November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann1 US CMS Software and Computing Tier 2 Center Plans Matthias Kasemann Fermilab DOE/NSF Baseline Review.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
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.
Advertisements

CHEPREO Tier-3 Center Achievements. FIU Tier-3 Center Tier-3 Centers in the CMS computing model –Primarily employed in support of local CMS physics community.
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.
Title US-CMS User Facilities Vivian O’Dell US CMS Physics Meeting May 18, 2001.
Bill Wrobleski Director, Technology Infrastructure ITS Infrastructure Services.
Trigger and online software Simon George & Reiner Hauser T/DAQ Phase 1 IDR.
Ian M. Fisk Fermilab February 23, Global Schedule External Items ➨ gLite 3.0 is released for pre-production in mid-April ➨ gLite 3.0 is rolled onto.
U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Budget and Schedule Review John Huth Harvard University DOE/NSF Review of U.S. ATLAS and CMS Computing Projects Brookhaven.
GridPP Steve Lloyd, Chair of the GridPP Collaboration Board.
October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann1 US CMS Software and Computing Milestones and Funding Profiles Matthias Kasemann Fermilab.
Ian Fisk and Maria Girone Improvements in the CMS Computing System from Run2 CHEP 2015 Ian Fisk and Maria Girone For CMS Collaboration.
October 23, 2000USCMS S&C Project Matthias Kasemann1 US CMS Software and Computing The Project Plan Matthias Kasemann Fermilab FNAL Oversight Panel October.
Experiment Requirements for Global Infostructure Irwin Gaines FNAL/DOE.
PCGRID ‘08 Workshop, Miami, FL April 18, 2008 Preston Smith Implementing an Industrial-Strength Academic Cyberinfrastructure at Purdue University.
Data Import Data Export Mass Storage & Disk Servers Database Servers Tapes Network from CERN Network from Tier 2 and simulation centers Physics Software.
Fermilab User Facility US-CMS User Facility and Regional Center at Fermilab Matthias Kasemann FNAL.
CHEP 2000 (Feb. 7-11)Paul Avery (Data Grids in the LHC Era)1 The Promise of Computational Grids in the LHC Era Paul Avery University of Florida Gainesville,
8th November 2002Tim Adye1 BaBar Grid Tim Adye Particle Physics Department Rutherford Appleton Laboratory PP Grid Team Coseners House 8 th November 2002.
LHC Computing Review - Resources ATLAS Resource Issues John Huth Harvard University.
PPDG and ATLAS Particle Physics Data Grid Ed May - ANL ATLAS Software Week LBNL May 12, 2000.
Finnish DataGrid meeting, CSC, Otaniemi, V. Karimäki (HIP) DataGrid meeting, CSC V. Karimäki (HIP) V. Karimäki (HIP) Otaniemi, 28 August, 2000.
LHC Computing Plans Scale of the challenge Computing model Resource estimates Financial implications Plans in Canada.
1 Grid Related Activities at Caltech Koen Holtman Caltech/CMS PPDG meeting, Argonne July 13-14, 2000.
Data Grid projects in HENP R. Pordes, Fermilab Many HENP projects are working on the infrastructure for global distributed simulated data production, data.
14 Aug 08DOE Review John Huth ATLAS Computing at Harvard John Huth.
21 st October 2002BaBar Computing – Stephen J. Gowdy 1 Of 25 BaBar Computing Stephen J. Gowdy BaBar Computing Coordinator SLAC 21 st October 2002 Second.
DataTAG Research and Technological Development for a Transatlantic Grid Abstract Several major international Grid development projects are underway at.
F Computing at Fermilab Fermilab Onsite Review Stephen Wolbers August 7, 2002.
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.
Tier-2  Data Analysis  MC simulation  Import data from Tier-1 and export MC data CMS GRID COMPUTING AT THE SPANISH TIER-1 AND TIER-2 SITES P. Garcia-Abia.
