10-Feb-00 CERN Building a Regional Centre A few ideas & a personal view CHEP 2000 – Padova 10 February 2000 Les Robertson CERN/IT.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CERN STAR TAP June 2001 Status of the EU DataGrid Project Fabrizio Gagliardi CERN EU-DataGrid Project Leader June 2001
Advertisements

31/03/00 CMS(UK)Glenn Patrick What is the CMS(UK) Data Model? Assume that CMS software is available at every UK institute connected by some infrastructure.
Status GridKa & ALICE T2 in Germany Kilian Schwarz GSI Darmstadt.
Resources for the ATLAS Offline Computing Basis for the Estimates ATLAS Distributed Computing Model Cost Estimates Present Status Sharing of Resources.
Amber Boehnlein, FNAL D0 Computing Model and Plans Amber Boehnlein D0 Financial Committee November 18, 2002.
Distributed IT Infrastructure for U.S. ATLAS Rob Gardner Indiana University DOE/NSF Review of U.S. ATLAS and CMS Computing Projects Brookhaven National.
1 Software & Grid Middleware for Tier 2 Centers Rob Gardner Indiana University DOE/NSF Review of U.S. ATLAS and CMS Computing Projects Brookhaven National.
23/04/2008VLVnT08, Toulon, FR, April 2008, M. Stavrianakou, NESTOR-NOA 1 First thoughts for KM3Net on-shore data storage and distribution Facilities VLV.
Agenda Network Infrastructures LCG Architecture Management
CERN/IT/DB Multi-PB Distributed Databases Jamie Shiers IT Division, DB Group, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland February 2001.
Large scale data flow in local and GRID environment V.Kolosov, I.Korolko, S.Makarychev ITEP Moscow.
October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann1 US CMS Software and Computing Milestones and Funding Profiles Matthias Kasemann Fermilab.
Fabric Management for CERN Experiments Past, Present, and Future Tim Smith CERN/IT.
MONARC : results and open issues Laura Perini Milano.
CERN TERENA Lisbon The Grid Project Fabrizio Gagliardi CERN Information Technology Division May, 2000
9/16/2000Ian Bird/JLAB1 Planning for JLAB Computational Resources Ian Bird.
Farm Management D. Andreotti 1), A. Crescente 2), A. Dorigo 2), F. Galeazzi 2), M. Marzolla 3), M. Morandin 2), F.
Fermilab User Facility US-CMS User Facility and Regional Center at Fermilab Matthias Kasemann FNAL.
LHC Computing Review - Resources ATLAS Resource Issues John Huth Harvard University.
Finnish DataGrid meeting, CSC, Otaniemi, V. Karimäki (HIP) DataGrid meeting, CSC V. Karimäki (HIP) V. Karimäki (HIP) Otaniemi, 28 August, 2000.
Modeling Regional Centers with MONARC Simulation Tools Modeling LHC Regional Centers with the MONARC Simulation Tools Irwin Gaines, FNAL for the MONARC.
LHC Computing Review Recommendations John Harvey CERN/EP March 28 th, th LHCb Software Week.
Computing for LHCb-Italy Domenico Galli, Umberto Marconi and Vincenzo Vagnoni Genève, January 17, 2001.
14 Aug 08DOE Review John Huth ATLAS Computing at Harvard John Huth.
6/26/01High Throughput Linux Clustering at Fermilab--S. Timm 1 High Throughput Linux Clustering at Fermilab Steven C. Timm--Fermilab.
7April 2000F Harris LHCb Software Workshop 1 LHCb planning on EU GRID activities (for discussion) F Harris.
December 10,1999: MONARC Plenary Meeting Harvey Newman (CIT) Phase 3 Letter of Intent (1/2)  Short: N Pages è May Refer to MONARC Internal Notes to Document.
RAL Site Report John Gordon IT Department, CLRC/RAL HEPiX Meeting, JLAB, October 2000.
JLAB Computing Facilities Development Ian Bird Jefferson Lab 2 November 2001.
US ATLAS Tier 1 Facility Rich Baker Brookhaven National Laboratory DOE/NSF Review of U.S. ATLAS and CMS Computing Projects Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Prospects for the use of remote real time computing over long distances in the ATLAS Trigger/DAQ system R. W. Dobinson (CERN), J. Hansen (NBI), K. Korcyl.
Sep 02 IPP Canada Remote Computing Plans Pekka K. Sinervo Department of Physics University of Toronto 4 Sep IPP Overview 2 Local Computing 3 Network.
Les Les Robertson LCG Project Leader High Energy Physics using a worldwide computing grid Torino December 2005.
CERN IT Department CH-1211 Genève 23 Switzerland t Frédéric Hemmer IT Department Head - CERN 23 rd August 2010 Status of LHC Computing from.
CERN – IT Department CH-1211 Genève 23 Switzerland t Working with Large Data Sets Tim Smith CERN/IT Open Access and Research Data Session.
National HEP Data Grid Project in Korea Kihyeon Cho Center for High Energy Physics (CHEP) Kyungpook National University CDF CAF & Grid Meeting July 12,
