SuperB and its computing requirements

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The CrossGrid project Juha Alatalo Timo Koivusalo.
Advertisements

Workload Management Massimo Sgaravatto INFN Padova.
Trigger and online software Simon George & Reiner Hauser T/DAQ Phase 1 IDR.
L3 Filtering: status and plans D  Computing Review Meeting: 9 th May 2002 Terry Wyatt, on behalf of the L3 Algorithms group. For more details of current.
Ian Fisk and Maria Girone Improvements in the CMS Computing System from Run2 CHEP 2015 Ian Fisk and Maria Girone For CMS Collaboration.
Grid Data Management A network of computers forming prototype grids currently operate across Britain and the rest of the world, working on the data challenges.
Roger Jones, Lancaster University1 Experiment Requirements from Evolving Architectures RWL Jones, Lancaster University Ambleside 26 August 2010.
03/27/2003CHEP20031 Remote Operation of a Monte Carlo Production Farm Using Globus Dirk Hufnagel, Teela Pulliam, Thomas Allmendinger, Klaus Honscheid (Ohio.
CDF data production models 1 Data production models for the CDF experiment S. Hou for the CDF data production team.
Grid Workload Management & Condor Massimo Sgaravatto INFN Padova.
Offline Coordinators  CMSSW_7_1_0 release: 17 June 2014  Usage:  Generation and Simulation samples for run 2 startup  Limited digitization and reconstruction.
Finnish DataGrid meeting, CSC, Otaniemi, V. Karimäki (HIP) DataGrid meeting, CSC V. Karimäki (HIP) V. Karimäki (HIP) Otaniemi, 28 August, 2000.
Belle II Data Management System Junghyun Kim, Sunil Ahn and Kihyeon Cho * (on behalf of the Belle II Computing Group) *Presenter High Energy Physics Team.
Plans for Trigger Software Validation During Running Trigger Data Quality Assurance Workshop May 6, 2008 Ricardo Gonçalo, David Strom.
ALICE Upgrade for Run3: Computing HL-LHC Trigger, Online and Offline Computing Working Group Topical Workshop Sep 5 th 2014.
David N. Brown Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Representing the BaBar Collaboration The BaBar Mini  BaBar  BaBar’s Data Formats  Design of the Mini 
Instrumentation of the SAM-Grid Gabriele Garzoglio CSC 426 Research Proposal.
Costin Grigoras ALICE Offline. In the period of steady LHC operation, The Grid usage is constant and high and, as foreseen, is used for massive RAW and.
7April 2000F Harris LHCb Software Workshop 1 LHCb planning on EU GRID activities (for discussion) F Harris.
ATLAS in LHCC report from ATLAS –ATLAS Distributed Computing has been working at large scale Thanks to great efforts from shifters.
November SC06 Tampa F.Fanzago CRAB a user-friendly tool for CMS distributed analysis Federica Fanzago INFN-PADOVA for CRAB team.
Analysis Model Migration Plan Accessing the Mini Converting to the New (dual-read) Micro Producing the Skims Cleaning up the Tag Beta Development.
ATLAS Data Challenges US ATLAS Physics & Computing ANL October 30th 2001 Gilbert Poulard CERN EP-ATC.
Predrag Buncic, October 3, 2013 ECFA Workshop Aix-Les-Bains - 1 Computing at the HL-LHC Predrag Buncic on behalf of the Trigger/DAQ/Offline/Computing Preparatory.
Analysis trains – Status & experience from operation Mihaela Gheata.
WLCG Overview Board, September 3 rd 2010 P. Mato, P.Buncic Use of multi-core and virtualization technologies.
Claudio Grandi INFN Bologna CMS Computing Model Evolution Claudio Grandi INFN Bologna On behalf of the CMS Collaboration.
David Adams ATLAS DIAL: Distributed Interactive Analysis of Large datasets David Adams BNL August 5, 2002 BNL OMEGA talk.
Predrag Buncic Future IT challenges for ALICE Technical Workshop November 6, 2015.
ATLAS Distributed Computing perspectives for Run-2 Simone Campana CERN-IT/SDC on behalf of ADC.
LHCbComputing Computing for the LHCb Upgrade. 2 LHCb Upgrade: goal and timescale m LHCb upgrade will be operational after LS2 (~2020) m Increase significantly.
CHEP 2012 ADC talks G. Carlino (INFN Napoli) on behalf of the Computing Speaker Committee ADC Weekly, August 29 th.
Alien and GSI Marian Ivanov. Outlook GSI experience Alien experience Proposals for further improvement.
ATLAS Distributed Analysis DISTRIBUTED ANALYSIS JOBS WITH THE ATLAS PRODUCTION SYSTEM S. González D. Liko
Meeting with University of Malta| CERN, May 18, 2015 | Predrag Buncic ALICE Computing in Run 2+ P. Buncic 1.
Belle II Computing Fabrizio Bianchi INFN and University of Torino Meeting Belle2 Italia 17/12/2014.
Alessandro De Salvo CCR Workshop, ATLAS Computing Alessandro De Salvo CCR Workshop,
Update on CHEP from the Computing Speaker Committee G. Carlino (INFN Napoli) on behalf of the CSC ICB, October
FTK high level simulation & the physics case The FTK simulation problem G. Volpi Laboratori Nazionali Frascati, CERN Associate FP07 MC Fellow.
Introduction to Performance Tuning Chia-heng Tu PAS Lab Summer Workshop 2009 June 30,
Barthélémy von Haller CERN PH/AID For the ALICE Collaboration The ALICE data quality monitoring system.
Computing infrastructures for the LHC: current status and challenges of the High Luminosity LHC future Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG): Distributed.
BaBar & Grid Eleonora Luppi for the BaBarGrid Group TB GRID Bologna 15 febbraio 2005.
1 P. Murat, Mini-review of the CDF Computing Plan 2006, 2005/10/18 An Update to the CDF Offline Plan and FY2006 Budget ● Outline: – CDF computing model.
1-2 March 2006 P. Capiluppi INFN Tier1 for the LHC Experiments: ALICE, ATLAS, CMS, LHCb.
ScotGRID is the Scottish prototype Tier 2 Centre for LHCb and ATLAS computing resources. It uses a novel distributed architecture and cutting-edge technology,
Workload Management Workpackage
How to Contribute to System Testing and Extract Results
Ian Bird WLCG Workshop San Francisco, 8th October 2016
Overview of the Belle II computing
CMS High Level Trigger Configuration Management
The “Understanding Performance!” team in CERN IT
evoluzione modello per Run3 LHC
Workshop Computing Models status and perspectives
GWE Core Grid Wizard Enterprise (
Data Challenge with the Grid in ATLAS
for the Offline and Computing groups
Kilohertz Decision Making on Petabytes
LHCb Software & Computing Status
Philippe Charpentier CERN – LHCb On behalf of the LHCb Computing Group
Dagmar Adamova (NPI AS CR Prague/Rez) and Maarten Litmaath (CERN)
ALICE Computing Model in Run3
ALICE Computing Upgrade Predrag Buncic
New strategies of the LHC experiments to meet
US ATLAS Physics & Computing
Learn about MATLAB Engineers – not sales!
Wide Area Workload Management Work Package DATAGRID project
Gridifying the LHCb Monte Carlo production system
Computing at the HL-LHC
LHCb thinking on Regional Centres and Related activities (GRIDs)
Presentation transcript:

