[AG-TECH] Conference XP vs AG

[Derek Piper]

	Hi Patrick,

	Thanks for the hint about the identity override, I'll try that out.
	What you mention about tying the machines together isn't actually 
correct, sorry. I'm not trying to be nit-picky. The multiple machine 
aspect is for tying the SERVICES of different computers to just ONE 
client. You only want one client for navigation, i.e. getting to the 
venue, otherwise you'd have to manually connect them one at a time and 
that sounds like it'd be annoying more than anything. No, the 
distributed services idea is so that I can have a machine with a hoard 
of capture cards controlling encoding my video streams, another machine 
(i.e. in a different part of the room possibly) that controls the 
microphones and speakers) and yet another machine that controls the 
multiple-screen/projector display. You can consolidate things down to 
just one machine handling it all or split apart capture and display for 
audio and video across any number of machines. All tie to just ONE 
client (which can be another machine too, i.e. a presenter's laptop) 
that handles shared applications etc. By sharing out the 
'responsibilities' it makes nodes much easier to put together, shares 
load and eases congestion on fixed resources like number of PCI slots etc.
	So it's not about representation really, it's about being able to 
utilize the capabilities of more than one computer to form your 'node'. 
An AccessGrid 'Personal Node' where all services are controlled by one 
computer is analogous to the ConferenceXP method.

	Derek

Patrick Bristow wrote:
> I'll jump in here, as I think Chris is busy (and doing things that
> involve my yearly review, which I'd prefer he keep working on! ;)
> 
> So I also don't know a lot about the ability to tie services together
> across AG machines, but I think I understand the basic functionality.
> In my understanding, the only difference between what AG allows and
> simply putting two computers in the venue is that with the AG, you're
> more clearly representing that the machines belong to only one logical
> "participant" or room.
> 
> CXP will happily allow you to just setup two computers and put them each
> in the venue, both with a set of cameras attached, etc.  However, there
> are no provisions for tying the two logically together, and we won't
> make the experience any easier or harder for you.
> 
> For Derek, you can easily override the identity of the participant by
> one of two methods:
> 
> * From the commandline/shortcut - e.g. "cxpclient.exe -e client at ms.com"
> * By adding this entry in the CXPClient.exe.config file, 
> <add key="MSR.LST.ConferenceXP.Identity.Identifieroverride"
> value="another email address"/>
> 
> I think that by just running the client separately on both machines &
> doing the Identifier Override as necessary will give a very similar
> experience to the way the AG makes the two machines "appear as one".
> Perhaps the only odd thing is that you'll see both/all machines in the
> venue, but you can make more clear by just setting the profile name
> field to be similar, such as "Argonne, Room 112, #1" and "Argonne, Room
> 112, #2".
> 
> Please correct me if I'm wrong about the AG functionality.  I'm not an
> experienced AG user.
> 
> Thanks,
> Patrick
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov [mailto:owner-ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov] On
> Behalf Of Todd Zimmerman
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 10:25 AM
> To: Chris Moffatt
> Cc: ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov
> Subject: Re: [AG-TECH] Conference XP vs AG
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> In our case, this capability is very important for a couple of reasons.
> First is the basic reason
> that has been described already - spreading the load.  Our theatre node
> drives 4 displays and has
> three captures.  While I may be able to pull that off with one machine,
> why would I do that when I
> can easily split the tasks to two machines?  This frees up the display
> machine to possibly do other
> tasks also (running remote visualization software etc) without getting
> bogged down.
> 
> Secondly, I think you are correct that currently the main purpose is the
> ability to 'tie a/v devices
> across multiple machines'; however, the nice part about the
> servicemanager/services infrastructure
> is that it is completely extensible.  It doesn't have to be about
> typical a/v at all.  Instead of
> having an audioservice or a videoservice, imagine having a 3D
> visualization service - which may
> require the control of a specialized display or a specialized set of
> devices etc.  With this
> infrastructure, we are capable of building our own specific services
> that are controlled easily and
> centrally.
> 
> Just my $0.02... (Actually, that's Canadian dollars too, so its probably
> only worth about a $0.015
> to you... ;-) )
> 
> 
> Todd
> 

-- 
Derek Piper - dcpiper at indiana.edu - (812) 856 0111
IRI 323, School of Informatics
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana