18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report1 Project Status Report : SAMGrid  SAMGrid Management, Status, Operations – Merritt  SAMGrid Development I. – Veseli  SAMGrid Development II. – Kennedy  SAMGrid Future Plans – St. Denis

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report2 SAMGrid Project Description  Purpose: Provide data handling services to Run II experiments and other interested experiments with similar problems. These services should scale in performance and convenience for cataloging and delivery of Petabyte-sized datasets, and should evolve to availability in relevant Grid environments.  Current stakeholders: CDF, DØ, MINOS, CD  Duration: Development effort is expected to extend through ’07 as the components move to become Grid services. High-level maintenance ( I.e., effort that includes capability to respond to feature requests) is expected to continue through at least the data collection lifetime of the stakeholders.

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report3 The SAM-Grid Team  Revised Management Plan went into effect Dec 03 Project Co-Leaders: Wyatt Merritt CD/DØCA Rick St. Denis CDF/ U Glasgow Project Technical Co-Leaders: Rob Kennedy CD/CDF Sinisa Veseli CD/DØCA CCF:Andrew Baranovski, Gabriele Garzoglio, Igor Terekhov CEPA: Carmenita Moore, Steve White (0.5 FTE) CDF:Randy Herber, Art Kreymer, Stefan Stonjek (GS) DØCA:Lauri Loebel Carpenter, Robert Illingworth, Adam Lyon

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report4 The SAM-Grid Team - Extended Database support (CSS-DSG): Diana Bonham, Anil Kumar Associated internal projects: RUNJOB (with CMS) Authorization Project (with CMS, still being defined) Associated external projects: PPDG Sankalp Jain, Aditya Nishandar GridPP Morag Burgon-Lyon, Valeria Bartsch, Iain Bertram, Dave Evans, Peter Love SBIR II Matt Vranicar, Jeremy Simmons, Josh Gramlich, Ngan MacDonald, John Grace

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report5 SAMGrid Project Management & Organization  Project co-leaders  Represent largest stakeholders: requirements & priorities  Run weekly design meetings  Project technical leaders  Run weekly operations meeting  Conduct subproject assessments  Active Subprojects: C++ API, DBServer, JIM, H Stream Reco for CDF, Caching, Chains&Links, CDF DFC, Test Harness, Linux deploy of DBServers, Config Man  Planned Subprojects: Request system, Autodest, Further monitoring (MIS)  Related Subprojects: d0tools, SBIR II, Condor mods, workflow packages for CDF & D0, Authorization & Accounting  Recently completed Subprojects: Python API, V5.1 Schema Design, Batch Adapter, D0 Online dcache TDP, 1 st Gen Monitoring Tools, Data Dimensions Grammar

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report6 SAMGrid Components  Event/File Catalog for metadata (contents & processing) and locations  Dbservers for accessing catalog  Station servers for file delivery to projects  Optimizer  File storage server  Interface to station cache and MSS (samcp)  JIM components for Grid job submission & monitoring  User API  C++ client API

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report7 Status and deployments of SAMGrid For DØ  FNAL: online, reco farm, d0mino, cab, new cab, clued0  Monte Carlo production sites  remote analysis sites: ~20 active, ~40 deployed  Operational 11/03 – 2/04 for remote reconstruction: IN2P3, UKGrid (Manchester/ICL/RAL), WestGRID, GridKA, NIKHEF -- 97M events reprocessed remotely  Stats: ~78K proj FNAL, >14K proj remote (since 1/1/03) 60 billion evts, 3 PB, 8 M files consumed (all D0 stations)

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report8 D0

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report9 D0 Files Files/Day

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report10 D0 Files Per Month By Year ,000 files Run II Start

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report11 D0 Total Files 2.5Million Files Served

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report12 D0 Total Data Moved 700TB moved

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report13  Operational 24/7 to store online metadata  Operational at remote stations: ~15 active, ~30 deployed Large recent increase: Fla. Wkshp!  In testing for Monte Carlo production  File delivery tests up to 20 TB on testcaf  Statistics: ~3000 proj total (since 1/1/03)  Note CDF usage pattern is different from DØ: CDF moves more GB (but not more events) because it does not use small summary format like DØ thumbnail. Status and deployments of SAMGrid For CDF

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report14 CDF Florida DH Workshop  11 installations in about 2 hours. Integrated with dCAF in 2 cases in 2 days.  3 in Asia, 4 in Europe  6 sites committed to summer 2004 usage of their facilities for all of CDF (mostly MC)  Sam installation now: initsam cdf  Follow-up on April 1.  Each site has a local user support person to reduce load on core development team.  Generally: Security ate 80% of the effort! Now 20!

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report15

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report16 2TB/Day: Karlsruhe

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report17 CDF Dcache on CAF ALL CDF on CAF reads 20TB/Day

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report18

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report19

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report20  Job broker, execution and submission site software, job monitor, client software for grid job submission  Deployment plan for DØ Monte Carlo  Test at 3 sites (Manchester, CCIN2P3, Wisconsin) with basic functionality and measure efficiency of job completion  Verify use by experimenter for job submission (this week)  Add merging  Move to production at these 3 sites (DØ milestone: Mar 1)  Add remainder of DØ MC sites (Lancaster, SAR, NIKHEF, Prague)  Improve brokering algorithm Status and deployments of JIM ManchesterCCIN2P3Wisconsin JIM eff >99% Site eff x Code eff ~85%~60%

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report21 JIM Issues  Site operational requirements (e.g. clock synch, disk & node reliability, OS issues)  Experiment operational requirements (e.g. code footprint may exceed site capability and is variable w/ release)  File transfer capabilities & policies: cf. mtg this week w/ GridKA rep  Allocation of services to head node vs worker nodes  Sandboxing mechanisms (last week design mtg)  Merging mechanism, brokering (this week design mtg)

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report22 Operational Model  Experiments provide shifters for 1 st line problem fielding and solving  Project provides on-call list from developers  At DØ, on average ~60 – 80% of problems are answered by shifters  Classes of problems  Routine jobs like adding info to database  Less routine: cleanup after failed stores  Answering user questions regarding usage  Updating documentation  Investigating user reports of problems, and problems visible in project monitoring tools  Providing solutions for problems

18 Feb 2004Computing Division Project Status Report23 Operations Outlook  Improve documentation with aim of improving shifter & user ability to diagnose/solve problems  Expect doubling of central station capacity at DØ  Expect transition to more SAM usage at CDF  Expect Grid operations in production for simulation, first at DØ then at CDF