Data Intensive Science Network (DISUN). DISUN Started in May sites: Caltech University of California at San Diego University of Florida University.
April 25, 2001HEPiX/HEPNT FERMI SITE REPORT Lisa Giacchetti.
Atlas CAP Closeout Thanks to all the presenters for excellent and frank presentations Thanks to all the presenters for excellent and frank presentations.
Ian Bird LHC Computing Grid Project Leader LHC Grid Fest 3 rd October 2008 A worldwide collaboration.
NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR ADVANCED COMPUTATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE Capability Computing – High-End Resources Wayne Pfeiffer Deputy Director NPACI & SDSC NPACI.
US ATLAS Tier 1 Facility Rich Baker Brookhaven National Laboratory DOE/NSF Review of U.S. ATLAS and CMS Computing Projects Brookhaven National Laboratory.
BNL Tier 1 Service Planning & Monitoring Bruce G. Gibbard GDB 5-6 August 2006.
CMS Computing and Core-Software USCMS CB Riverside, May 19, 2001 David Stickland, Princeton University CMS Computing and Core-Software Deputy PM.
US ATLAS Tier 1 Facility Rich Baker Brookhaven National Laboratory Review of U.S. LHC Software and Computing Projects Fermi National Laboratory November.
Ruth Pordes November 2004TeraGrid GIG Site Review1 TeraGrid and Open Science Grid Ruth Pordes, Fermilab representing the Open Science.
Grid User Interface for ATLAS & LHCb A more recent UK mini production used input data stored on RAL’s tape server, the requirements in JDL and the IC Resource.
High Energy Physics and Grids at UF (Dec. 13, 2002)Paul Avery1 University of Florida High Energy Physics.
PPDGLHC Computing ReviewNovember 15, 2000 PPDG The Particle Physics Data Grid Making today’s Grid software work for HENP experiments, Driving GRID science.
U.S. ATLAS Computing Facilities Bruce G. Gibbard GDB Meeting 16 March 2005.
CERN - IT Department CH-1211 Genève 23 Switzerland t High Availability Databases based on Oracle 10g RAC on Linux WLCG Tier2 Tutorials, CERN,
US-CMS T2 Centers US-CMS Tier 2 Report Patricia McBride Fermilab GDB Meeting August 31, 2007 Triumf - Vancouver.
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.
Computing Division FY03 Budget and budget outlook for FY04 + CDF International Finance Committee April 4, 2003 Vicky White Head, Computing Division.
Computing Issues for the ATLAS SWT2. What is SWT2? SWT2 is the U.S. ATLAS Southwestern Tier 2 Consortium UTA is lead institution, along with University.
U.S. ATLAS Computing Facilities Bruce G. Gibbard Brookhaven National Laboratory Mid-year Review of U.S. LHC Software and Computing Projects NSF Headquarters,
US ATLAS Tier 1 Facility Rich Baker Deputy Director US ATLAS Computing Facilities October 26, 2000.
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.
USCMS May 2002Jim Branson 1 Physics in US CMS US CMS Annual Collaboration Meeting May 2002 FSU Jin Branson.
DOE/NSF Quarterly review January 1999 Particle Physics Data Grid Applications David Malon Argonne National Laboratory
1 CMS Virtual Data Overview Koen Holtman Caltech/CMS GriPhyN all-hands meeting, Marina del Rey April 9, 2001.
LHCb Current Understanding of Italian Tier-n Centres Domenico Galli, Umberto Marconi Roma, January 23, 2001.
1 Particle Physics Data Grid (PPDG) project Les Cottrell – SLAC Presented at the NGI workshop, Berkeley, 7/21/99.
Run - II Networks Run-II Computing Review 9/13/04 Phil DeMar Networks Section Head.
10-Feb-00 CERN HepCCC Grid Initiative ATLAS meeting – 16 February 2000 Les Robertson CERN/IT.
Hall D Computing Facilities Ian Bird 16 March 2001.
LQCD Computing Operations
Introduce yourself Presented by
Using an Object Oriented Database to Store BaBar's Terabytes
Development of LHCb Computing Model F Harris
Presentation transcript:

November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann1 US CMS Software and Computing Tier 2 Center Plans Matthias Kasemann Fermilab DOE/NSF Baseline Review November 14-15, 2000 BNL

November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann2 Organization of US CMS Projects US CMS S&C

November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann3 Tier 2 Centers  Tier 2s will partner with a Tier 1 which will provide support and liaison with CERN.  US CMS Tier 2 Centers (or the CMS parts of multiple customer centers) appear as Level 3 WBS items under the UF project, and the UF Level 2 manager has specific responsibilities with respect to them è Tier 1 interfaces to the Tier 2’s in the US è The Tier 2 CMS representative is a L3 manager of the US S&C project è Each Tier 2 signs MOU with US CMS C&C Project

November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann4 Production Tier 2 Functions  Tier 2 (and Grid) philosophy è Resource utilization decisions are closer to end users è Universities can leverage wider set of resources  Computing goals è Simulation (inc. reconstruction) è User analysis è Component of CMS distributed analysis model è University support for analysis and simulation

November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann5 Tier 2 Deliverables Tier 2 Deliverables  The deliverables in both the prototype (and later in production) stages of the project are: è demonstration and development of techniques and strategies for distributed computing that allow efficient exploitation of distributed resources including remote data management and data access tools. è demonstration that moderate size commodity computing clusters (of order 100 boxes) can be operated and managed with only minimal (<1.5 FTE) support. è computing cycles to contribute to CMS production (and analysis) activities è Strategy for work-sharing between Tiers  These categories of deliverables are inextricably intertwined since the distributed computing strategies cannot be verified without being applied to real world computing problems.

November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann6 Process to Decide Tier2s Process to Decide Tier2s  The location of Tier 2 centers will be decided by the project management in consultation with the US CMS collaboration and with CMS.  We have already had some experience with this process in locating the first prototype Tier 2 center. è In this case, interest was solicited by the Acting L1 Project Manager and his decision was approved by the collaboration board.  On the technical side, the management and collaboration should understand the role of each Tier 2 center. è It may be important to serve a well interconnected community of users. è It may be important to specialize on particular analysis topics. p An example of this could be heavy ion physics. è It may be important to leverage large computing resources that can be financed off project. è It may be important to minimize networking costs.  It is too early to decide the exact criteria which will be telling in

November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann7 Tier 2 CPU Sizing: Simulation  Simulation: A “naturally” distributed activity  Requirements è Simulate 2  10 8 events per year for US analyses è 1 event = 5000 SI95-sec (sim) SI95-sec (recon) è Use 2  10 7 sec per year (65% efficiency)

November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann8 Tier 2 CPU Sizing: Analysis  User analysis è AOD and derived physics data  20 SI95-sec è 200 physicists, 1% (10 7 events) data samples, 20 times/year è Eff.  1/2 simulation eff.  less disciplined activity è Total Tier 2 analysis  Tier 1 analysis  Total computing at Tier 2 = 16K + 16K = 32K Si95  2006 CPU price estimate è Doubling every 1.2 years  $4.7/SI95  32K = $150K è Doubling every 1.5 years  $8.4/SI95  32K = $270K è $150K  $270K

November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann9 Tier 2 Disk Sizing  Simulation è Simulation needs satisfied by onboard (cheap) disk  AOD/ESD è Difficult to estimate, chaotic è Tier 2 is part of Grid, caches Tier 1 + Tier 0 data è 25 TB is rough estimate for average  Analysis è Support several analyses (average 20% of US physicists) è Each analysis:  1% = 10 7 events  500 KB = 5 TB è Total analysis  10  5 TB = 50 TB  Assume 50% efficiencies on these numbers  Cost estimate è $1.9K/TB  150 TB = $285K (  25% ?) è $215K - $355K

November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann10 Tier 2 Data Server Cost Estimate  Data server è Runs database server  substantial activity è Need 20% of total CPU to serve data (CERN + BaBar) è Use actual CPU (no efficiency factors): 16K SI95  Data Server Cost è SMP prices è 0.20  16K  ($18 - $41)/SI95 = $60K - $130K

November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann11 Other Items  LAN switches è 2000: 100 Mb/s switch for CPUs, GigE switch for uplinks è 2006: Same cost switches for higher performance  Small tape handling  Software licenses è Management tools è Enterprise software for distributed analysis è Debugging, language è …  Other items è Infrastructure, installation, commissioning è Hardware maintenance (Data server, RAID system, …) è Collaborative tools (Videoconferencing, remote vis., etc.)

