US CMS Software and Computing Project
US CMS Collaboration Meeting at FSU, May 2002
Lothar A T Bauerdick/Fermilab
Project Manager
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
1
Scope and Deliverables
Provide Computing Infrastructure in the U.S. — that needs R&D
Provide software engineering support for CMS
 Mission is to develop and build “User Facilities” for CMS physics in the U.S.
 To provide the enabling IT infrastructure that will allow
U.S. physicists to fully participate in the physics program of CMS
 To provide the U.S. share of the framework and infrastructure software
Tier-1 center at Fermilab provides computing resources and support
 User Support for “CMS physics community”, e.g. software distribution, help desk
 Support for Tier-2 centers, and for physics analysis center at Fermilab
Five Tier-2 centers in the U.S.
 Together will provide same CPU/Disk resources as Tier-1
 Facilitate “involvement of collaboration” in S&C development
 Prototyping and test-bed effort very successful
 Universities will “bid” to host Tier-2 center
 taking advantage of existing resources and expertise
 Tier-2 centers to be funded through NSF program for “empowering Universities”
 Proposal to the NSF submitted Nov 2001
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
2
Project Milestones and Schedules
Prototyping, test-beds, R&D started in 2000
“Developing the LHC Computing Grid” in the U.S.
 R&D systems, funded in FY2002 and FY2003
 Used for “5% data challenge” (end 2003)
 release Software and Computing TDR (technical design report)
 Prototype T1/T2 systems, funded in FY2004
 for “20% data challenge” (end 2004)
 end “Phase 1”, Regional Center TDR, start deployment
Deployment: 2005-2007, 30%, 30%, 40% costs
 Fully Functional Tier-1/2 funded in FY2005 through FY2007
 ready for LHC physics run
 start of Physics Program
S&C Maintenance and Operations: 2007 on
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
3
US CMS S&C Since UCR
Consolidation of the project, shaping out the R&D program
 Project Baselined in Nov 2001: Workplan for CAS, UF, Grids endorsed
CMS has become “lead experiment” for Grid work  Koen, Greg, Rick
 US Grid Projects PPDG, GriPhyN and iVDGL
 EU Grid Projects DataGrid, Data Tag
 LHC Computing Grid Project
Fermilab UF team, Tier-2 prototypes, US CMS testbed
 Major production efforts, PRS support
Objectivity goes, LCG comes
 We do have a working software and computing system!  Physics Analysis
 CCS will drive much of the common LCG Application are
Major challenges to manage and execute the project
 Since fall 2001 we knew LHC start would be delayed  new date April 2007
 Proposal to NSF in Oct 2001, things are probably moving now
 New DOE funding guidance (and lack thereof from NSF) is starving us in 2002-2004
Very strong support for the Project from individuals in CMS, Fermilab, Grids, FA
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
4
Other New Developments
 NSF proposal guidance AND DOE guidance are (S&C+M&O)
 That prompted a change in US CMS line management
Program Manager will oversee both Construction Project and S&C Project
 New DOE guidance for S&C+M&O is much below
S&C baseline + M&O request
 Europeans have achieved major UF funding,
significantly larger relative to U.S.
LCG started, expects U.S. to partner with European projects
 LCG Application Area possibly imposes issues on CAS structure
 Many developments and changes
that invalidate or challenge much of what PM tried to achieve
 Opportunity to take stock of where we stand in US CMS S&C
before we try to understand where we need to go
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
5
Vivian has left S&C
Thanks and appreciation
for Vivian’s work
of bringing the UF project
to the successful baseline
New scientist position
opened at Fermilab
for UF L2 manager
and physics!
Other assignments
 Hans Wenzel
Tier-1 Manager
 Jorge Rodrigez
U.Florida pT2 L3 manager
 Greg Graham
CMS GIT Production Task Lead
 Rick Cavenaugh
US CMS Testbed Coordinator
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
6
Project Status
User Facilities status and successes:
 US CMS Prototypes systems: Tier-1, Tier-2, testbed
 Intense collaboration with US Grid project, Grid-enabled MC production system
 User Support: facilities, software, operations for PRS studies
Core Application Software status and successes:
 See Ian’s talk
Project Office started




Project Engineer hired, to work on WBS, Schedule, Budget, Reporting, Documenting
SOWs in place w/ CAS Universities —MOUs, subcontracts, invoicing is coming
In process of signing the MOUs
Have a draft of MOU with iVDGL on prototype Tier-2 funding
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
7
Successful Base-lining Review
“The Committee endorses the proposed
project scope, schedule, budgets and management plan”
Endorsement for the “Scrubbed” project plan following the DOE/NSF guidance
$3.5MDOE + $2MNSF in FY2003 and $5.5DOE + $3MNSF in FY2004!
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
8
CMS Produced Data in 2001
Simulated Events
TOTAL = 8.4 M
Caltech
2.50 M
FNAL
1.65 M
Bristol/RAL
1.27 M
CERN
1.10 M
INFN
0.76 M
Moscow
0.43 M
IN2P3
0.31 M
Helsinki
0.13 M
Wisconsin
0.07 M
UCSD
0.06 M
UFL
0.05 M
TYPICAL
EVENT SIZES
Reconstructed w/ Pile-Up
TOTAL = 29 TB
Simulated
 1 CMSIM event
= 1 OOHit event
= 1.4 MB
Reconstructed
 1 “1033” event
= 1.2 MB
33
 1 “2x10 ”
event
= 1.6 MB
 1 “1034” event
= 5.6 MB
CERN
14 TB
FNAL
12 TB
Caltech
Moscow
0.60 TB
0.45 TB
INFN
0.40 TB
Bristol/RAL
0.22 TB
UCSD
0.20 TB
IN2P3
0.10 TB
Wisconsin
0.05 TB
Helsinki
UFL
0.08 TB
These fully simulated data samples are essential for physics and trigger studies
 Technical Design Report for DAQ and Higher Level Triggers
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
9
Production Operations
Production Efforts are Manpower intensive!
At Fermilab
(US CMS,
PPDG) ∑ = 1.7 FTE sustained effort to fill those 8 roles
 Fermiulab Tier-1
Production
Operations
+ the system support
people
thatShafqat
need to
help
if something
goes wrong!!!
Greg
Graham,
Aziz,
Yujun
Wu,
Moacyr Souza, Hans Wenzel, Michael
Ernst, Shahzad Muzaffar + staff
At U Florida (GriPhyN, iVDGL)
Dimitri Bourilkov, Jorge Rodrigez, Rick
Cavenaugh + staff
At Caltech (GriPhyN, PPDG, iVDGL, USCMS)
Vladimir Litvin, Suresh Singh et al
At UCSD (PPDG, iVDGL)
Ian Fisk, James Letts + staff
At Wisconsin
Pam Chumney, R. Gowrishankara,
David Mulvihill + Peter Couvares, Alain
Roy et al
At CERN (USCMS)
Tony Wildish + many
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
10
US CMS Prototypes and Test-beds
Tier-1 and Tier-2 Prototypes and Test-beds operational
 Facilities for event simulation
including reconstruction
 Sophisticated processing for pile-up simulation
 User cluster and hosting of data samples
for physics studies
 Facilities and Grid R&D
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
11
Tier-1 equipment
Chimichanga
Chocolat
Chalupa
Winchester Raid
IBM - servers
CMSUN1 Dell -servers
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
snickers
May 11, 2002
12
Tier-1 Equipment
frys(user)
gyoza(test)
Popcorns (MC production)
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
13
Using the Tier-1 system User System
Until the Grid becomes reality (maybe soon!) people who want to use
computing facilities at Fermilab need to obtain an account
That requires registration as a Fermilab user (DOE requirement)
We will make sure that turn-around times are reasonably short,
did not hear complains yet
Go to http://computing.fnal.gov/cms/
click on the "CMS Account" button that will guide you through the process




Step 1: Get a Valid Fermilab ID
Step 2: Get a fnalu account and CMS account
Step 3: Get a Kerberos principal and krypto card
Step 4: Information for first-time CMS account users
http://consult.cern.ch/writeup/form01/
Got > 100 users, currently about 1 new user per week
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
14
US CMS User Cluster
FRY1
FRY2
FRY3
R&D on “reliable i/a service”
100Mbps OS: Mosix?
batch system: Fbsng?
Storage: Disk farm?
FRY4
FRY5
BIGMAC
SWITCH
GigaBit
SCSI 160
FRY6
FRY7
FRY8
RAID 250 GB
To be released June 2002! nTuple, Objy analysis etc
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
15
User Access to Tier-1 Data
Hosting of Jets/Met data
Muons will be coming soon
AMD server
AMD/Enstore interface
Enstore
STKEN
Silo
> 10 TB
Working on providing
Powerful disk cache
Snickers
Network
IDE
Users
Host redirection protocol
RAID 1TB
allows to add more servers
--> scaling+ load balancing
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
16
US CMS T2 Prototypes and Test-beds
Tier-1 and Tier-2 Prototypes and Test-beds operational
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
17
California Prototype Tier-2 Setup
UCSD
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
Caltech
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
18
Benefits Of US Tier-2 Centers
Bring computing resources close of user communities
 Provide dedicated resources to regions (of interest and geographical)
 More control over localized resources, more opportunities to pursue physics goals
Leverage Additional Resources, which exist at the universities and labs
 Reduce computing requirements of CERN (supposed to account for 1/3 of total LHC facilities!)
 Help meet the LHC Computing Challenge
Provide diverse collection of sites, equipment, expertise for development and testing
 Provide much needed computing resources
US-CMS plans for about 2 FTE at each Tier-2 site + Equipment funding
supplemented with Grid, University and Lab funds (BTW: no I/S costs in US CMS plan)
Problem: How do you run a center with only two people
that will have much greater processing power than CERN has currently ?
This involved facilities and operations R&D
to reduce the operations personnel required to run the center
e.g. investigating cluster management software
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
19
U.S. Tier-1/2 System Operational
CMS Grid Integration and Deployment
on U.S. CMS Test Bed
Data Challenges and Production Runs
on Tier-1/2 Prototype Systems
“Spring Production 2002” finishing
 Physics, Trigger, Detector studies
 Produce 10M events and 15 TB of data
also 10M mini-bias
fully simulated including pile-up
fully reconstructed
 Large assignment to U.S. CMS
Successful Production in 2001:
 8.4M events fully simulated, including pile-up,
50% in the U.S.
 29TB data processed
13TB in the U.S.
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
20
US CMS Prototypes and Test-beds
All U.S. CMS S&C Institutions are involved in DOE and NSF Grid Projects
 Integrating Grid software
into CMS systems
 Bringing CMS Production
on the Grid
 Understanding the
operational issues
CMS directly profit from Grid Funding
Deliverables of Grid Projects
become useful for LHC in the “real world”
 Major success: MOP, GDMP
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
21
Grid-enabled CMS Production
Successful collaboration with Grid Projects!
 MOP (Fermilab, U.Wisconsin/Condor):
 Remote job execution Condor-G, DAGman
 GDMP (Fermilab, European DataGrid WP2)
 File replication and replica catalog (Globus)
Successfully used on CMS testbed
First real CMS Production use finishing now!
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
22
Recent Successes with the Grid
Grid Enabled CMS Production Environment
NB: MOP = “Grid-ified” IMPALA, vertically integrated CMS application
Brings together US CMS with all three US Grid Projects
 PPDG: Grid developers (Condor, DAGman), GDMP (w/ WP2),
 GriPhyN: VDT, in the future also the virtual data catalog
 iVDGL: pT2 sites and US CMS testbed
CMS Spring 2002 production assignment of 200k events to MOP
 Half-way through, next week transfer back to CERN
This is being considered a major success — for US CMS and Grids!
Many bugs in Condor and Globus found and fixed
Many operational issues that needed and still need to be sorted out
MOP will be moved into production Tier-1/Tier-2 environment
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
23
Successes: Grid-enabled Production
 Major Milestone for US CMS and PPDG
 From PPDG internal review of MOP:
 “From the Grid perspective, MOP has been outstanding. It has both legitimized
the idea of using Grid tools such as DAGMAN, Condor-G, GDMP, and Globus
in a real production environment outside of prototypes and trade show
demonstrations. Furthermore, it has motivated the use of Grid tools such as
DAGMAN, Condor-G, GDMP, and Globus in novel environments leading to the
discovery of many bugs which would otherwise have prevented these tools
from being taken seriously in a real production environment.
 From the CMS perspective, MOP won early respect for taking on real
production problems, and is soon ready to deliver real events. In fact, today or
early next week we will update the RefDB at CERN which tracks production at
various regional centers. This has been delayed because of the numerous
bugs that, while being tracked down, involved several cycles of development
and redeployment. The end of the current CMS production cycle is in three
weeks, and MOP will be able to demonstrate some grid enabled production
capability by then. We are confident that this will happen. It is not necessary at
this stage to have a perfect MOP system for CMS Production; IMPALA also has
some failover capability and we will use that where possible. However, it has
been a very useful exercise and we believe that we are among the first team to
tackle Globus and Condor-G in such a stringent and HEP specific
environment.”
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
24
Successes: File Transfers
In 2001 were observing typical rates for large data transfers,
e.g. CERN - FNAL 4.7 GB/hour
After network tuning, using Grid Tools (Globus URLcopy) we gain a factor 10!
 Today we are transferring 1.5 TByte of simulated data from UCSD to FNAL
 at rates of 10 MByte/second!
That almost saturates the network I/f out of Fermilab (155Mbps) and at UCSD (FastEthernet)…
The ability to transfer a TeraByte in a day is crucial for the Tier-1/Tier-2 system
Many operational issues remain to be solved
 GDMP is a grid tool for file replication, developed jointly b/w US and EU
 “show case” application for EU Data Grid WP2: data replication
 Needs more work and strong support  VDT team (PPDG, GriPhyN, iVDGL)
e.g. CMS “GDMP heartbeat” for debugging new installations and monitoring old ones.
 Installation and configuration issues — releases of underlying software like Globus
 Issues with site security and e.g. Firewall
 Uses Globus Security Infrastructure, which demands”VO” Certification Authority infrastructure for
CMS
 Etc pp…
This needs to be developed, tested, deployed and shows
that the USCMS testbed is invaluable!
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
25
DOE/NSF Grid R&D Funding for CMS
DOE/NSF Grid R&D Funding for CMS
2001
2002
2003
2004
GriPhyN
Total, including CS and all Experiments
2543
2543
2543
2241
582
582
582
582
2650
2750
232
234
192
336
3180
3180
3180
187
132
80
399
187
132
80
399
187
132
80
399
CMS Staff
iVDGL
Total, including CS and all Experiments
CMS Equipment
CMS Staff
PPDG
Total, including CS and all Experiements
Caltech
FNAL
UCSD
Total CMS
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
2005
2006
2750
2750
2750
187
358
57
390
65
390
May 11, 2002
26
Farm Setup
Almost any computer can run the CMKIN and CMSIM steps
using the CMS binary distribution system (US CMS DAR)
As long as ample storage is available problem scales well
This step is “almost trivially”
put on the Grid — almost…
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
27
e.g. on the 13.6 TF - $53M TeraGrid?
26
4
Site Resources
Site Resources
HPSS
HPSS
24
8
External
Networks
Caltech
HPSS
Argonne
SDSC
4.1 TF
225 TB
NCSA/PACI
8 TF
240 TB
TeraGrid/DTF: NCSA, SDSC,
Caltech,
Argonne
U.S. CMS
Collaboration
Meeting
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
5
External
Networks
External
Networks
Site Resources
External
Networks
Site Resources
UniTree
www.teragrid.org
May 11, 2002
28
Farm Setup for Reconstruction
• The first step of the reconstruction is Hit Formatting, where simulated
data is taken from the Fortran files, formatted and entered into the
Objectivity data base.
• Process is sufficiently fast and involves enough data that more than
10-20 jobs will bog down the data base server.
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
29
Pile-up simulation!
(+30 minimum bias events)
Unique at LHC due to high Luminosity and short bunch-crossing time
Up to 200 “Minimum Bias” events overlayed on interesting triggers
Lead to “Pile-up” in detectors  needs to be simulated!
All charged tracks with pt > 2 GeV
Reconstructed tracks with pt > 25 GeV
This makes a CPU-limited task (event simulation) VERY I/O intensive!
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
30
Farm Setup for Pile-up Digitization
The most advanced production step is digitization with pile-up
 The response of the detector is digitized the physics objects are reconstructed and stored
persistently and at full luminosity 200 minimum bias events are combined with the signal
events
Due to the large amount of minimum bias events multiple Objectivity AMS data
servers are needed. Several configurations have been tried.
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
31
Objy Server Deployment: Complex
4 Production Federations
at FNAL.
(Uses catalog only to
locate database files.)
3 FNAL servers plus
several worker nodes used
in this configuration.
3 federation hosts with
attached RAID partitions
2 lock servers
4 journal servers
9 pileup servers
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
32
Example of CMS Physics Studies
Resolution studies for jet reconstruction
QCD 2-jet events, no FSR
No pile-up, no tracks recon, no HCAL noise
QCD 2-jet events with FSR
Full simulation w/ tracks, HCAL noise
Full detector simulation essential to understand jet resolutions
Indispensable to design realistic triggers and understand rates at high lumi
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
33
Pile up & Jet Energy Resolution
Jet energy resolution




Pile-up contribution to jet are large and have large variations
Can be estimated event-by-event from total energy in event
Large improvement if pile-up correction applied (red curve)
e.g. 50% 35% at ET = 40GeV
 1
3.5    4.5
Physics studies depend on full detailed detector simulation
essential!
 realistic pile-up processing is 
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
34
Tutorial at UCSD
Very successful 4-day tutorial with ~40 people attending
 Covering use of CMS software, including CMKIN/CMSIM, ORCA, OSCAR, IGUANA
 Covering physics code examples from all PRS groups
 Covering production tools and environment and Grid tools
Opportunity to get people together
 UF and CAS engineers with PRS physicists
 Grid developers and CMS users
The tutorials have been very well thought through
very useful for self-study, so they will be maintained
It is amazing what we already can do with CMS software
 E.g. impressive to see IGUANA visualization environment,
including “home made” visualizations
However, our system is (too?, still too?) complex
We maybe need more people taking a day off and
go through the self- guided tutorials
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
35
FY2002 UF Funding
Excellent initial effort and DOE support for User Facilities
 Fermilab established as Tier-1 prototype and major Grid node for LHC computing
 Tier-2 sites and testbeds are operational and are contributing to production and R&D
 Headstart for U.S. efforts has pushed CERN commitment to support remote sites
The FY2002 funding has given major headaches to PM
 DOE funding $2.24M was insufficient to ramp the Tier-1 to base-line size
 The NSF contribution is unknown as of today
According to plan we should have more people and equipment at Fermilab T1
 Need some 7 additional FTEs and more equipment funding
 This has been strongly endorsed by the baseline reviews
 All European RC (DE, FR, IT, UK, even RU!) have support at this level of effort
Allocation for FY2002
Caltech
UCSD
FNAL
NEU
2.0
3.0
Princeton UC Davis UFlorida
TOTAL
Core Applications Software (CAS) FTE
2.0
1.0
1.0
9.0
User Facilities (UF) FTE
TOTAL FTE
CAS Personnel (salary, PC, travel,...)
UF Personnel (salary, PC, travel,...)
UF Tier 1 Equipment
UF Tier 2 Equipment
Project Office, Management Reserve
TOTAL COST [AY$ x 1000]
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
1.0
3.0
310.0
155.0
1.0
1.0
5.5
7.5
155.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
270.0
795.0
140.0
620.0
150.0
185.0
390.0
274.0
1.5
1.5
232.0
120.0
112.0
585.0
155.0
1595.0
894.0
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
150.0
185.0
344.0
May 11, 2002
9.0
18.0
1,535.0
1,337.0
140.0
232.0
664.0
3,908.0
36
Plans For 2002 - 2003
Finish Spring Production challenge until June
 User Cluster, User Federations
 Upgrade of facilities ($300k)
Develop CMS Grid environment toward LCG Production Grid
 Move CMS Grid environment from testbed to facilities
 Prepare for first LCG-USUF milestone, November?
 Tier-2, -iVDGL milestones w/ ATLAS, SC2002
 LCG-USUF Production Grid milestone in May 2003
Bring Tier-1/Tier-2 prototypes up to scale
 Serving user community: User cluster, federations,Grid enabled user environment
 UF studies with persistency framework
 Start of physics DCs and computing DCs
CAS: LCG “everything is on the table, but the table is not empty”
 persistency framework - prototype in September 2002
 Release in July 2003
 DDD and OSCAR/Geant4 releases
 New strategy for visualization / IGUANA
 Develop distributed analysis environment w/ Caltech et al
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
37
Funding for UF R&D Phase
There is lack of funding and lack of guidance for 2003-2005
 NSF proposal guidance AND DOE guidance are (S&C+M&O)
 New DOE guidance for S&C+M&O is much below
S&C baseline + M&O request
Fermilab USCMS projects oversight has proposed
minimal M&O for 2003-2004
and large cuts for S&C given the new DOE guidance
The NSF has “ventilated the idea” to apply a rule of 81/250*DOE funding
 This would lead to very serious problems in every year of the project
we would lack 1/3 of the requested funding ($14.0M/$21.2M)
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
38
DOE/NSF funding shortfall
DOE Project Costs - 11/2001
DOE-FNAL Funding Profile - 4/2002
14
NSF Project Costs - 11/2001
NSF guidance using 81/250 rule
14
Million AY$
12.8
12
12.8 Million AY$
12
10
10
9.0
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
3.5
2.9
2.2
4.13
2.92
2
0
0
2002
4.13
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
FY
0.94
0.73
2002
2003
1.13
2004
2005
2006
2007 FY
CAS NSF
UF Tier2 labor
CAS DOE
UF Tier1 labor
UF Tier2 h/w
Project Office NSF
UF Tier1 h/w
Project Office DOE
Mgmt Reserve NSF
NSF (assumed)
Mgmt Reserve DOE
DOE-FNAL(2002 S&C)
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
39
FY2003 Allocation à la Nov2001
FY2003 Budget Allocation - 11/2001
Total Costs $5.98M
DOE $4.53M
NSF $1.45M
Management
Reserve
Project Office
Facilities
Equipment
Facilities Labor
Software Labor
0.0
DOE
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
NSF
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
2.5
3.0
$M
iVDGL
May 11, 2002
40
Europeans Achieved Major UF Funding
Funding for European User Facilities in their countries
now looks significantly larger than UF funding in the U.S.
