October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann1 US CMS Software and Computing Milestones and Funding Profiles Matthias Kasemann Fermilab FNAL Oversight Panel October 24, 2000

Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann2 CMS planning at LHCC review October 2000

October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann3 US CMS S&C schedule adapted to LHC US CMS S&C schedule adapted to LHC  Constraints for updated S&C schedule: è Working CMS detector by mid-2005 è LHC pilot run in Fall 2005, few weeks of luminosity running è Complete detector and start LHC running in Spring 2006  Lessons learned from other experiments: è Pilot running: for detector as well as for computing and analysisFall 2005 è Finish facilities before physics dataearly FY06 è CMS Software schedule not changed  Adapt schedule: delay start of implementation of facilities by 12 months (03->04) è 9 month delay in startup of LHC luminosity running è 3 month: US FY05 ends in 9/2005

October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann4  Received draft funding profile from DOE: 5/30/2000  Assume NSF funding profile after discussion  This is a BIG step for S&C projects: è guidance to allow detailed and solid planning  We want to continue to work with funding agencies to make S&C for CMS a success è profit for science from investment into LHC program US CMS S&C funding profile

October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann5 CAS Project: Scope + Funding  US CMS CAS personnel contributions to CMS Core software: è determined by canonical scaling from CMS top-level resource- loaded WBS for Software è Add ~25% for additional US-specific software support  Proposal for CAS personnel contingency: è add a fixed percentage to base cost as management reserve e.g. p 10% for FY 2001 and 2002 p 25% for FY 2003 and beyond  All this is unchanged due to the updated schedule.

October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann6 US CMS S&C profile: January 00 version now USCMS S&C expected: 40%-25% of UF people contribution from FNAL, not shown here

October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann7 Schedule for US-CMS S&C Project  In order to match the proposed funding profile from DOE/NSF more closely as well as the LHC schedule, we have stretched out the CMS Software and Computing Project Schedule.  User facilities: è Now – end FY2003:R&D phase è FY2004-FY2006:Implementation Phase è FY2007 and onwards:Operations Phase  This required a new hardware cost estimate and resource loaded WBS.

October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann8 UF: Updated schedule  Modified: è Stretch hardware installation on UF and Tier2 è Reevaluate UF facility manpower needs p Very similar results  Tier 1 and Tier 2 center scope are: è proposed by MONARC, è defined by CMS Computing Model è Reviewed by CERN Hoffmann Review  Hardware requirements need to remain flexible to respond to è advances in technology p in storage: capacity, cost, => disk vs. tape, store vs. recalculate p in networking: bandwidth, latency, => local vs. remote data storage and access, replication p in computing: speed, cost, => servers vs. commodity type computing è results of review and planning process at CERN è results of Grid R&D, availability of integrated ‘middleware’ software  => Serious planning requires contingency here!

October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann9 Hardware Costing For UF w/o T2 Hardware costing for User Facilities, excluding Tier 2

October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann10 Hardware Costing For UF Hardware costing for User Facilities, INCLUDING Tier 2 from GriPhyN

October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann11 User Facility Personnel Costs

October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann12 Total User Facility Costs 

October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann13 Total S&C Project cost Management reserve: 10% on manpower

October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann14 DOE funding vs. UF(Tier 1) + 2/3 CAS Management reserve: 10% on manpower

October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann  1.1 Tier 1 Regional Center  1.2 System and User Support  1.3 Operations and Infrastructure  1.4 Tier 2 RCs  1.5 Networking  1.6 Computing and Software R&D  1.7 Construction Phase Computing  1.8 Support of FNAL based Computing  User Facilities (total)  (Without T2 Personnel)  Full time staff working on User Facilities tasks: (technicians, support staff, computing professionals) From “Bottoms Up” Approach

October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann16 NSF funding vs. UF(Tier 2) + 1/3 CAS Tier 2 center cost: start of Prototype centers spread over FY01-04 final implementation stretched over 2-3 years (FY04-06) dominated by potential networking cost

October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann17 Funding - Request

October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann18 Evaluation of Profiles  The US CMS S&C project is managed and coordinated by the L1 PM, who carries budget authority è Funding shared differently for the two subprojects: p Tier1 center funded by DOE p Tier2 centers expected to be funded by NSF p CAS traditionally funded 2/3 DOE + 1/3 NSF  NSF part: under-funded by ~$1M/year è Tier 2 center cost dominated by networking cost è Uncertainty in networking cost for Tier 2 sites p Site Networking connectivity must be argument in selection process è Leveraging from University sites must contribute to cost of Tier2 centers  DOE part: è Dominated by Tier 1 personnel cost p Leveraging from FNAL infrastructure? Part of WBS 1.3: Operations & Infrastructure Part of WBS 1.5: Networking: LAN, WAN, monitoring, security Part of WBS 1.8: Desktop systems, Support, Remote Control Room

October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann19 Conclusion (1)  The project needs to have a project office with: è Two project engineers supporting the L1 PM p coordinating the activities at all levels p Overseeing purchases p Establishing MoU’s, SOW’s p Preparing for Reviews p Tracking budget p Tracking the project progress è Not yet added to the previous numbers  Need to have management reserve / contingency for manpower (10% proposed, shown in the graphs)  The back loaded funding profile creates big problems now, additional help needed.  It is essential that we keep flexibility to use funds where needed most; only in this way are we able to take advantage of matching funds.

October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann20  Profile recognizes needs for operating S&C  Profiles heavily back-loaded towards 2005  Result: è Funding does not allow to finish R&D and implementation for 2006 è Very hard to reach milestones: p Deliverables for Core Application Software p Contributions of US share to Mock Data Challenges, production exercises for trigger and physics studies Test beam analyses for detector optimization è Preliminary analysis: implementation ready by 2007  Severe impact for US based CMS data analysis: è Will not be able to fully contribute to CMS analysis è Will compromise readiness of CMS and US CMS for Physics è Disadvantage can only slowly be corrected because of operational needs Summary