Get documents about "U.S. ATLAS Computing Project Budget Profiles, Milestones
Document Sample
U.S. ATLAS Computing Project:
Budget Profiles, Milestones
Jim Shank
Boston University
Physics and Computing Advisory Panel Review
LBNL
14-16 Nov., 2002
The last 2 days…
• Workshop to prepare the 2003 NSF ITR proposal
• Large ITR: $15M over 5 years
• Joint ATLAS/CMS + Computing Sciences
• The Workshop was charged with identifying a critical area of computing
needed for LHC that was not being funded by exsting programs
• Participants from a wide spectrum
• LCG project
• EDG project
• Trillium (GriPhyN, iVDGL, PPDG)
• CMS/ATLAS communities
• Some other physics experiments…
• 2 Working groups:
• The BIG Picture group
• The ITR group
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 2
Categories of missing pieces
• Transition to production level grids (middleware support, error recovery,
robustness, 24x7, monitoring and system usage optimization, strategy
and policy for resource allocation, authentication and authorization,
simulation of grid operations, tools for optimizing distributed systems)
• Globally Enabled Analysis Communities (WG2)
• Enabling Global Collaboration (a medium ITR?)
Slide from WG1 Summary
(I. Gaines)
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 3
Who Fills in Missing Pieces
• Experiments (from existing budgets) (but remember gap between bare
bones funding level and originally proposed leadership funding level)
• LCG (from existing funding)
• Current grid projects (both connected to HEP and more general
projects)
• Near future grid projects
• This large ITR: Globally Enabled Analysis Communities
• Additional medium ITR (?): Enabling Global Collaboration
Slide from WG1 Summary
(I. Gaines)
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 4
Globally Empowered Analysis Communities:
think globally, act locally
• User Grid Interactions (Mike, Bolek, Craig, Shaowen)
• data browsing tools
• User Interfaces
• Visualisation Tools
• Education outreach
• Interactive tools
• Developing automation (Higher level services, AI)
• Dynamic Resource Control (Sridahara, Kaushik, John)
• Resource scheduling
• job scheduling
• environment control
• resource auditing, priority and priv.
• Data Provenance and workflow (Mike, Rick, David Adams)
• Community sharing and collaboration
• metadata management and tools (Greg and Jaideep, David Malon)
• specification of data sets
• spec. of user analysis
• queries (metadata browser)
• Equivalence
• Data Management (Ian, Torre)
• storage and data management
Slide from WG2 Summary
• data management optimisations (Obj. level)
(R. Cavanaugh)
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 5
Template for summarising the
different Topics
• Make a strong connection to the use cases
• how it is different from existing projects
• why it is new and revolutionary
• Status of Topic
• Description of abilities
• Generalisation beyond HEP
• How it ties into Title
Slide from WG2 Summary
(R. Cavanaugh)
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 6
Still need...
• $15M spread over 5 years
• scope needs to be consistent with this
• Need deliverables
• Need designated editors for text
• Rob Ed., Ruth assists
• Need list of participants
Slide from WG2 Summary
(R. Cavanaugh)
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 7
Project Core SW FTE
6 10.5 U.S.
8 France
U.K.
CERN
Italy
3 10 Other
4 Needed
6
13% 22% U.S.
France
17%
U.K.
CERN
Italy
6% 21% Other
8% Needed
13%
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 8
ATLAS Subsystem/Task Matrix
Offline Reconstruction Simulation Database
Coordinator
Chair N. McCubbin D. Rousseau A. Dell’Acqua D. Malon
Inner Detector D. Barberis D. Rousseau F. Luehring S. Bentvelsen /
D. Calvet
Liquid Argon J. Collot S. Rajagopalan M. Leltchouk H. Ma
Tile Calorimeter A. Solodkov F. Merritt V.Tsulaya T. LeCompte
Muon J.Shank J.F. Laporte A. Rimoldi S. Goldfarb
LVL 2 Trigger/ S. George S. Tapprogge M. Weilers A. Amorim /
Trigger DAQ F. Touchard
Event Filter V. Vercesi F. Touchard
Physics Coordinator: F.Gianotti Computing Steering Group members/attendees: 4 of 19
Chief Architect: D.Quarrie from US (Malon, Quarrie, Shank, Wenaus)
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 9
Budget Profile Overview
• What has happened since last review
• The Bare-Bones profile from last summer
• The construction project stretch-out
• The NSF M&O/Computing proposal
• New profile estimate
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 10
Bare Bones Budget from June 2002
Item FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY05 FY 06 FY 07 Total
Physics 100 196 196 210 215 230 1147
SW 2158 2430 2600 3000 3100 3200 16488
Tier 1 832 1275 1701 3392 5972 10615 23787
IVDGL 290 532 550 449 457 0 2278
Tier 2+Dist. IT 570 1243 2513 3000 7326
Project Support 0 50 300 300 300 300 1250
Project Reserve 127 300 500 500 500 1927
0
Total w/o iVDGL 3090 4078 5667 8645 12600 17845 51925
Total with iVDGL 3380 4610 6217 9094 13057 17845 54203
20000
18000
16000 iVDGL
14000 Reserve
12000 Support
AY $k
10000 Physics
8000 Tier 2
6000 Tier 1
4000 Software
2000
0
FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY05 FY 06 FY 07
FY
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 11
Recent BCP (approved recently)
U.S. ATLAS PROJECT
BASELINE CHANGE PROPOSAL (BCP)
17) BCP Number: 60 18) BCP Title: Project Completion Date Extension
19) Impact on Cost Baseline: Baseline Proposed AY$
(A Y$ in (A Y$ in Change
Thousands) Thousands)
DOE 102,950 102,950 0
NSF 60,800 60,800 0
Total 163,750 163,750 0
20) Impact on Funding Profile:
U.S. ATLAS NSF Project Funding Profile
Prior Years FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 Total
Approved (AY$M) 53.510 7.290 - - - - 60.800
There is no change proposed to the NSF funding profile.