This statement is true relative to size of their respective communities
It is in some cases event true in absolute terms!!
 Given our funding situation:
are we going to be a partner for those efforts?
 BTW: USATLAS proposes major cuts in UF/Tier-1 “pilot flame” at BNL
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
41
How About The Others: DE
Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe
Technik und Umwelt
RDCCG Evolution (available capacity)
30% rolling upgrade each year after 2007
month/year
LHC+nLHC
11/2001
4/2002
4/2003
4/2004
2005
2007
2007+
CPU /kSI95
1
9
19
46
134
896
+276
Disk / TByte
7
45
113
203
437
1421
+450
Tape / TByte
7
111
211
345
806
3737
+2818
Networking Evolution 2002 - 2005
1) RDCCG to CERN/FermiLab/SLAC (Permanent point to point):
=> 2 GBit/s could be arranged on a very short timescale
2) RDCCG to general Internet:
=> Current situation, generally less affordable than 1)
1 GBit/s
Ğ 10 GBit/s
34 MBit/s Ğ 100 MBit/s
FTE Evolution 2002 - 2005
Support:
5 - 30
Development: 8 - 10
New office building to accommodate 130 FTE in 2005
Regional Data and Computing Centre Germany (RDCCG)
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
42
How About The Others: IT
TIER1 Resources
PERSONNEL
Type
N. New
Manager
1
Deputy
1
LHC Experiments Software
2
Programs, Tools, Procedures
2
FARM Management & Planning
2
ODB & Data Management
2
Network (LAN+WAN)
2
Other Services (Web, Security, etc.)
2
Administration
2
System Managers & Operators
6
Total 22
Outsource
2
2
1
2
1
1
9
6
6
May 11, 2002
43
Tier2 Personnel is of the same order of magnitude.
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
How About The Others: RU
Russian Tier2-Cluster
Cluster of institutional computing centers with Tier2 functionality and summary resources at 5070% level of the canonical Tier1 center for each experiment (ALICE, ATLAS, CMS, LHCb):
analysis; simulat io ns; users dat a suppo rt .
Participating institute s:
M o sc o w
M o sc o w regio n
St . Pet ersburg
No vo sibirsk
SINP MSU, ITEP, KI, É
JINR, IHEP, INR RAS
PNPI RAS, É
BINP SB RAS
C ohe re nt use of distribute d re source s by m e ans
DataGrid
of
te chnologie s.
Active participation in the LC G Phase 1 Prototyping and Data C halle nge s (at 5-10% le ve l).
2002 Q 1
2002 Q 4
2004 Q 4
2007
CPU kSI95
5
10
25-35
410
Disk TB
6
12
50-70
850
Tape TB
10
20
50-100
1250
2-3/10
20-30/15-30
Netw o rk
155/É
Gbps/É
Mbps
LCG/commodity
FTE: 10-12 (2002 Q 1), 12-15 (2002 Q 2),
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
25-30 (2004 Q 4)
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
44
How About The Others: UK
UK Tier1/A Status
Current EDG TB setup
14 Dual 1GHz PIII, 500MB
RAM 40GB disks
Compute Element (CE)
Storage Element (SE)
User Interfaces (UI)
Information Node (IN)
+ Worker Nodes (WN)
+Central Facilities
(Non Grid)
250 CPUs
10TB Disk
35TB Tape
(Capacity 330 TB)
Hardware Purchase for delivery today
Projected Staff Effort [SY]
156 Dual 1.4GHz 1GB RAM , 30GB dis ks (312 cpus)
26 Dis k servers (Dual 1.266GHz) 1.9TB disk e ach
Expand the capacity of the tape robot by 35TB
John Gordon - LCG 13th March 2002- n° 5
Area
GridPP
@CERN
WP1 Workload Management
WP2 Data Management
WP3 Monitoring Services
Security
WP4 Fabric Management
WP5 Mass Storage
WP6 Integration Testbed
WP7 Network Services 2.0
WP8 Applications
ATLAS/ LHCb (Gaudi /Athena)
CMS
CDF/D0 (SAM)
BaBar
UKQCD
Tier1/A
Total
0.5
[IC]
1.5++ [Ggo]
5.0++ [RAL, QMW]
++ [RAL]
1.5
[Edin., LÕ
pool]
3.5++ [RAL, LÕ
pool ]
5.0++ [RAL/MÕ
cr/IC/Bristol]
[UCL/ MÕ
cr]
17.0
6.5 [Oxf, Cam, RHUL, BÕ
ham,
3.0 [IC, Bristol, Brunel ]
4.0 [IC, Ggo, Oxf, Lanc ]
2.5 [IC, MÕ
cr, Bristol]
1.0 E
[ din.]
13.0 [RAL]
49.0++
10.0 ->25.0
CS
2.0 [IC]
1.0 [Oxf]
1.0 [HW]
1.0 [Oxf]
1.0 [UCL]
RAL]
6.0 = 80++
John Gordon - LCG 13th March 2002- n° 8
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
45
How About The Others: FR
CC-IN2P3
ONE computing centre for
IN2P3-CNRS & DSM-CEA
(HEP, Astropart., NP,..)
45 people
National : 18 laboratories,
40 experiments,
2500 people/users
International : Tier-1 / Tier-A
status for several US, CERN
and astrop. experiments
0,5 PBytes
Data Bases,
Hierarchical storage
~ 700 cpu's, 20 k SI-95
40 TB disk
Budget :
~ 6- 7 M
Plus ~ 2 M
€
/ year
€
f or per sonnel
Network & QoS.
