11

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, PhysicsPervasive Technology Laboratories

Indiana University Bloomington IN 47401

gcf@indiana.eduhttp://www.infomall.org

22

Uncontroversial Ideas 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”

The emerging picture is of distributed services with advertised interfaces but opaque implementations communicating by streams of messages over a variety of protocols• Complete systems are built by combining either services or

predefined/pre-existing collections of services together to achieve new capabilities

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

33

Why Web 2.0 is Useful Captures the incredible development of interactive

Web sites enabling people to create and collaborate

44

Technology Approaches Web Services have clearly defined protocols (SOAP) and a well

defined mechanism (WSDL) to define service interfaces• There is good .NET and Java support• The so-called WS-* specifications provide a rich sophisticated but

complicated standard set of capabilities for security, fault tolerance, meta-data, discovery, notification etc.

“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)

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• Over 400 Interfaces defined at http://www.programmableweb.com/apis

Web 2.0 also has many well known capabilities with Google Maps and Amazon Compute/Storage services of clear general relevance

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,

55

Web 2.0 v Grid I Web 2.0 allows people to nurture the Internet Cloud and such

people got Time’s person of year award Whereas Narrow Grids support Internet scale Distributed

Services with similar architecture Maybe Narrow Grids focus on (number of) Services (there

aren’t many scientists) and Web 2.0 focuses on number of People Both agree on service oriented architectures but have different

emphasis 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• Semantic Web/Grid has structure to allow reasoning• Annotation in sites like del.icio.us and uploading to MySpace/YouTube is

unstructured and free text search replaces structured ontologies

Web 2.0 v Grid II Web 2.0 has a set of major services like GoogleMaps or Flickr

but the world is composing Mashups that make new composite services• End-point standards are set by end-point owners• Many different protocols covering a variety of de-facto standards

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

Popular Web 2.0 technologies are PHP, JavaScript, JSON, AJAX and REST with “Start Page” e.g. (Google Gadgets) interfaces

Popular Narrow Grid technologies are Apache Axis, BPEL WSDL and SOAP with portlet interfaces

Robustness of Grids demanded by the Enterprise? Not so clear that Web 2.0 won’t eventually dominate other

application areas and with Enterprise 2.0 it’s invading GridsThe world does itself in large numbers!

77

APIs/Mashups per Protocol Distribution

REST SOAP XML-RPC REST,XML-RPC

REST,XML-RPC,

SOAP

REST,SOAP

JS Other

google google mapsmaps

netvibesnetvibes

live.comlive.com

virtual virtual earthearth

google google searchsearch

amazon S3amazon S3

amazon amazon ECSECS

flickrflickrebayebay

youtubeyoutube

411sync411syncdel.icio.usdel.icio.us

yahoo! searchyahoo! searchyahoo! geocodingyahoo! geocoding

technoratitechnorati

yahoo! imagesyahoo! imagestrynttrynt

yahoo! localyahoo! local

Number ofMashups

Number ofAPIs

88

Implication for Grids I I once thought Web Services were inevitable but this is

no longer clear to me Web services are complicated, slow and non functional

• WS-Security is unnecessarily slow and pedantic (canonicalization of XML)

• WS-RM (Reliable Messaging) seems to have poor adoption and doesn’t work well in collaboration

• WSDM (distributed management) specifies a lot There are de facto standards like Google Maps and

powerful suppliers like Google which “define the rules” 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

99

Implications for Grids II Should one define e-Infrastructure and Cyberinfrastructure

as core functionality for e-Science, e-Business etc. Then Web 2.0 is one technology and Grid/Web services are

another? 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?• i.e. define a Broad Grid as any collection of services with message

based interfaces of any protocols 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?• Data(base) Grid interfaces not so successful?• Google groups etc. also allow virtual organizations for

some key capabilities?• i.e. define a “Narrow Grid” as a standards compliant

collection of Web Services

1010

Implications for Instruments We shouldn’t worry so much about SOAP and Web

services but build small simple collections of services with documented interfaces

Messaging can be SOAP, HTTP, RTP or other binary• Previously I thought one should always use SOAP and if

necessary use “binary XML” to speed up and/or get back to native form

• Not a bad idea but too complicated Build Instrument Grids (Broad Grid definition) that

can be linked to other Broad Grids• Grids of Grids (Systems of Systems is well known Jargon)

This can lead to substantially higher performance, easier construction and allowed high functionality inside a given subgrid

11

Grids of Grids of Simple Services• Link via methods messages streams• Services and Grids are linked by messages• Internally to service, functionalities are linked by methods• A simple service is the smallest Grid• We are familiar with method-linked hierarchy