SuperB and its computing requirements Fabrizio Bianchi University of Torino and INFN-Torino SuperB Computing R&D Workshop Ferrara, March 9-12, 2010

Outline The detector. The size of the problem. Hardware requirements. Distributed computing. Code requirements.

The Detector

Possible outline of SuperB processing (from D. Brown presentation)

The size of the problem Design Luminosity: 1036 cm-2 s-1 Integrated luminosity: up to 12 ab-1/year HLT accepted cross section: 25 nb Accepted event rate: 25 KHz Raw Data event size: 75 KB Raw Data logging rate: ~ 2 GB/s Raw Data size: 875 TB/ab-1 Micro Data size: 42 TB/ab-1 Mini Data size: 80 TB/ab-1 Micro MC size: 100 TB/ab-1 Mini MC size: 150 TB/ab-1 Skim expansion factor: 2 (was 3-4 in BaBar, indexing vs deep copies) User analysis data 200 TB/ab-1

Hardware Requirements (scaled from BaBar) Storage of raw data, mini, micro, skims, user analysis data (ntuples, fit results). Enough storage to keep multiple processing of the data sample Reconstruction of raw data: in parallel with data taking, scales with peak luminosity. Essential to fully monitor the quality of data CPU estimate: 22 MSpecInt2000 / 1036 cm-2 s-1 Simulation and skimming of new data: in parallel with data taking, scales with peak luminosity. CPU estimate: 160 MSpecInt2000 / 1036 cm-2 s-1 Capability of re-process, re-simulate and re-skim every year the data collected in previous years: scales with integrated luminosity Analysis capability: scales with integrated luminosity CPU estimate: 160 MSpecInt2000 / ab-1 Factor 2 reduction wrt BaBar Optimization of analysis code

Data storage requirements Data volume will be huge: hundreds of PB. Storage resources will be geographically distributed. Users should be able to ignore the geographic location of data. Requirements on: Storage systems. Databases. Job submission system. Code design. Most SuperB applications will be I/O intensive. Avoid I/O bottlenecks. Requirements on: Storage system performances.

Distributed computing A must for SuperB: CPU and storage resources will be in different locations. Ideally you want something that: Optimize usage of resources (storage/CPU/bandwidth). Is transparent to users. They only have to care about: Submitting jobs. Define input data. Specify were they want the output to show up. Is GRID middleware good enough for SuperB ? Use cloud instead ? Or something else ? Impact of distributed computing on: Databases technology choice. Database applications design.

Impact of new CPU architectures Recently the single CPU performances have not increased significantly. Computing has been characterized by the advent of "multicore CPUs". GPUs have hundreds of cores. Efficient exploitation of multi/many cores is a must for SuperB computing Programming paradigm must shift to parallel Algorithms must be reformulated Coding must follows new guidelines Need to build the appropriate expertise in code developers

Code requirements SuperB will have a large community of code developers and users. Their efforts must be efficiently integrated. Collaborative tools, releases building tools. Training of developers. Quality of the code: Must be monitored. Quality standards must be defined and enforced. New coding paradigm and tools are needed to efficiently exploits new CPU architectures.

Code Quality Requirements: BaBar experience BaBar was the first HEP experiment to use c++ and OOAD. Very limited expertise in HEP community. Many tools not yet existing (STL…). Quality requirements were not stringent. Compile on 2 compilers. Run. Limited memory leaks were accepted. Limited effort in offline code profiling and optimization. Mostly in reconstruction and simulation code. Recent optimization efforts on analysis code resulted in CPU time gain of a factor between 1.5 and 10.

Code & Data quality requirements for SuperB Checks on code quality: Compile and run on different (>=2 ?) platforms. No memory leaks. Aggressive profiling and optimization of the code. Code validation between platforms and releases. Frequent (nightly ?) build of the code. Checks on data quality: First check during data taking. Additional checks on reconstructed data, not much after data taking, to provide feedback on detector performances. Need automated tools. Limit the human visual inspection of histograms. MC data and skimmed data need to be checked too.