U.S. ATLAS DOE Project Funding Profile
Prior Years FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 Total
Approved (AY$M) 65.935 17.416 14.690 4.909 - - 102.950
Proposed (AY$M) 65.935 17.416 8.990 5.490 3.239 1.880 102.950
Change (AY$M) 0 0 (5.700) 0.581 3.239 1.880 0
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 12
NSF M&O/Computing proposal budget
NSF Computing/M&O funding Profile
8000
Submitted Oct. 02
7000
6000
5000
Tier 2
Dollars 4000 Software
Tier 2 Physics
3000
2000
Software
1000
Physics
0
FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08
Year
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 13
Nov 2002 Profile Estimate
U.S. ATLAS Research Program Estimate
High Level Summary
FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08
Description (k$) (k$) (k$) (k$) (k$) (k$)
Computing 5,875 8,216 9,488 11,863 13,452 16,650
M&O 2,090 5,305 9,306 10,082 11,735 9,933
Upgrade R&D 0 238 859 2,263 2,210 3,234
Education 50 50 50 50 50 50
Project Office 415 304 1,095 1,099 1,099 1,099
Management Reserve 87 1,704 2,718 3,725 4,326 4,791
Total FY02$ 8,517 15,818 23,516 29,082 32,872 35,757
Total AY$ 8,603 16,607 25,398 32,223 37,343 41,620
DOE Guidance 3,350 9,680 13,420 21,300 22,620 22,620
NSF Guidance 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 10,000 10,000
Balance (2,753) (1,927) (4,478) (923) (4,723) (9,000)
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 14
Nov02 Profile Estimate Breakout
Item FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08
Physics 253 200 200 200 200 200
SW 4,242 4,830 5,230 5,330 5,430 5,630
Tier 1 1,070 1,794 2,445 3,771 4,908 6,111
IVDGL 532 550 449 457 0 0
Tier 2+Dist. IT 310 892 1,613 2,562 2,914 4,709
Project Support
Project Reserve
Total w/o iVDGL 5,875 7,716 9,488 11,863 13,452 16,650
Total with iVDGL 6,407 8,266 9,937 12,320 13,452 16,650
18,000
16,000
14,000
Loan payback
12,000 Tier 2+Dist. IT
10,000 IVDGL
8,000 Tier 1
6,000 SW
Physics
4,000
2,000
0
FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 15
Profile comparison
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
Nov02 Estimate
10000
Bare Bones July 02
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 16
Software Project Developments
• Recent software progress has been driven by the ATLAS
data challenges.
• This will be mentioned in many other talks at this review
• Some details of the ongoing and soon to be ongoing DC’s
• The US ATLAS Testbed
• Review of ATLAS Milestones
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 17
ATLAS DC1 Phase 1 : July-August 2002
(A. Putzer)
Contribution to the overall
CPU-time (%) per country
1. Australia 1,41%
2. Austria 0,02%
3. Canada 14,33% 10,92%
4. CERN
5. Czech Republic
6. France 3,99%
7. Germany 1,89%
8. Israel 4,33%
9. Italy
3,15%
10. Japan 28,66%
11. Nordic 2,22%
12. Russia
13. Spain 10,72%
14. Taiwan
0,01%
15. UK 4,94%
9,59% 1,46%
16. USA 2,36%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 18
ATLAS DC1 Phase 2 : October-November 2002
• Pile-Up Production (High and Low Luminosity)
• About the same CPU neeed as for phase 1
• 70 Tbyte
• 100 000 files
• Additional countries/institutes will join
• Large scale Grid test foreseen end November
• As many sites involved as possible
• Stability test : ~ 1-2 weeks
• Test of the Worldwide Computing Model
• Next Steps (2003)
•Reconstruction (scheduled activities)
•Analysis (`chaotic access‘: most demanding)
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 19
ATLAS DC2 : October 2003 - March 2004
• Use Geant4
• Perform large scale physics analysis
• Use LCG common software
• Use widely Grid middleware
• Further test of the computing model
• ~ same amount of data as for DC1
ATLAS DC3 : End 2004 - Begin 2005
• 5 times more data than for DC2
ATLAS DC4 : End 2005 - Begin 2006
• 2 times more data than for DC3
•
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 20
Summary Major Milestones
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Tbyte database prototype (Done)
Release of Athena pre-alpha version (Done)
Athena alpha release (Done)
Geant3 digi data available (Done)
Athena beta release (Done)
Athena accepted (ARC concluded) (Done)
Athena Lund release (Done)
Event store architecture design document (Done)
DC0 production release (Done)
Decide on database product (Done)
DC0 Completed - continuity test (Done)
Full validation of Geant4 physics Delay
DC1 Completed Delay
Computing TDR Finished (Align with LCG) Delay
DC2 Completed (followed by annual DCs) Delay
DC3 Completed (Exercise LCG-3) New
Physics readiness report completed Delay
DC4 Completed (Align with wedge test) New
Full chain in real environment (DC5) Delay
Green: Done Gray: Original date Blue: Current date
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 21
Major Milestones
One DC per year until startup
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 22
Summary
• Great progress/success with the Data Challenges.
• US ATLAS Testbed has become MUCH more functional
• Driven by DC and the SuperComputing 2002 demonstrations taking
place next week
• Interactions with CERN
• ATLAS interaction with LCG needs strengthening although US is
quite active.
• International ATLAS responding positively to our pressure: SIT
Jim Shank , PCAP Review LBNL Nov 2002 23
Related docs