Lines of Code Methods Objects Programs Packages

Overlayand ComposeGrids of Grids

Methods Services Component Grids

CPUs Clusters ComputeResource Grids

MPPs

DatabasesFederatedDatabases

Sensor Sensor Nets

DataResource Grids

1212

Component Grids? So we build collections of Services which we package as

component Broad Grids• Visualization Grid• YouTube/MySpace Grid• Annotation (Connotea) Grid• Geographic Information System Grid • Sensor Grid• Instrument Grid• Utility Computing Grid• Audio-Video Conferencing Grid• Control Room Grid• Crisis Management Grid• Data-mining Grid

We build bigger Broad Grids by composing component Broad Grids by linking with mediated messages

13Physical Network (monitored by FS16)

7: Discovery 8:Metadata

BioInformatics GridChemical Informatics Grid

…Domain SpecificGrids/Services

…

4: Notification

6: Security 5: Workflow3: Messaging 9: Management

14: Information Instrument/Sensor

12: Computing

Core Low Level Grid Services

9: Management 18: Scheduling 10: Policy

15: Application Services

Screening ToolsQuantum Calculations

15: Application Services Sequencing ToolsBiocomplexity Simulations

11: Portals

17: Collaboration

Ser

vice

s

13: Data Access/Storage

Using the Grid of Grids and Core Services to build multiple application grids re-using common components.

1414

Net Centric and Critical Infrastructure (CI) Grids built as Grids of Grids and re-using subGrids

Flood Servicesand Filters

Physical Network

Registry Metadata

Military Servicesand Filters

Net Centric Grid Flood CIGrid… Electricity CIGrid …

Data Access/Storage

Security WorkflowNotification Messaging

Portals Information Management Grid

Collaboration Grid

Sensor Grid Compute GridGIS Grid

Core Grid Services

15

Mediation and Transformation in a Grid of Grids and Simple Services

Po

rtP

ort

Port PortInternal

Interfaces

Subgrid or service

Po

rtP

ort

Port PortInternal

Interfaces

Subgrid or service

Po

rtP

ort

Port PortInternal

Interfaces

Subgrid or service

Messaging

Mediation andTransformationServices

External facingInterfaces

16

Grid of Grids Builder Tool• This provides a graphical interface to build grids

from existing libraries of Services and Grids• Meta-data (provenance) needs to be specified• Grids (services) need to be linked• This is built by extending an existing workflow

engine which is aimed at a more tightly coupled version of the builder problem– We examined HPSearch (CGL), Taverna (Open source

from UK OMII), BPEL with user interface (OMII or IU LEAD project), Eclipse

– Semantic Grid provenance “add-ons”– We chose BPEL with an Eclipse interface

1717

Grid Builder Features 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

The Grid Builder will set up and launch a dynamic monitoring framework that provides fault tolerance for services and message brokers

18

Dynamic Service Management Architecture

Resource to Manage

(Managee)

ServiceAdapter

Bootstrap Service

System Health Check Manager

Resource to Manage

(Managee)

ServiceAdapter

Resource to Manage

(Managee)

ServiceAdapter

Manager

MessagingNode

Registry

Manager

Manager

...

...

Connect to Messaging Node for sending and

receiving messagesUser writes system

configuration to registry

Manager processes periodically checks available resources to manage. Also

Read/Write resource specific external state from/to

registry

Always ensure up and runningAlways ensure up

and running

Periodically Spawn

WS Management

Available in latest release of http://www.naradabrokering.org

19

NaradaBrokering

Stream

NB supports messagesand streams

Queues

Website: http://www.naradabrokering.org/

Code base specifics1425 classes 157 packages

300,000 lines of code1000 annual downloads

2020

Scalable Distributed Publish-subscribe Network

• Any number of Cooperating nodes

• P2P or hierarchical Constraint Specifications

• Strings, Regular Expressions, SQL queries, XPath queries, & XQuery

Support for multiple transports• TCP, UDP, Multicast, SSL, HTTP, Parallel-TCP

[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.

NB Features: Data Distribution

2121

End-to-End Security All Interactions Authorized Copes with attack scenarios

• Replay attacks Secure Topics naturally support role-based secure message

subscriptions Transport independence of security implies can use for audio-

video conferences as well as SSL

[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.

NB Features: Security

2222

[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.

NB Features: Fault Tolerance Sustain losses of nodes Support for recovery and replays of streams Customize redundancy and replay scheme for storage of messages Guaranteed delivery of data Track availability of all entities

2323

[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.

All discovery is Secure and Authorized Discover closest broker

• Assimilate new broker additions Discover topics

• Topic Provenance identifies publisher and allowed subscribers

Load-balance resources

NB Features: Discovery of Brokers and Topics

2424

[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.

NB Features: Qualities of Service (QoS) Jitter reduction

• Buffering & Time spacing services Global Timestamps

• Network Time Protocol• Time ordering

Coping with large payloads• Compression & Decompression• Fragmentation & Coalescing

2525

[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.