CERN 29-Apr-99 Computer architectures and operating systems Is there an opportunity for convergence? FOCUS meeting CERN - 29 April.
ATLAS WAN Requirements at BNL Slides Extracted From Presentation Given By Bruce G. Gibbard 13 December 2004.
7 March 2000EU GRID Project Proposal Meeting CERN, M. Lokajicek 1 Proposal for Participation of the Czech Republic in the EU HEP GRID Project Institute.
 The End to the Means › (According to IBM ) › 03.ibm.com/innovation/us/thesmartercity/in dex_flash.html?cmp=blank&cm=v&csr=chap ter_edu&cr=youtube&ct=usbrv111&cn=agus.
Partner Logo A Tier1 Centre at RAL and more John Gordon eScience Centre CLRC-RAL HEPiX/HEPNT - Catania 19th April 2002.
23.March 2004Bernd Panzer-Steindel, CERN/IT1 LCG Workshop Computing Fabric.
Technology Summary John Gordon. Talks University Multidisciplinary Scientific Computing: Experience and Plans - Alan Tackett (Vanderbilt University) PASTA.
July 26, 1999MONARC Meeting CERN MONARC Meeting CERN July 26, 1999.
Computing for LHC Physics 7th March 2014 International Women's Day - CERN- GOOGLE Networking Event Maria Alandes Pradillo CERN IT Department.
6 march Building the INFN Grid Proposal outline a.ghiselli,l.luminari,m.sgaravatto,c.vistoli INFN Grid meeting, milano.
U.S. ATLAS Computing Facilities Overview Bruce G. Gibbard Brookhaven National Laboratory U.S. LHC Software and Computing Review Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Tier 1 at Brookhaven (US / ATLAS) Bruce G. Gibbard LCG Workshop CERN March 2004.
US ATLAS Tier 1 Facility Rich Baker Deputy Director US ATLAS Computing Facilities October 26, 2000.
10-Jan-00 CERN Building a Regional Centre A few ideas & a personal view CHEP 2000 – Padova 10 January 2000 Les Robertson CERN/IT.
U.S. ATLAS Computing Facilities DOE/NFS Review of US LHC Software & Computing Projects Bruce G. Gibbard, BNL January 2000.
January 20, 2000K. Sliwa/ Tufts University DOE/NSF ATLAS Review 1 SIMULATION OF DAILY ACTIVITITIES AT REGIONAL CENTERS MONARC Collaboration Alexander Nazarenko.
U.S. ATLAS Computing Facilities U.S. ATLAS Physics & Computing Review Bruce G. Gibbard, BNL January 2000.
The Worldwide LHC Computing Grid Frédéric Hemmer IT Department Head Visit of INTEL ISEF CERN Special Award Winners 2012 Thursday, 21 st June 2012.
Meeting with University of Malta| CERN, May 18, 2015 | Predrag Buncic ALICE Computing in Run 2+ P. Buncic 1.
IT-DSS Alberto Pace2 ? Detecting particles (experiments) Accelerating particle beams Large-scale computing (Analysis) Discovery We are here The mission.
Dominique Boutigny December 12, 2006 CC-IN2P3 a Tier-1 for W-LCG 1 st Chinese – French Workshop on LHC Physics and associated Grid Computing IHEP - Beijing.
26. Juni 2003Bernd Panzer-Steindel, CERN/IT1 LHC Computing re-costing for for the CERN T0/T1 center.
Apr. 25, 2002Why DØRAC? DØRAC FTFM, Jae Yu 1 What do we want DØ Regional Analysis Centers (DØRAC) do? Why do we need a DØRAC? What do we want a DØRAC do?
10-Feb-00 CERN HepCCC Grid Initiative ATLAS meeting – 16 February 2000 Les Robertson CERN/IT.
Bernd Panzer-Steindel CERN/IT/ADC1 Medium Term Issues for the Data Challenges.
Hall D Computing Facilities Ian Bird 16 March 2001.
Clouds , Grids and Clusters
Report from WLCG Workshop 2017: WLCG Network Requirements GDB - CERN 12th of July 2017
UK GridPP Tier-1/A Centre at CLRC
Grid Computing.
LHC Computing re-costing for
Nuclear Physics Data Management Needs Bruce G. Gibbard
Proposal for a DØ Remote Analysis Model (DØRAM)
LHCb thinking on Regional Centres and Related activities (GRIDs)
Presentation transcript:

10-Feb-00 CERN Building a Regional Centre A few ideas & a personal view CHEP 2000 – Padova 10 February 2000 Les Robertson CERN/IT

CERN 10-feb-00 - #2les robertson - cern/it Summary  LHC regional computing centre topology  Some capacity and performance parameters  From components to computing fabrics  Remarks about regional centres  Policies & sociology  Conclusions

CERN 10-feb-00 - #3les robertson - cern/it Why Regional Centres?  Bring computing facilities closer to home  final analysis on a compact cluster in the physics department  Exploit established computing expertise & infrastructure  Reduce dependence on links to CERN  full ESD available nearby - through a fat, fast, reliable network link  Tap funding sources not otherwise available to HEP  Devolve control over resource allocation  national interests?  regional interests?  at the expense of physics interests?

