Notice: this Wiki will be going read only early in 2024 and edits will no longer be possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.
Difference between revisions of "COSMOSF2F04Dec06"
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | [[COSMOS|COSMOS Main Page]] > | ||
| + | |||
'''COSMOS Face-2-Face''' | '''COSMOS Face-2-Face''' | ||
== Logistics == | == Logistics == | ||
Date: 04-December-06 | Date: 04-December-06 | ||
| − | Time: 1: | + | Time: 1:30pm - 5:00pm PST |
| − | Location: | + | Location: GroundWork Open Source, 139 Townsend Street, Suite 100, San Francisco, CA 94107 |
| + | |||
| + | Call in 888 241 8547 | ||
| + | |||
| + | pc 999451 | ||
== Ateendees == | == Ateendees == | ||
Mark Weitzel | Mark Weitzel | ||
| + | |||
Craig Thomas | Craig Thomas | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | Sheldon Lee Loy | ||
== Agenda == | == Agenda == | ||
| − | * Given that we have Don (Data Collection) and Craig (Reporting UI) both possibly being | + | * Given that we have Don (Data Collection) and Craig (Reporting UI) both possibly being available, then I suggest we begin to focus on the API b/t the two layers. |
* Establish the first target environment for the reports | * Establish the first target environment for the reports | ||
| − | * | + | * TBD |
| + | |||
| + | == Minutes == | ||
| + | These are notes from the meeting held Dec 4,2006, from 1:30-5pm PST. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Participating were Mark Weitzel, Sheldon Lee Loy, and Craig Thomas. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is hoped that the participants will take a look at these notes, and make liberal edits to correct or re-cast them. | ||
| + | |||
| + | These notes are just the rough sketch of the conversation. The resulting updates to the Eclipse COSMOS end-to-end use cases and assumptions about the scope and availability of SML models, as well as the details of interface points are captured in the [[End-to-End use cases]] page. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Discussed: | ||
| + | # Scope of SML model. Options for simplifying assumptions. Concluded that a model of the J2EE application on Tomcat, behind an Apache HTTPD server, deployed on a Linux operating system, hosted on a commodity Intel 64-bit server with 4Gb memory and a Raid 5 disk subsystem is too complex for the March deliverables. Agreed that this model could be simplified to a J2EE application on an application server hosted on a computer. This simpler model has considerably smaller demands on SML, but offers the interesting dependency relationship, as well as the appeal to Eclipse developers of JMX instrumentation. | ||
| + | # The end-to-end use case seems to have 2 paths: | ||
| + | ## Development time: Resource Modeling; Management Enablement; Data Collection; Reporting. All of these are conducted in one sitting. Further, the first two are the architecture and design tasks, while the second two are deploy, execute, observe tasks. | ||
| + | ## Production time: Data Collection; Reporting. These two "downstream" activies are conducted on the live system. Rather than deploy, execute, observe, these can be thought of as "deploy, execute, monitor". | ||
| + | # End-to-end use case lifecycle and its relationship to SML-IF documents. Discussed that the Resource Modeling use case would result in the SML-IF documents for the ''app'', the ''app server'', and the ''host''. In Management Enablement, we would add the triple-play: ''properties--how they are observed--how to take the measurement''. This set of properties drives the generation of tooling in ME. In Data Collection. | ||
| + | # Moved quickly across the 4 stages of the end-to-end: resource modeling, management enablement, data collection, and data reporting. Narrated the responsibilities of SML and of the component code in each. | ||
| + | # Mocked up a report. The goal of the report is to assess the "state of a business that depends on applications". The report is organized as: | ||
| + | + application-1 state: available | ||
| + | + application-2 state: available | ||
| + | + application-3 state: available | ||
| + | + ... | ||
| + | : the application node can be expanded, as can the application server node, as: | ||
| + | + application-1 state: available | ||
| + | + application-server-1 state: available | ||
| + | - host-1 state: available | ||
| + | + application-2 state: unavailable | ||
| + | + application-server-2 state: available | ||
| + | - host-1 state: available | ||
| + | + application-3 state: available | ||
| + | + application-server-2 state: available | ||
| + | - host-1 state: available | ||
| + | + ... | ||
Latest revision as of 13:20, 14 December 2006
COSMOS Face-2-Face
Contents
Logistics
Date: 04-December-06 Time: 1:30pm - 5:00pm PST Location: GroundWork Open Source, 139 Townsend Street, Suite 100, San Francisco, CA 94107
Call in 888 241 8547
pc 999451
Ateendees
Mark Weitzel
Craig Thomas
Sheldon Lee Loy
Agenda
- Given that we have Don (Data Collection) and Craig (Reporting UI) both possibly being available, then I suggest we begin to focus on the API b/t the two layers.
- Establish the first target environment for the reports
- TBD
Minutes
These are notes from the meeting held Dec 4,2006, from 1:30-5pm PST.
Participating were Mark Weitzel, Sheldon Lee Loy, and Craig Thomas.
It is hoped that the participants will take a look at these notes, and make liberal edits to correct or re-cast them.
These notes are just the rough sketch of the conversation. The resulting updates to the Eclipse COSMOS end-to-end use cases and assumptions about the scope and availability of SML models, as well as the details of interface points are captured in the End-to-End use cases page.
Discussed:
- Scope of SML model. Options for simplifying assumptions. Concluded that a model of the J2EE application on Tomcat, behind an Apache HTTPD server, deployed on a Linux operating system, hosted on a commodity Intel 64-bit server with 4Gb memory and a Raid 5 disk subsystem is too complex for the March deliverables. Agreed that this model could be simplified to a J2EE application on an application server hosted on a computer. This simpler model has considerably smaller demands on SML, but offers the interesting dependency relationship, as well as the appeal to Eclipse developers of JMX instrumentation.
- The end-to-end use case seems to have 2 paths:
- Development time: Resource Modeling; Management Enablement; Data Collection; Reporting. All of these are conducted in one sitting. Further, the first two are the architecture and design tasks, while the second two are deploy, execute, observe tasks.
- Production time: Data Collection; Reporting. These two "downstream" activies are conducted on the live system. Rather than deploy, execute, observe, these can be thought of as "deploy, execute, monitor".
- End-to-end use case lifecycle and its relationship to SML-IF documents. Discussed that the Resource Modeling use case would result in the SML-IF documents for the app, the app server, and the host. In Management Enablement, we would add the triple-play: properties--how they are observed--how to take the measurement. This set of properties drives the generation of tooling in ME. In Data Collection.
- Moved quickly across the 4 stages of the end-to-end: resource modeling, management enablement, data collection, and data reporting. Narrated the responsibilities of SML and of the component code in each.
- Mocked up a report. The goal of the report is to assess the "state of a business that depends on applications". The report is organized as:
+ application-1 state: available + application-2 state: available + application-3 state: available + ...
- the application node can be expanded, as can the application server node, as:
+ application-1 state: available
+ application-server-1 state: available
- host-1 state: available
+ application-2 state: unavailable
+ application-server-2 state: available
- host-1 state: available
+ application-3 state: available
+ application-server-2 state: available
- host-1 state: available
+ ...