NB Features: Web Services Support WS-Reliable Messaging WS-Reliability WS-Eventing SOAP Not as important as I thought Comes with full WS-Management suite for dynamic broker management

2626

NB Features: Miscellaneous

JMS Compliant C++ bridge

• JNI• Sockets-based

Legacy• Interfaced with JXTA as example of P2P operation

High Performance and tested Java code Open source at http://www.naradabrokering.org

27

0

1

2

3

4

5

100 1000 10000 100000 0

1

2

3

4

5

Mean

tra

nsi

t d

ela

y

(Millise

con

ds)

Sta

nd

ard

Devia

tion

(M

illise

con

ds)

Content Payload Size (Bytes)

Round-trip delays for different payload sizes (100B - 100KB)

Delay Standard Deviation

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

10 100 1000 10000 0

5

10

15

20

Tran

sit

Dela

y (

Millise

con

ds)

Sta

nd

ard

Devia

tion

(M

illise

con

ds)

Payload Size (Bytes)

End-to-End Secure & Authorized Delivery of Messages with 256-bit AES encryptions and 7PKCS padding

1024-bit RSA and 160-bit SHA-1 digest for signing/verification

Delay: 1 Broker, 1 Sub StdDev: 1 Broker, 1 Sub Delay: 3 Brokers, 200 Sub

StdDev: 3 Brokers, 200 Sub

2 ms per broker in distributed case

29

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

100 1000 10000

Tim

e (

Mill

iseco

nd

s)

Payload Size (Bytes)

Delivery overheads in different Topologiesfor different message payload sizes

3 Brokers, Best effort 3 Brokers, 1 Repository

3 Brokers, 3 Repositories

30

Average Video Delays (OLD Data) UDP Performance when NaradaBrokering used

for audio-video conferencing

Latency ms

# Receivers

One sessionMultiple sessions

30 frames/sec

3131

GlobalMMCS Service Architecture

SIP H323 Access Grid Native XGSPAdmire

Gateways convert to uniform XGSP Messaging

High Performance (RTP)and XML/SOAP and ..

Media ServersFilters

Session ServerXGSP-based Control

NaradaBrokeringAll Messaging

Use Multiple Media servers to scale to many codecs and manyversions of audio/video mixing

NB Scales asdistributed

WebServices

NaradaBrokering

Key idea: Use of queues in NaradaBrokering to build multipoint MCUThis works well and Naradabrokering is reliable for day long continuous runsMotivated UDP (as well as TCP) support in NaradaBrokeringGlobalMMCS is not very reliable software

3232

Collaboration Grid Improvements:HSD – Hybrid Shared Display

HSD builds on a combination of Classic Shared Display (CSD) and Video Shared Display (VSD)

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

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.• Average pixel rate of change in video window > 100 rate of change

in non-video part of shared window Need synchronized UDP and TCP transmissions to

transport both components

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

34

35

eSports System for Real time multipoint video sharing and annotation Real time Archive and instant replay of NaradaBrokering native

events; 200 ms delay on a replayed video stream across continental USA

Uses NaradaBrokering distributed replicated storage service to save and recall all video stream packets in < 200ms

Uses NaradaBrokering Time service to remove jitter and replay with faithful time intervals between packets

Supports Web Service version of extended RTSP for VCR style video manipulation services As all records stored, one can rewind to any point on a real time

(200 ms delayed) replay stream Utilizing WS-Context Service as standards compliant distributed

fault tolerant high performance metadata service; Transporting all messages through NaradaBrokering messaging

middleware

36

eSports System and Streaming Services

T=NaradaBrokering Topic

37

eSports System Interface (Recording)

38

eSports System Interface (Replay)

39

Explanation of User Interface

Opens an eSports session

Closes the eSports session Session ID

Session Description

GlobalMMCS Video 1

GlobalMMCS Video 2

Whiteboard area(Snapshot annotation

tool area)

Session List

Session Information

Area

Stream Information

Area

Snapshot Button for Video 1

Snapshot Button for Video 2

Timeline

Starting and stopping replay

sessions and streams

40

Performance Tests (WAN – UCSD Results)

Parameter Measured Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error Overall delay 229.3 msec 18.2 0.350 Generic streaming overhead

194.1 msec 18.2 0.350

Jitter 0.0 msec 0.0034 0.00007

41

Cost of Storage

Broker B2

Broker B1

Broker B3

S1P1

Topology C

Broker B2

Broker B1

Broker B3

S1P1

Repository

Topology D

Topology E

Repository 1

Broker B2

Broker B1

Broker B3

S1P1

Repository 2

Broker B2

Broker B1

Broker B3

Repository 2

Repository 3Repository 1

S1P1Topology F

0123 repositories

Old and New (Web 2.0) Community Tools del.icio.us, Connotea, Citeulike, Bibsonomy, Biolicious manage

shared bookmarks MySpace, YouTube, Bebo, Hotornot, Facebook, or similar sites

allow you to create (upload) community resources and share them; Friendster, LinkedIn create networks• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites • http://www.slideshare.net http://www.gliffy.com