November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann12 Tier 2 1 st Year Cost è CPU Farm (32K SI95) $ 150K - $270K è RAID Array (150 TB)$ 215K - $355K è Data Server$ 60K - $140K è LAN Switches$ 60K è Small Tape Library$ 40K è Tape Media and Consumables$ 20K è Installation & Infrastructure$ 30K è Collaborative Tools & Infrastructure$ 20K è Software licenses$ 40K è Maintenance$ 0K * è Total Estimated Cost (First Year)$635K – $955K * Maintenance is $0K first year, $30K per year afterwards Full Tier 2 cost (year 1):$750K Prototype Tier 2 cost (year 1):$350K Assume for now

November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann13 Tier 2 Yearly Costs è Hardware evolution (3 year replacement)$ 190K - $300K è Software licenses$ 40K è Maintenance$ 30K è Tape consumables$ 20K è Total$ 280K - $390K  Personnel costs (1.5 FTE) è Staff (Ops and System Support)$ 200K  Networking costs è Average WAN connection (e.g., Abilene)$ 300K(?) Full Tier 2 yearly cost:$250K Prototype Tier 2 cost:$120K “Optimistic” for now

November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann14 US CMS UF WBS: Tier 2 Centers  Tier 2 centers are staffed to purchase, deploy, maintain and operate the hardware.  Tier 2 center architecture and configuration will benefit from experience locally and at Tier0 and Tier1 sites.  Tier 2 center are not expected to deal with mass storage systems.

November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann15 Tier 2 center plan Total cost of US CMS S&C : $54.24M Total cost of Tier1 centers : $19.6M+$11.8M=$31.4M Total cost of Tier2 centers : $3.8M (FTE’s)+$6M=$9.8M

November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann16 US CMS Tier2 planning  FY 2000/1Build basic services; HLT milestones 1-2 prototype-Tier 2Studies with ORCA  FY 2001Initial Grid systemFile replication service work with Tier 1 Multi-site cached file access  FY 2002CMS Data Challenges S&C TDR and Physics TDR  FY 2003/4 Tier 2 centers at5%-Scale Data Challenge + second set of sites Physics TDR; production data grid test  FY 2005/6 Tier 2 centers 20% Production at last set of sites CMS Mock Data Challenge  FY 2006 Production-quality Full distributed system Grid SystemFinal Production Shakedown  R&D systems: leverage existing resources at Universities  Funding for Tier 2’s to come mostly from NSF initiatives

November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann17 Tier2 Prototype Needs Now  Need to undertake R&D on distributed data replication and analysis now p The time is right to attract computer science contributions to this problem  Serve Prototypical User Community to Serve Regional Analysis Needs p Geographical Coherence: UCSD, Caltech, UCLA, UC Davis, UC Riverside p Work-Topic Coherence: Forward Muon Software; HLT Studies (with Florida) p Use this Sub-Community to help define and test modes of collaborative work on software and analysis p Use this Sub-Community to help define and test data analysis software needs  Take advantage of high speed networks in California p Build analysis toolset and and design/develop modes of collaborative work over networks  Production activities are occurring now, need non-centralized manpower

November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann18 First Tier2 Prototype Scale  Requirements: è Modestly sized for substantial distributed system R&D p 40-node cluster each in Caltech and UCSD; few TB disk arrays è R&D activities demand participation in real live production efforts p (CMS will use 1,000 CPUs; 20 TB of data in Spring) p A Larger Production by Fall 2001 (PRS + S&C TDR) è Balance of I/O-to-CPU for ORCA Production and Production- studies è Caltech/UCSD Split over CALREN-2 and NTON ( Gbps in ) è Leverage expertise, facilities, and high speed network equipment and infrastructure at San Diego, Caltech Center for Advanced Computing Research (and SLAC) è Leverage Off-Project Software Engineers on PPDG, ALDAP, GriPhyN è Given two major sites backing up the Tier2 development across a Gbps research network, equivalent tests could not be done at theTier1 alone.

November 15, 2000US CMS Tier2 Plans Matthias Kasemann19 US CMS Tier 2 Center Decision  Discussed at US CMS Collaboration Board, May 20, 2000 è Agreed: start deployment of 1 prototype Tier 2 center è Query sent to each US CMS institute: p Interest and plans to participate in Tier2 R&D now? p Who can work on it? è Result: p Ready to started “now”: (Caltech + UC Davis + UCSD)9/00 Florida, 4/01 Univ. of Iowa + Iowa State~4/01 p Other candidates for production: Boston, Maryland, Minnesota Wisconsin è Strategy: start first Tier2 center in California now p Substantial leveraging from local contributions (>25%)