Custom services "à la carte"
LCG workshop -13 March 2002 - Denis LINGLIN
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
46
FY2002 - FY2004 Are Critical in US
Compared to European efforts the US CMS UF efforts are very small
 In FY2002 The US CMS Tier-1 is sized at 4kSI CPU and 5TB storage
 The Tier-1 effort is 5.5 FTE. In addition there is 2 FTE CAS and 1 FTE Grid
S&C base-line 2003/2004: Tier-1 effort needs to be at least $1M/year above FY2002
to sustain the UF R&D and become full part of the LHC Physics Research Grid
 Need some some 7 additional FTEs, more equipment funding at the Tier-1
 Part of this effort would go directly into user support
 Essential areas are insufficiently covered now, need to be addressed in 2003 the latest

Fabric managent • Storage resource mgmt • Networking • System configuration management • Collaborative tools •
Interfacing to Grid i/s • System management & operations support
 This has been strongly endorsed by the S&C baseline review Nov 2001
 All European RC (DE, FR, IT, UK, even RU!) have support at this level of effort
USA
UK
RU
NL
IT
FR
DE
Country
463
98
271
262
137
95
4kSI, 5TB
20kSI, 50TB
10kSI, 12TB
9kSI, 20TB
20kSI, 80TB
40 kSI, 55 TB
9 kSI, 45 TB
5.5 Op, 4 Dev
13 Op, 20 Dev
13 Op
10 Op
13 Op, >> Dev
47 Op/Dev @ Lyon
5 Op, 8 Dev
collaborators
#CMS
Equip
Tier-1
Personnel
Tier-1
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
x2 for LHC total
GridPP: >25M£
ItGrid
5 Mio€ to CERN
Other
May 11, 2002
47
The U.S. User Facilities
Will Seriously Fall Back
Behind European Tier-1 Efforts
Given The Funding Situation!
To Keep US Leadership and
Not to put US based Science at Disadvantage
Additional Funding Is Required
at least $1M/year at Tier-1 Sites
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
48
LHC Computing Grid Project
$36M project 2002-2004, half equipment half personnel:
“Successful” RRB





Expect to ramp to >30 FTE in 2002, and ~60FTE in 2004
About $2M / year equipment
e.g. UK delivers 26.5% of LCG funding AT CERN ($9.6M)
The US CMS has requested $11.7M IN THE US + CAS $5.89
Current allocation (assuming CAS, iVDGL) would be $7.1 IN THE US
Largest personnel fraction in LCG Applications Area
 “All” personnel to be at CERN
 “People staying at CERN for less than 6 months are counted at a 50% level,
regardless of their experience.”
CCS will work on LCG AA projects  US CMS will contribute to LCG
This brings up several issues that US CMS S&C should deal with
 Europeans have decided to strongly support LCG Application Area
 But at the same time we do not see more support for the CCS efforts
 CMS and US CMS will have to do at some level a rough accounting
of LCG AA vs CAS and LCG facilities vs US UF
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
49
Impact of LHC Delay
Funding shortages in FY2001 and FY2002 already lead to significant delays
 Others have done more --- we seriously are understaffed and do not do enough now
 We lack 7FTE already this year, and will need to start hiring only in FY2003
 This has led to delays and will further delay our efforts
Long-term
 do not know, too uncertain predictions of equipment costs to
evaluate possible costs savings due to delays by roughly a year
 However, schedules become more realistic
Medium term




Major facilities (LCG) milestones shift by about 6 months
1st LCG prototype grid moved to end of 2002 --> more realistic now
End of R&D moves from end 2004 to mid 2005
Detailed schedule and work plan expected from LCG project and CMS CCS (June)
No significant overall costs savings for R&D phase
 We are already significantly delayed,
and not even at half the effort of what other countries are doing (UK, IT, DE, RU!!)
 Catch up on our delayed schedule feasible, if we can manage to hire 7 people in FY2003
and manage to support this level of effort in FY2004
 Major issue with lack of equipment funding
Re-evaluation of equipment deployment will be done during 2002 (PASTA)
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
50
US S&C Minimal Requirements
 The DOE funding guidance for the preparation of the US LHC research
program approaches adequate funding levels around when the LHC starts
in 2007, but is heavily back-loaded and does not accommodate the baselined software and computing project and the needs for pre-operations of
the detector in 2002-2005.
 We take up the charge to better understand the minimum requirements,
and to consider non-standard scenarios for reducing some of the funding
short falls, but ask the funding agencies to explore all available avenues to
raise the funding level.
 The LHC computing model of a worldwide distributed system is new and
needs significant R&D. The experiments are approaching this with a series
of "data challenges" that will test the developing systems and will
eventually yield a system that works.
 US CMS S&C has to be part of the data challenges (DC) and to provide
support for trigger and detector studies (UF subproject) and to deliver
engineering support for CMS core software (CAS subproject).
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
51
UF Needs
 The UF subproject is centered on a Tier-1 facility at Fermilab, that will be
driving the US CMS participation in these Data Challenges.
 The prototype Tier-2 centers will become integrated parts of the US CMS
Tier-1/Tier-2 facilities.
 Fermilab will be a physics analysis center for CMS. LHC physics with CMS
will be an important component of Fermilab's research program. Therefore
Fermilab needs to play a strong role as a Tier-1 center in the upcoming
CMS and LHC data challenges.
 The minimal Tier-1 effort would require to at least double the current Tier-1
FTEs at Fermilab, and to grant at least $300k yearly funding for
equipment. This level represents the critical threshold.