CERN 10-feb-00 - #4les robertson - cern/it Department    Desktop The MONARC RC Topology CERN – Tier 0 MONARC report: Tier 1 FNAL RAL IN2P3 622 Mbps 2.5 Gbps 622 Mbps 155 mbps Tier2 Lab a Uni b Lab c Uni n Tier 0 – CERN  Data recording, reconstruction, 20% analysis  Full data sets on permanent mass storage – raw, ESD, simulated data  Hefty WAN capability  Range of export-import media  24 X 7 availability Tier 1 – established data centre or new facility hosted by a lab  Major subset of data – all/most of the ESD, selected raw data  Mass storage, managed data operation  ESD analysis, AOD generation, major analysis capacity  Fat pipe to CERN  High availability  User consultancy – Library & Collaboration Software support Tier 2 – smaller labs, smaller countries, probably hosted by existing data centre  Mainly AOD analysis  Data cached from Tier 1, Tier 0 centres  No mass storage management  Minimal staffing costs University physics department  Final analysis  Dedicated to local users  Limited data capacity – cached only via the network  Zero administration costs (fully automated)

CERN 10-feb-00 - #5les robertson - cern/it The MONARC RC Topology CERN – Tier 0 MONARC report: Tier 1 FNAL RAL IN2P3 622 Mbps 2.5 Gbps 622 Mbps 155 mbps Tier2 Lab a Uni b Lab c Uni n Department    Desktop

CERN 10-feb-00 - #6les robertson - cern/it More realistically - a Grid Topology CERN – Tier 0 Tier 1 FNAL RAL IN2P3 622 Mbps 2.5 Gbps 622 Mbps 155 mbps Tier2 Lab a Uni b Lab c Uni n Department    Desktop DHL

CERN 10-feb-00 - #7les robertson - cern/it Capacity / Performance Based on CMS/Monarc estimates (early 1999) Rounded, extended and adapted by LMR CERN CMS or ATLAS Tier 1 1 expt. Tier 1 2 expts. Capacity in 2006 Annual increase Capacity in 2006 CPU (K SPECint95) ** Disk (TB) Tape (PB) (including copies at CERN) <1 I/O rates disk (GB/sec) tape (MB/sec) WAN bandwidth Gbps2.5 20% CERN all CERN today ~15K SI95 ~25 TB ~100 MB/sec ** 1 SPECint95 = 10 CERNunits = 40 MIPS

CERN 10-feb-00 - #8les robertson - cern/it Capacity / Performance Based on CMS/Monarc estimates (early 1999) Rounded, extended and adapted by LMR Tier 1 2 expts. Capacity in 2006 CPU (K SPECint95)240~1200 cpus ~600 boxes Disk (TB)220 At least 2400 disks  ~100 GB/disk (only!) Tape (PB) (including copies at CERN) <1 I/O rates disk (GB/sec) tape (MB/sec) MB/sec/cpu 20 MB/sec/disk WAN bandwidth Gbps MB/sec Approx. Number of farm PCs at CERN today May not find disks as small as that! But we need a high disk count for access, performance, RAID/mirroring, etc. We probably have to buy more disks, larger disks, & use the disks that come with the PCs  much more disk space Effective throughput of LAN backbone 1.5% of LAN

CERN 10-feb-00 - #9les robertson - cern/it Building a Regional Centre Commodity components are just fine for HEP  Masses of experience with inexpensive farms  LAN technology is going the right way  Inexpensive high performance PC attachments  Compatible with hefty backbone switches  Good ideas for improving automated operation and management

CERN 10-feb-00 - #10les robertson - cern/it Evolution of today’s analysis farms Computing & Storage Fabric built up from commodity components  Simple PCs  Inexpensive network-attached disk  Standard network interface (whatever Ethernet happens to be in 2006) with a minimum of high(er)-end components  LAN backbone  WAN connection

CERN 10-feb-00 - #11les robertson - cern/it Standard components Computing & Storage Fabric built up from commodity components  Simple PCs  Inexpensive network-attached disk  Standard network interface (whatever Ethernet happens to be in 2006) with a minimum of high(er)-end components  LAN backbone  WAN connection

