1. WLCG Status Report Ian Bird Austrian Tier 2 Workshop 22 nd June, 2010

2. Sergio Bertolucci, CERN2... And now at 7 TeV

3. Running increasingly high workloads: – Jobs in excess of 900k / day; Anticipate millions / day soon – CPU equiv. ~100k cores Workloads are: – Real data processing – Simulations – Analysis – more and more (new) users Data transfers at unprecedented rates  next slide Sergio Bertolucci, CERN3 Today WLCG is: e.g. CMS: no. users doing analysis 900k jobs/day

4. Traffic on OPN up to 70 Gb/s! - ATLAS reprocessing campaigns Traffic on OPN up to 70 Gb/s! - ATLAS reprocessing campaigns Sergio Bertolucci, CERN4 Data transfers Final readiness test (STEP’09) Preparation for LHC startupLHC physics data Nearly 1 petabyte/week 2009: STEP09 + preparation for data Castor traffic last month: > 4 GB/s input > 13 GB/s served Castor traffic last month: > 4 GB/s input > 13 GB/s served Data export during data taking: - According to expectations on average Data export during data taking: - According to expectations on average

5. Ian.Bird@cern.ch5

6. Data reaches Tier 2s within hours Increasing numbers of (analysis users) – E.g.:~500 grid users in each ATLAS/CMS; ~200 in ALICE More users... e.g. CMS raw to Tier 1s e.g. ATLAS data distribution ALICE: >200 users ~500 jobs on average over 3 months ALICE: >200 users ~500 jobs on average over 3 months CMS users

7. Has meant very rapid data distribution and analysis – Data is processed and available at Tier 2s within hours! Sergio Bertolucci, CERN7 Readiness of the computing CMS ATLAS LHCb

8. Sergio Bertolucci, CERN8 And physics output...

9. Sergio Bertolucci, CERN9 Fibre cut during STEP’09: Redundancy meant no interruption Fibre cut during STEP’09: Redundancy meant no interruption

10. Reliabilities Monitoring (“MoU”) of basic WLCG services Clear improvement in preparation for data taking 10Ian.Bird@cern.ch

11. Site readiness as seen by the experiments – LH week before data taking; RH 1 st week of data Ian.Bird@cern.ch11 Site availability seen by experiments

12. EGEE project ended April 30 EGI.eu organisation is in place – But not all NGIs are yet operational Several EC-funded projects support EGI.eu – EGI-Inspire – provides coordination across NGIs and associated activities SA3 activity provides support for exiting “heavy user” communities – including WLCG – EMI – provides support for existing key middleware that WLCG relies on; also activity to “harmonise” gLite/ARC/Unicore; no new significant developments – Additional projects supporting user communities were not funded Ian.Bird@cern.ch12 Transition EGEE  EGI

13. This situation does not represent a major risk for WLCG – EGEE  EGI transition was well planned by EGEE, and is well advanced – Countries representing the majority of the resources have NGIs and the Tier 1s are well placed – Important operational tools (GGUS, monitoring, etc.) are assured even if project funding does not appear WLCG operational procedures are well tested and are mostly independent of the existence of EGEE or EGI SA3 activity contains Dashboards, Ganga, & specific tasks for each experiment (~2 FTE each); VRC had integration/analysis support – EMI contains essential middleware support and “harmonisation” gLite/ARC/Unicore (long term development was not included) Should now consider strategy for longer term of middleware Ian.Bird@cern.ch13 EGEE-EGI: Risk for WLCG?

14. WLCG is a global collaboration – and is essentially a structured user community – The MoU is the basis of the collaboration – It has an infrastructure provided by the Tier 1s and Tier 2s – It uses tools and processes developed in partnership with EGEE, OSG and NDGF For operations, monitoring, middleware, etc. WLCG relies on the Tier 1s and Tier 2s to maintain and evolve this infrastructure – Ideally, these WLCG sites should be integrated into the e- science environments (i.e. the NGI) in each country In the EGEE-era, by construction, WLCG and EGEE were tightly coupled; – This is different with EGI, but WLCG represents a very large and demanding user community Ian.Bird@cern.ch14 Relationship WLCG/EGI/NGIs

15. Present understanding of schedule for both 2010 and 2011 15Ian.Bird@cern.ch 2010 + 2011 – Running from mid-Feb – end Nov – Pb-Pb in November – In principle stop after 1 fb -1 ; plan to run 2 years (0.2 in 2010, remainder in 2011) 2012: shutdown of accelerator (but not computing)

16. Summary of requirements Totals20102010 pledge 20112012 CERN CPU 233.4 263.3219.7 CERN disk 14.7914.819.722.8 CERN tape 31.7 48.849.7 T1 CPU394.1412543.5584 T1 disk49.3944.566.368.9 T1 tape56.251.4111.07131.72 T2 CPU562.6511.1730.2787 T2 disk46.6239.675.4278.42 Ian.Bird@cern.ch16 Old 2010 request + 2010 pledges are as presented at the Autumn 2009 RRB

17. How will requirements evolve? At the time of the WLCG and experiment computing TDRs, it was assumed that the “steady state” evolution of requirements would be ~30% per year – This is essentially driven by some expectations of budget and expectations of technology evolution Much has changed since then – delays and changes of schedule – Move to 2 year cycle of accelerator, but longer running each year We need a “normalisation” of the models based on enough real data to determine how realistic the assumptions were – Need ~1 year of real data for this So far we have not made any statements of requirement for 2013 – Should do this at some level at the RRB in October, but will not yet have requirements based on significant experience Ian.Bird@cern.ch17

18. Summary First experience with data has been positive from the WLCG point of view – Thanks to the huge efforts invested in recent years in testing – All Tier 0, Tier 1 and Tier 2 staff must take the credit for this Resource planning for coming years is a concern Still to see what effect many more non-expert users will have Transition from EGEE to EGI is now – It is (hopefully!) not a major risk for WLCG Must start to address long term sustainability of the system we have 18Ian.Bird@cern.ch