Re: [Dyncast] How to expose "Computing Capability"?

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jens,

Yes 'computing capability' is the new area from application side or computing resource, and simplifying the impact on the network, routing and protocol is also necessary. 

But when we want to do some joint optimization work, a certain degree of interaction and mutual understanding is also required. 

We have some related work to be refined and also have the reference such as the paper mentioned. I believe it will also be an interesting work. 

Regards,
Peng



[e-mail]
 
From: Dirk Trossen
Date: 2022-05-13 14:56
To: Jens Finkhaeuser; Dirk Trossen
CC: Linda Dunbar; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Dyncast] How to expose "Computing Capability"?
Hi Jens,
 
Not off-topic at all ;-) and a good question/comment, really. 
 
In fact, the paper simply utilizes a numeral, indeed. No semantics is attached when conveying this to the ingress node for decision making. We use in our simulations the relation of this value to ‘compute unit’, as expressed in, e.g., # cores or threads assigned to a service instance. You could also include, as Linda suggested to, things like storage speed, connectivity speed. We were even looking into assigning the energy costs spent per request to that value, turning the “CArDS” (which stands for compute-aware distributed scheduling) mechanism in the paper into an “EArDS” (energy-aware distributed scheduling) mechanism. 
 
This assignment of meaning is indeed entirely left to the application. The ingress merely acts on said numeral in weighted round robin fashion (which is easy to implement). So please don’t be confused by the focus on compute unit in the paper (since we want to tie some semantic to the algorithm for evaluation). My intention for raising awareness for this work is that you may well go beyond that and indeed address the points you outline below, i.e., no need to leak semantics to the net operator, simpler realization, simpler protocol probably, …
 
Best,
 
Dirk
 
From: Dyncast [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jens Finkhaeuser
Sent: 13 May 2022 08:32
To: Dirk Trossen <dirk.trossen=[e-mail]>
Cc: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Dyncast] How to expose "Computing Capability"?
 
Hi all,
 
maybe a tad off-topic, but I still think that "compute capability" is best application defined, and CAN should just offer a function for publishing an application specific value, where routers pick the best (aka highest/lowest; and/or maybe combine that with path awareness). That requires the least protocol engineering, the least computation on the router, and gives applications every flexibility in defining how to come by this value. Plus, it leaks the least amount of data one might not want to expose.
 
I say off-topic because I don't know what's in that paper!

Jens
------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, May 12th, 2022 at 09:00, Dirk Trossen <dirk.trossen=[e-mail]> wrote:


Hi Linda,
 
Apologies for that. I had hoped the links are coming online quicker but they’re not yet there. I don’t want to send the PDF on the list directly but can provide it for anybody who drops me an email. Once I have the link, I’ll add it to the github issue.
 
Best,
 
Dirk
 
From: Dyncast [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: 11 May 2022 20:33
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Dyncast] How to expose "Computing Capability"?
 
 
The answer to the CAN issue #10 (Is computing resource measurable? https://github.com/CAN-IETF/CAN-BoF-ietf113/issues/10 ) states:
 
o   See IFIP Networking 2022 paper on how to simply expose “computing capability” and achieve better steering with such simple measure.
 
Does anyone have the link to the IFIP Network 2022 paper on how to simply expose “Computing Capability”? 
Thank you
Linda