WLCG Jamboree – Summary of Day 1 Simone Campana, Maria Girone, Maarten Litmaath, Gavin McCance, Andrea Sciaba, Dan van der Ster.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Database Architectures and the Web
Advertisements

1 User Analysis Workgroup Update  All four experiments gave input by mid December  ALICE by document and links  Very independent.
Esma Yildirim Department of Computer Engineering Fatih University Istanbul, Turkey DATACLOUD 2013.
Outline Network related issues and thinking for FAX Cost among sites, who has problems Analytics of FAX meta data, what are the problems  The main object.
Reducing Risk with Cloud Storage. Dell Storage Forum 2011 Storage 2 Dells’ Definition of Cloud Demand driven scalability: up or down, just happens Metered:
Take An Internal Look at Hadoop Hairong Kuang Grid Team, Yahoo! Inc
Ian Fisk and Maria Girone Improvements in the CMS Computing System from Run2 CHEP 2015 Ian Fisk and Maria Girone For CMS Collaboration.
Presenter: Dipesh Gautam.  Introduction  Why Data Grid?  High Level View  Design Considerations  Data Grid Services  Topology  Grids and Cloud.
LHCb input to DM and SM TEGs. Remarks to DM and SM TEGS Introduction m We have already provided some input during our dedicated session of the TEG m Here.
PhysX CoE: LHC Data-intensive workflows and data- management Wahid Bhimji, Pete Clarke, Andrew Washbrook – Edinburgh And other CoE WP4 people…
Wenjing Wu Andrej Filipčič David Cameron Eric Lancon Claire Adam Bourdarios & others.
Workshop on the Future of Scientific Workflows Break Out #2: Workflow System Design Moderators Chris Carothers (RPI), Doug Thain (ND)
Introduction to dCache Zhenping (Jane) Liu ATLAS Computing Facility, Physics Department Brookhaven National Lab 09/12 – 09/13, 2005 USATLAS Tier-1 & Tier-2.
Server Virtualization
What is SAM-Grid? Job Handling Data Handling Monitoring and Information.
1 User Analysis Workgroup Discussion  Understand and document analysis models  Best in a way that allows to compare them easily.
From the Transatlantic Networking Workshop to the DAM Jamboree to the LHCOPN Meeting (Geneva-Amsterdam-Barcelona) David Foster CERN-IT.
Summary of Data Management Jamboree Ian Bird WLCG Workshop Imperial College 7 th July 2010.
6/23/2005 R. GARDNER OSG Baseline Services 1 OSG Baseline Services In my talk I’d like to discuss two questions:  What capabilities are we aiming for.
Evolution of storage and data management Ian Bird GDB: 12 th May 2010.
Securing the Grid & other Middleware Challenges Ian Foster Mathematics and Computer Science Division Argonne National Laboratory and Department of Computer.
Grid Technology CERN IT Department CH-1211 Geneva 23 Switzerland t DBCF GT Upcoming Features and Roadmap Ricardo Rocha ( on behalf of the.
Data Placement Intro Dirk Duellmann WLCG TEG Workshop Amsterdam 24. Jan 2012.
Author - Title- Date - n° 1 Partner Logo WP5 Status John Gordon Budapest September 2002.
Data management demonstrators Ian Bird; WLCG MB 18 th January 2011.
ATLAS Distributed Computing perspectives for Run-2 Simone Campana CERN-IT/SDC on behalf of ADC.
Rights Management for Shared Collections Storage Resource Broker Reagan W. Moore
Ian Bird Overview Board; CERN, 8 th March 2013 March 6, 2013
Latest Improvements in the PROOF system Bleeding Edge Physics with Bleeding Edge Computing Fons Rademakers, Gerri Ganis, Jan Iwaszkiewicz CERN.
CMS: T1 Disk/Tape separation Nicolò Magini, CERN IT/SDC Oliver Gutsche, FNAL November 11 th 2013.
Meeting with University of Malta| CERN, May 18, 2015 | Predrag Buncic ALICE Computing in Run 2+ P. Buncic 1.
Experiment Support CERN IT Department CH-1211 Geneva 23 Switzerland t DBES Evolution of WLCG Data & Storage Management Outcome of Amsterdam.
Computing Fabrics & Networking Technologies Summary Talk Tony Cass usual disclaimers apply! October 2 nd 2010.
An Introduction to GPFS
DATA ACCESS and DATA MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES in CMS.
1 LCG-France 22 November 2010 Tier2s connectivity requirements 22 Novembre 2010 S. Jézéquel (LAPP-ATLAS)
Federating Data in the ALICE Experiment
Evolution of storage and data management
MERANTI Caused More Than 1.5 B$ Damage
WLCG Workshop 2017 [Manchester] Operations Session Summary
Status: ATLAS Grid Computing
Scalable sync-and-share service with dCache
Reducing Risk with Cloud Storage
DAaM summary Ian Bird MB 29th June 2010.
WP18, High-speed data recording Krzysztof Wrona, European XFEL
Virtualization and Clouds ATLAS position
Status of the SRM 2.2 MoU extension
Future of WAN Access in ATLAS
WLCG Manchester Report
dCache “Intro” a layperson perspective Frank Würthwein UCSD
Simone Campana CERN IT-ES
Storage Interfaces and Access: Introduction
for the Offline and Computing groups
Introduction to Data Management in EGI
Final summary Ian Bird Amsterdam, DAaM 18th June 2010.
PanDA in a Federated Environment
The ADC Operations Story
Dagmar Adamova (NPI AS CR Prague/Rez) and Maarten Litmaath (CERN)
Evolution of the distributed computing model The case of CMS
Thoughts on Computing Upgrade Activities
Database Architectures and the Web
R&D for HL-LHC from the CWP
Ákos Frohner EGEE'08 September 2008
ALICE Computing Model in Run3
CTA: CERN Tape Archive Overview and architecture
Computing Infrastructure for DAQ, DM and SC
Integration of Singularity With Makeflow
Consistency and Replication
INFNGRID Workshop – Bari, Italy, October 2004
The Data Grid: Towards an Architecture for the Distributed Management and Analysis of Large Scientific Datasets A.Chervenak, I.Foster, C.Kesselman, C.Salisbury,
Presentation transcript:

WLCG Jamboree – Summary of Day 1 Simone Campana, Maria Girone, Maarten Litmaath, Gavin McCance, Andrea Sciaba, Dan van der Ster

Jamboree Goals (Ian B) Focus on analysis use cases – Concerns about performance and scalability 2013 timescale for solution in production Understand integration effort (existing solutions) and development effort (new stuff) Model: network centric, large archives, cloud storage – Tape as archive, remote access, p2p – Data access layer (xroot/gfal,…) – Global namespace Do not forget connections with job management – Pilots, virtualization Solutions (lessons) on the market

Strawman – Key Features (Ian F) Improvements: e.g. in networking; data-serving & P2P Proposal: move closer to “©loud model” – Further reliance on network: remote access, improved accessibility of data – Tape archives should evolve to be true data archives with facilities using data cached on disk, even if pulled from remote cache. Need transparent handling of failures in data access Computing Models need to evolve – tools too! – Predictable T0-T1 flow, less predictable for T1-T2&T2-T2 Metrics needed: e.g. measuring usage efficiency

Network Evolution (David F) Huge evolution w.r.t. expectations in 2001 – Multiple 10Gbps T0-T1 & T1-T1 links Network does not come for free! – (P2P model should imply less data movement w.r.t. data pre-placement. To be DEMONSTRATED/modelled.) Setup groups to put requirements together – “big” T2s in the OPN? DM services should be network topology aware – and consider the coupling with job management Miron: design a system that does resource provisioning

Back-end Archive (Dirk D) Is HSM still relevant? (Expectation: N) File-sets? Can these be used? (Expectation: Y) – Closing a file-set? Can this be done? – Hot file-sets? (Q: how much data is active?) Disk-based archives? [ Demonstrator? ] On the roles of a file-system: – Client protocol; Cluster/parallel filesystems; no silver bullet True archive: need experiments to define parameters (if they know them…) – storage parameters exposed to experiments – Capabilities (Bernd?)

Data Access Layer – Analysis Needs (Fed C) “Working solutions” – with a number of known draw- backs – exposed for each experiment  Substantial unhappiness with current tools;  Multiple protocols increases release & support load; Desiderata (convergence on requirements): – Intelligent defaults (which replica to read, which SE to write on) + possibility to specify; – File collections; – Performance issues (file serving & moving); – Load-aware replication & brokering – Meta-data! Opportunity for a common HEP DAL! (?)

Data Transfer Use Cases (Richard M) Spectrum includes: a)Object accessed / transferred on demand b)Event on demand c)File on demand d)Dataset on demand e)Dataset scheduled on measured demand f)… on imagined demand Can we move up from f)?

Namespaces, authorization needs, quotas, catalogues – what is needed? (Ph. C) Global namespace – Hierarchical and flat Central catalog for file location, metadata [ just for archive storage? Transient catalogs? ] – ACLs, quotas – Can we shut the backdoors? Current system (almost) allows this – What’s not so good is the implementation SRM (too heavy for little add-on) Hardware implementation – Number of spindles, servers for matching CPU Failure recovery (application access layer)

Multi-core plans and impact on data access and management (Peter E.) Current model: launch 1 application per core – how to adapt to multi-core world? Ideally would like to schedule at node level & exploit multiple cores on single node – Possible optimizations for I/O, memory, access to disk, DM in general Timeframe: deploy & commission multi-core applications for “whole node” granularity this year (at least CMS…)

Global HOME “Something like /afs but which works” – Ubiquitous, ACLs etc. but >>200MB Model is a global file system. Industrial solutions available? (drop-boxes etc.)

Summary Today’s sessions focused on Scene Setting, Requirements & Use Cases; – A Strawman for a new model of data access and management; – Update on networking – status and outlook; – Use of tape as a true archive; – Multi-core: impact on Data Access & Management Baseline: some of “MONARC” assumptions no longer valid + technology advances & short-comings (plus successes!) of current solutions prompt a re-evaluation of these assumptions Tomorrow: drill-down into experience talks + more concrete discussions on possible ways forward… “Jam” photo on the bridge before coffee! … and J “birthday” T