 The yearly costs for this minimally sized Tier-1 center at Fermilab would
approach $2M after an initial $1.6M in FY03 (hiring delays). The minimal
Tier-2 prototypes would need $400k support for operations, the rest would
come out of iVDGL funds.
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
52
CAS Needs
 Ramping down the CAS effort is not an option, as we would face very
adverse effects on CMS. CCS manpower is now even more needed to be
able to drive and profit from the new LCG project - there is no reason to
believe that the LCG will provide a “CMS-ready” solution without CCS
being heavily involved in the process. We can even less allow for slips or
delays.
 Possible savings with the new close collaboration between CMS and
ATLAS through the LCG project will potentially give some contingency to
the engineering effort that is to date missing in the project plan. That
contingency (which would first have to be earned) could not be released
before end of 2005.
 The yearly costs of keeping the current level for CAS are about $1.7M per
year (DOE $1000k, NSF $700k), including escalation and reserve.
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
53
Minimal US CMS S&C until 2005
Definition of Minimal:
if we can’t afford even this, the US will not participate in the
CMS Data Challenges and LCG Milestones in 2002 - 2004
 For US CMS S&C the minimal funding for the R&D phase (until 2005) would
include (PRELIMINARY)
 Tier1: $1600k in FY03 and $2000k in the following years
 Tier2: $400k per year from the NSF to sustain the support for Tier2 manpower
 CAS: $1M from DOE and $700k from the NSF
 Project Office $300k (includes reserve)
 A failure to provide this level of funding would lead to severe delays and
inefficiencies in the US LHC physics program. Considering the large investments
in the detectors, and the large yearly costs of the research program such an
approach would not be cost efficient and productive.
 The ramp-up of the UF to the final system, beyond 2005, will need to be aligned
with the plans of CERN and other regional centers. After 2005 the funding profile
seems to approach the demand.
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
54
Where do we stand?
Setup of an efficient and competent s/w engineering support for CMS
 David is happy and CCS is doing well
 “proposal-driven” support for det/PRS engineering support
Setup of an User Support organization out of UF (and CAS) staff





PRS is happy (but needs more)
“proposal driven” provision of resources: data servers, user cluster
Staff to provide data sets and nTuples for PRS, small specialized production
Accounts, software releases, distribution, help desk etc pp
Tutorials done at Tier-1 and Tier-2 sites
Implemented & commissioned a first Tier-1/Tier-2 system of RCs
 UCSD, Caltech, U.Florida, U.Wisconsin, Fermilab
 Shown that Grid-tools can be used in “production”
and greatly contribute to success of Grid projects and middleware
 Validated use of network between Tier-1 and Tier-2: 1TB/day!
Developing a production quality Grid-enabled User Facility
 “impressive organization” for running production in US
 Team at Fermilab and individual efforts at Tier-2 centers
 Grid technology helps to reduce the effort
 Close collaboration with Grid project infuses additional effort into US CMS
 Collaboration between sites (including ATLAS, like BNL) for facility issues
 Starting to address many of the “real” issues of Grids for Physics
 Code/binary distribution and configuration, Remote job execution, Data replication
 Authentication, authorization, accounting and VO services
 Remote database access for analysis
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
55
What have we achieved?
We are participating and driving a world-wide CMS production  DC
We are driving a large part of the US Grid integration and deployment work
 That goes beyond the LHC and even HEP
We have shown that the Tier-1/Tier-2 User Facility system
in the US can work!
 We definitely are on the map for LHC computing and the LCG
We also are threatened to be starved over the next years
 The FA have failed to recognize the opportunity for continued US leadership in this field
— as others like the UK are realizing and supporting!
 We are thrown back to a minimal funding level, and even that has been challenged
But this is the time where our partners at CERN will expect to see us deliver
and work with the LCG
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
56
Conclusions
The US CMS S&C Project looks technically pretty sound
Our customers (CCS and US CMS Users) appear to be happy, but want more
We also need more R&D to build the system,
and we need to do more to measure up to our partners
We have started in 1998 with some supplemental funds
we are a DOE-line item now
We have received less than requested for a couple of years now,
but this FY2002 the project has become bitterly under-funded
— cf. the reviewed and endorsed baseline
The funding agencies have faulted on providing funding for the US S&C
and on providing FA guidance for US User Facilities
The ball is in our (US CMS) park now
it is not an option to do “just a little bit” of S&C
the S&C R&D is a project: base-line plans, funding profiles, change control
It is up to US CMS to decide
I ask you to support my request to build up the User Facilities in the US
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
57
THE END
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
58
UF Equipment Costs
Detailed Information on Tier-1 Facility Costing
See Document in Your Handouts!
All numbers in FY2002$k
Fiscal Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Total
2008
(Ops)