Google documents, Wikis and Blogs are powerful specialized shared document systems

ConferenceXP and WebEx share general applications Google Scholar tells you who has cited your papers while

publisher sites tell you about co-authors• Windows Live Academic Search has similar goals

Kazaa, Instant Messengers, Skype, Napster, BitTorrent for P2P Collaboration – text, audio-video conferencing, files

Note sharing resources creates (implicit) communities• Social network tools study graphs to both define communities

and extract their properties

Connotea Connotea is run

by Nature and is useful for collecting research links

Here is 177 parallel computing links selected on Meeting

Useful extension of del.icio.us

4444

“Best Web 2.0 Sites” -- 2006 Extracted from http://web2.wsj2.com/ Social Networking

Start Pages

Social Bookmarking

Peer Production News

Social Media Sharing

Online Storage (Computing)

4545

Mashups v Workflow? Mashup Tools are reviewed at http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=63 Workflow Tools are reviewed by Gannon and Fox

http://grids.ucs.indiana.edu/ptliupages/publications/Workflow-overview.pdf Both include

scripting in PHP, Python, sh etc. as both implement distributed programming at level of services

Mashups use all types of service interfaces and do not have the potential robustness (security) of Grid service approach

Typically “pure” HTTP (REST)

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

4646

Grid Workflow Datamining in Earth Science Work with Scripps Institute Grid services controlled by workflow process real time

data from ~70 GPS Sensors in Southern California

Streaming DataSupport

TransformationsData Checking

Hidden MarkovDatamining (JPL)

Display (GIS)

NASA GPS

Earthquake

Real Time

Archival

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 dataWorkflow scripted in JavaScript

4747

Web 2.0 uses all types of Services Here a Gadget Mashup uses a 3 service workflow with a

JavaScript Gadget Client and PHP services Web 2.0 is NOT just client side as sometimes claimed

Web 2.0 APIs

http://www.programmableweb.com/apis currently (April 17 2007) 415 Web 2.0 APIs with GoogleMaps the most used in Mashups

This site acts as a “UDDI” for Web 2.0

The List of Web 2.0 API’s Each site has API

and its features Divided into

broad categories Only a few used a

lot (39 API’s used in more than 10 mashups)

RSS feed of new APIs

3 more Mashups each day For a total of 1799

April 17 2007 (3.9 a day over last month)

Note ClearForest runs Semantic Web Services Mashup competitions (not workflow competitions)

Some Mashup types: aggregators, search aggregators, visualizers, mobile, maps, gamesGrowing number of commercial Mashup Tools

51

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)

Indiana Map Grid (Mashup)

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

Cache Server

Adapter Adapter Adapter

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

53

Mash Planet

Web 2.0 Architecture

http://www.imagine-it.org/mashplanetDisplay too large to be a Gadget

54

Searched on Transit/TransportationSearched on Transit/Transportation

5555

Grid-style portal as used in Earthquake GridThe 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

5656

Portlets v. Google Gadgets Portals for Grid Systems are built using portlets with

software like GridSphere integrating these on the server-side into a single web-page

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

Google is more user friendly! The many Web 2.0 competitions is an interesting model

for promoting development in the world-wide distributed collection of Web 2.0 developers

I guess Web 2.0 model will win!

Note the many competitions powering Web 2.0 Mashup Development

Typical Google Gadget Structure

… Lots of HTML and JavaScript </Content> </Module>Portlets build User Interfaces by combining fragments in a standalone Java ServerGoogle Gadgets build User Interfaces by combining fragments with JavaScript on the client

Google Gadgets are an example of Start Page technologySee http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=8

HTTP v SOAP v WS-* v Grid Quote from user trying to use ClearForest SOAP API

when first released:• “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.”

• ClearForest offered a REST API within the week. Microsoft DSS is an interesting high performance

service infrastructure supporting SOAP and HTTP http://msdn.microsoft.com/robotics/. • Runs well on multicore as well as distributed systems

Mashups can support multiple protocols but “equilibrium” is an evolution to simplest protocols as advantage of complicated protocols gets thrown away

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 10 100 1000 10000

Round trips

Av

era

ge

ru

n t

ime

(m

icro

se

co

nd

s)

Timing of HP Opteron Multicore as a function of number of simultaneous two-way service messages processed (November 2006 DSS Release) Measurements of Axis 2 shows about 500 microseconds – DSS is substantially faster

DSS Service Measurements

6060

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