formed at the Performance Working Group meeting at Joint Techs in Lincoln, NE (July 2008).
Campus and RONs Requirements
ken lindahl, UC Berkeley,
This task force has started working on a guidelines document.
Dan Magorian, Mid-Atlantic Crossroads (MAX)
Dan could not be here at the Fall Member Meeting
Not much activity yet on this task force
ken reported that the Campus and RON's Requirements/Best Practices (BCP) task force now includes several members and is eager to add more members. Information is found at:
The BCP task force aims to produce three documents:
Work is underway on Document #1.
The BCP task force took the LHC best practices document (http://code.google.com/p/perfsonar-ps/wiki/Tier2BCP) as a starting point. The task force will update it to make it fit the more general environment of a campus or RON. Changes will be made on the wiki at:
The time goal is to finish the guidelines document by the next Internet2 member meeting (April 27-29, 2009)
The audience is measurement infrastructure operators and network operators.
The purpose is to provide a rationale for using tools; to detail the benefits of building a measurement
Status - The task force took a first pass through the LHC document, but they have not started rewriting yet. They need folks
willing to complete a second review of LHC document and contribute to revisions.
Homework for task force participants is to read the Guidelines document and prepare some thoughts on sections needing updating.
Next Steps - ken lindahl will send a Doodle poll to set up the next BCP task force conference call.
Eric Boyd mentioned the importance of determining ways to encourage implementation of the best practices. Should there be training? How does the WG recommend rolling it out?
Jeff Boote reviewed the new Toolkit, available on a CD or available at http://www.internet2.edu/performance/pS-PS/
Organizations that install a performance node using the toolkit will be included in the list of active endpoints and services at http://www.perfsonar.net/deploy.html
The perfSONAR PS development team is getting feedback from users and making the toolkit even better. They are also preparing better documentation on individual services and the analysis client. They hope to make use of more and more of these tools in the Network Performance Workshops, to show how perfSONAR can be leveraged.
There is still some development work to do, especially in netflow analysis.
Anyone who can help with testing the tools -- or provide any feedback at all -- should email
performance-node-users AT internet2 DOT edu.
Carla suggested discussion on:
Ana Luicia De Moura, from RNP in Brazil, commented that deploying a measurement system is a lot of work. It's important to involve the POP. Providing training that includes hands-on experience with the tools and the environment is key. They developed a well-defined use policy governing which users have access to what information.
Sherilyn from CENIC asked "What is the right skill set for people deploying measurement tools: network engineer or system administrator?" Responses focused on the need for a particular breed of system admin to solve the little glitches over time. There is also a need for people with the skill set to interpret and explain the results. This can be someone in the network engineering team who cares about what end-to-end performance users are getting.
Carla noted that there are three working groups in the network area, and there is some overlap.
Chet and Steve, the cochairs for the Transport WG gave a quick overview of that WG, saying the goal is to solve end-to-end performance/transport issues.
International best practice was identified as a good topic for the future.
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.