1.1 T1 Regional Center
1.2 System Support
1.3 O&M
1.4 T2 Regional Centers
1.5 T1 Networking
1.6 Computing R&D
1.7 Det. Con. Support
1.8 Local Comp. Supp.
0
29
0
232
61
511
84
12
0
23
0
240
54
472
53
95
0
0
0
870
42
492
52
128
2,866
35
0
1,870
512
0
0
23
2,984
0
0
1,500
462
0
0
52
2,938
0
0
1,750
528
0
0
23
8,788
87
0
6,462
1,658
1,476
189
333
2,647
15
0
1,250
485
0
0
48
Total
929
938
1,584
5,306
4,998
5,239
18,992
4,446
Total T1 only
697
698
714
3,436
3,498
3,489
12,530
3,196
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
59
Total Project Costs
In AY$M
Fiscal Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Project Office
0.32
0.48
0.49
0.51
0.52
0.54
DOE
NSF
0.15
0.17
Software Personnel
1.49
DOE
NSF
0.87
0.62
UF Personnel
1.14
for Tier-1 DOE
for Tier-2 NSF
0.83
0.31
UF Equipment
0.45
for Tier-1 DOE
for Tier-2 NSF
0.45
0.00
Management Reserve
DOE
NSF
Total Costs
Total DOE
Total NSF
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
0.34
0.23
0.11
3.73
2.53
1.20
0.31
0.17
1.72
0.91
0.81
2.26
1.97
0.29
0.75
0.70
0.05
0.77
0.64
0.13
5.98
4.53
1.45
0.32
0.18
2.14
0.96
1.18
3.00
2.48
0.52
1.51
0.71
0.80
0.71
0.45
0.27
7.86
4.91
2.94
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
0.33
0.18
2.25
1.01
1.24
5.26
4.33
0.93
5.35
3.44
1.91
1.34
0.34
0.19
2.36
1.06
1.30
6.99
5.42
1.57
5.19
3.50
1.69
1.51
0.35
0.19
2.48
1.11
1.37
7.89
6.28
1.62
5.52
3.49
2.03
1.96
0.91
0.43
1.03
0.47
1.44
0.52
14.71
16.57
18.39
10.02
4.69
11.35
5.22
12.67
5.73
May 11, 2002
60
U.S. CMS Tier-1 RC Installed Capacity
Fiscal Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Simulation CPU (Si95)
Analysis CPU (Si95)
Server CPU (Si95)
Disk (TB)
2,000
750
50
16
3,000
2,100
140
31
4,000
4,000
270
46
7,200
8,000
1,500
65
28,800
32,000
6,000
260
72,000
80,000
15,000
650
CPU
Disk
(Si95)
(TB)
310,000
1,400
Total Resources U.S. CMS
Tier-1 and all Tier-2
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
310 kSI95
today is ~ 10,000 PCs
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
61
Alternative Scenarios
Q: revise the plans as to not have CMS and ATLAS identical scope?
- never been tried in HEP: always competitive experiments
- UF model is NOT to run a computer centers, but to have an
experiment-driven effort to get the physics environment in place
- S&C is engineering support for the physics project -- outsourcing of
engineering to a non-experiment driven (common) project would
mean a complete revision of the physics activities. This would
require fundamental changes to experiment management and
structure, that are not in the purview of the US part of the
collaboration
- specifically the data challenges are not only and primarily done for
the S&C project, but are going to be conducted as a coherent effort
of the physics, detector AND S&C groups with the goal to advance
the physics, detector AND S&C efforts.
- The DC are why we are here. If we cannot participate there would
be no point in going for a experiment driven UF
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
62
Alternative Scenarios
Q: are Tier-2 resources spread too thin?
- The Tier-2 efforts should be as broad as we can afford it. We are
including university (non-funded) groups, like Princeton
- If the role of the Tier-2 centers were just to provide computing
resources we would not distribute this, but concentrate on the Tier1 center. Instead the model is to put some resources at the
prototype T2 centers, which allows us to pull in additional
resources at these sites. This model seems to be rather
successful.
- iVDGL funds are being used for much of the efforts at prototype T2
centers. Hardware investments at the Tier-2 sites up to know have
been small. The project planned to fund 1.5FTE at each site (this
funding is not yet there). In CMS we see additional manpower at
those sites of several FTE, that comes out of the base program
and that are being attracted from CS et al communities through the
involvement in Grid projects
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
63
Alternative Scenarios
Q: additional software development activities to be combined?
-
-
this will certainly happen. Concretely we already started to plan the
first large-scale ATLAS-CMS common software project, the new
persistency framework. Do we expect significant savings in the
manpower efforts? These could be in the order of some 20-30%, if
these efforts could be closely managed. However, the
management is not in US hands, but in the purview of the LCG
project. Also, the very project is ADDITIONAL effort that was not
necessary when Objectivity was meant to provide the persistency
solution.
generally we do not expect very significant changes in the
estimates for the total engineering manpower required to complete
the core software efforts, the possible savings would give a
minimal contingency to the engineering effort that is to date
missing in the project plan. -> to be earned first, then released in
2005
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
64
Alternative Scenarios
Q: are we loosing, are there real cost benefits?
- any experiment that does not have a kernel of people to run the data
challenges will significantly loose
- The commodity is people, not equipment
- Sharing of resources is possible (and will happen), but we need to keep
minimal R&D equipment. $300k/year for each T1 is very little funding for
doing that. Below that we should just go home…
- Tier2: the mission of the Tier2 centers is to enable universities to be part of
the LHC research program. That function will be cut in as much as the
funding for it will be cut.
- To separate the running of the facilities form the experiment’s effort: This is a
model that we are developing for our interactions with Fermilab CD -- this is
the ramping to “35 FTE” in 2007, not the “13 FTE” now;
some services already now are being “effort-reported” to CD-CMS. We have
to get the structures in place to get this right - there will be overheads
involved
- I do not see real cost benefits in any of these for the R&D phase. I prefer not
to discuss the model for 2007 now, but we should stay open minded.
However, if we want to approach unconventional scenarios we need to
carefully prepare for them. That may start in 2003-2004?
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
65
UF + PM
Control room logbook
Code dist, dar, role for grid
T2 work
CCS schedule?
More comments on the job
Nucleation point vs T1 user community
new hires
Tony’s assignment, prod running
Disk tests, benchmarking, common work w/ BNL and iVDGL facility grp
Monitoring, ngop, ganglia, iosif’s stuff
Mention challenges to test bed/MOP: config, certificates, installations, and
help we get from grid projects: VO, ESNET CA, VDT
UF workplan
Lothar A T Bauerdick Fermilab
U.S. CMS Collaboration Meeting
May 11, 2002
66