CERN 10-feb-00 - #12les robertson - cern/it HEP’s not special, just more cost conscious Computing & Storage Fabric built up from commodity components  Simple PCs  Inexpensive network-attached disk  Standard network interface (whatever Ethernet happens to be in 2006) with a minimum of high(er)-end components  LAN backbone  WAN connection

CERN 10-feb-00 - #13les robertson - cern/it Limit the role of high end equipment Computing & Storage Fabric built up from commodity components  Simple PCs  Inexpensive network-attached disk  Standard network interface (whatever Ethernet happens to be in 2006) with a minimum of high(er)-end components LAN backbone WAN connection

CERN 10-feb-00 - #14les robertson - cern/it Components  building blocks 2000 – standard office equipment 36 dual cpus ~900 SI GB disks ~9 TB 2005 – standard, cost-optimised, Internet warehouse equipment 36 dual 200 SI95 cpus = 14K SI95s ~ $100K ” disks TB $50K - $200K For capacity & cost estimates see the 1999 Pasta Report:

CERN 10-feb-00 - #15les robertson - cern/it The Physics Department System  Two 19” racks & $200K  CPU – 14K SI95 (10% of a Tier1 centre)  Disk – 50TB (50% of a Tier1 centre)  Rather comfortable analysis machine   Small Regional Centres are not going to be competitive  Need to rethink the storage capacity at the Tier1 centres

CERN 10-feb-00 - #16les robertson - cern/it Tier 1, Tier 2 RCs, CERN A few general remarks:  A major motivation for the RCs is that we are hard pressed to finance the scale of computing needed for LHC  We need to start now to work together towards minimising costs  Standardisation among experiments, regional centres, CERN so that we can use the same tools and practices to …  Automate everything  Operation & monitoring  Disk & data management  Work scheduling  Data export/import (prefer the network to mail) in order to …  Minimise operation, staffing –  Trade off mass storage for disk + network bandwidth  Acquire contingency capacity rather than fighting bottlenecks  Outsource what you can (at a sensible price)  ……. Keep it simple Work together

CERN 10-feb-00 - #17les robertson - cern/it The middleware The issues are:  integration of this amorphous collection of Regional Centres  Data  Workload  Network performance  application monitoring  quality of data analysis service Leverage the “Grid” developments  Extending Meta-computing to Mass-computing  Emphasis on data management & caching  … and production reliability & quality – Keep it simple Work together

CERN 10-feb-00 - #18les robertson - cern/it Processors 20 “standard” racks = 1,440 cpus  280K SI95 Disks 12 “standard” racks = 2,688 disks  300TB (with low capacity disks) A 2-experiment Tier 1 Centre tape/DVD net cpu/disk 200 m 2 Basic equipment ~ $3m cpus/disks Requirement: 240K SI TB

CERN 10-feb-00 - #19les robertson - cern/it The full costs?  Space  Power, cooling  Software  LAN  Replacement/Expansion 30% per year  Mass storage  People

CERN 10-feb-00 - #20les robertson - cern/it mass storage ? Do all Tier 1 centres really need a full mass storage operation?  Tapes, robots, storage management software? Need support for export/import media  But think hard before getting into mass storage  Rather  more disks, bigger disks, mirrored disks  cache data across the network from another centre (that is willing to tolerate the stresses of mass storage management) Mass storage is person-power intensive  long term costs

CERN 10-feb-00 - #21les robertson - cern/it Consider outsourcing  Massive growth in co-location centres, ISP warehouses, ASPs, storage renters, etc.  Level 3, Intel, Hot Office, Network Storage Inc, PSI, ….  There will probably be one near you  Check it out – compare costs & prices  Maybe personnel savings can be made

CERN 10-feb-00 - #22les robertson - cern/it Policies & sociology Access policy?  Collaboration-wide? or restricted access (regional, national, ….)  A rich source of unnecessary complexity Data distribution policies Analysis models  Monarc work will help to plan the centres  But the real analysis models will evolve when the data arrives Keep everything flexible – simple architecture - simple policies - minimal politics

CERN 10-feb-00 - #23les robertson - cern/it Concluding remarks I  Lots of experience with farms of inexpensive components  We need to scale them up – lots of work but we think we understand it  But we have to learn how to integrate distributed farms into a coherent analysis facility  Leverage other developments  But we need to learn through practice and experience  Retain a healthy scepticism for scalability theories  Check it all out on a realistically sized testbed

CERN 10-feb-00 - #24les robertson - cern/it Concluding remarks II  Don’t get hung up on optimising component costs Do be very careful with head-count  Personnel costs will probably dominate  Define clear objectives for the centre –  Efficiency, capacity, quality  Think hard if you really need mass storage  Discourage empires & egos  Encourage collaboration & out-sourcing  In fact – maybe we can just buy all this as an Internet service