1. U.S. ATLAS Software WBS 2.2 S. Rajagopalan July 8, 2003 DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing

2. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 2 Outline   Organizational Issues  ATLAS & U.S. ATLAS software   Current Affairs  Current resource allocation including LCG contributions  Major milestones met   FY04 Planning  Planning, coordination with international ATLAS  Near term milestones  Priorities and request for FY04   Conclusions

3. Organizational Issues

4. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 4 New Computing Organization x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

5. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 5 Computing Management Board  Coordinate & Manage computing activities  Set priorities and take executive decisions  Computing Coordinator (chair)  Software Project Leader (D. Quarrie, LBNL)  TDAQ Liaison  Physics Coordinator  International Computing Board Chair  GRID, Data Challenge and Operations Coordinator  Planning & Resources Coordinator (T. Lecompte, ANL)  Data Management Coordinator (D. Malon, ANL)  Meets bi-weekly

6. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 6 Software Project Management Board  Coordinate the coherent development of software  (core, applications and software support)  Software Project Leader (chair) D. Quarrie  Simulation coordinator  Event Selection, Reconstruction & Analysis Tools coordinator  Core Services Coordinator (D. Quarrie)  Software Infrastructure Team Coordinator  LCG Applications Liaison (T. Wenaus, BNL)  Physics Liaison  TDAQ Liaison  Sub-System: Inner Detector, Liquid Argon, Tile, Muon coordinators  Liquid Argon: S. Rajagopalan (BNL), Muon: S. Goldfarb (U Mich)  Meets bi-weekly

7. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 7 US ATLAS Software Organization Software Project (WBS 2.2) S. Rajagopalan Core Services (WBS 2.2.2) D. Quarrie Data Management (WBS 2.2.3) D. Malon Application Software (WBS 2.2.4) F. Luehring Software Support (WBS 2.2.5) A. Undrus  US ATLAS software WBS scrubbed, consistent with ATLAS  Resource Loading and Reporting established at Level 4  Major change compared to previous WBS:  Production and Grid Tools & Services moved under Facilities Coordination (WBS 2.2.1)

8. Current Affairs

9. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 9 WBS 2.2.1 Coordination  David Quarrie (LBNL) :  ATLAS Software Project Manager  ATLAS Chief Architect  U.S. ATLAS Core Services Level 3 Manager  David Malon (ANL) :  ATLAS Data Management Coordinator  U.S. ATLAS Data Management Level 3 Manager  Other U.S. Atlas personnel playing leading roles in ATLAS:  S. Goldfarb (Muon), T. LeCompte (Planning),  S. Rajagopalan (LAr), T. Wenaus (LCG Liaison)

10. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 10 WBS 2.2.2 Core Services (D. Quarrie)  P. Calafiura (LBNL) :  Framework support, Event Merging, EDM infrastructure  M. Marino (LBNL) :  SEAL plug-in and component support  W. Lavrijsen (LBNL) :  User interfaces, Python scripting, binding to dictionary, integration with GANGA.  C. Leggett (LBNL) :  Conditions infrastructure, G4 Service integration in Athena, Histogramming support. Redirected to other tasks in FY04  H. Ma, S. Rajagopalan (BNL) (Base Program) : EDM infrastructure  C. Tull (LBNL) (PPDG) : Athena Grid Integration coordination

11. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 11 WBS 2.2.2 Key Accomplishments  Python based user interfaces to CMT, Athena, and ROOT  Interval of Validity Service to allow time-based retrieval of conditions data into transient memory  Support for plug-in manager in LCG/SEAL  gcc-3.2 support, multithreading support, pile-up support.  Services to upload persistent addresses for on-demand retrieval of data objects  Common Material Definition across sub-systems, creation of G4 geometries from this description demonstrated

12. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 12 WBS 2.2.3 Data Management (D. Malon)  S. Vanyachine (ANL) :  Database Services & Servers, NOVA database  Kristo Karr (ANL) :  New Hire, replaces S. Eckmann  Collections, Catalogs and Metadata  Valeri Fine (BNL) :  Integration of Pool with Athena  David Adams (BNL) :  Event datasets  Victor Perevotchikov (BNL) :  POOL evaluation, foreign object persistent in ROOT.

13. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 13 WBS 2.2.3 Key Accomplishments  ATLAS specific  Athena-Pool conversion service prototype  Will be available to end user in July (tied to POOL release)  Support for NOVA database  (primary source for detector description for simulation)  Support for interval of validity  NOVA automatic object generation  Data additions, embedded MYSQL support for G4  Authentications, access to databases behind firewalls  LCG contributions  Delivered POOL collections/metadata WP interface, doc & unit tests  Delivered relational implementation of POOL explicit collections  Delivered MYSQL and related package support  Foreign object persistence

14. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 14 WBS 2.2.4 Application Software (F. Luehring)  Geant3 simulation support  Calorimeter (LAr & Tile) software incl. calibration  Pixel, TRT detector simulation & digitization  Muon reconstruction and database  Hadronic calibration, tau and jet reconstruction  electron-gamma reconstruction  High Level Trigger software  Physics analysis with new software BNL ANL, BNL, Nevis Labs, U. Arizona, U. Chicago, U. Pittsburgh, SMU Indiana U., LBNL BNL, Boston U., LBNL, U. Michigan U. Arizona, U. Chicago, ANL, BNL, LBNL BNL, Nevis Labs, SMU U. Wisconsin U. S. ATLAS

15. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 15 WBS 2.2.5 Software Support (A. Undrus)  Release and maintenance of ATLAS and all associated external software (including LCG software, LHCb Gaudi builds) at the Tier 1 Facility.  Deployment of a nightly build system at BNL, CERN and now used by LCG as well.  Testing releases with new compilers (gcc-3.2, SUN 5.2).  Software Infrastructure Team : Forum for discussions of issues related to support of ATLAS software and associated tools. A. Undrus is a member of this body.

16. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 16 US FY03 contribution in international context Category Category US (FTE) Non-US (FTE) Total(FTE)LCG(FTE)Framework3.250.754.01.3 EDM 0.5 P + 0.5 B 01.00.0 Det. Description 0.01.01.00.0 Data Management 4.64.08.61.2 Graphics0.00.250.250.0 SW Infrastructure 0.72.953.450.1 Total 9.05 P + 0.5 B 8.9518.52.6 * Excludes David Quarrie & Torre Wenaus coordination role contributions

17. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 17 LCG Application Component  US effort in SEAL : 1.0 FTE (FY03)  Plug-in manager (M. Marino (0.75 FTE, LBNL)  Internal use by POOL now, Full integration into Athena Q3 2003  Scripting Services (W. Lavjrisen; 0.25 FTE, LBNL)  Python support and integration  US effort in POOL : 1.2 FTE (FY03)  Principal responsibility in POOL collections and metadata WP  D. Malon, K. Karr, S. Vanyachine (0.5 FTE) [ANL] D. Adams, 0.2 FTE, BNL)  POOL Datasets (D. Adams, 0.2 FTE, BNL)  Common Data Management Software  V. Perevoztchikov, ROOT I/O foreign object persistence (0.3 FTE, BNL]  POOL mysql package and server configurations (ANL, 0.2 FTE)

18. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 18 US ATLAS contribution in LCG Contribution to Application Area only Contribution to Application Area only Snapshot (June 2003) contribution Snapshot (June 2003) contribution

19. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 19 ATLAS interactions with LCG  Lack of manpower has made ATLAS participation weaker than we would like  Little or no effort available to :  Participate in design discussions of POOL & SEAL omponents for which we are not directly responsible  Evaluate and test new features  Write ATLAS acceptance tests for POOL releases and for specifically requested features  Ensure that ATLAS priorities are kept prominent in LCG plans (ATLAS does this, but our voice has at times seemed not as loud as that of our sisters)  Less development contributed in the collections/metadata work package (for which we are responsible) than we would have liked, though this should improve soon with recent hire at ANL

20. FY04 Plans

21. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 21 International ATLAS Planning  ATLAS has a planning officer: T. LeCompte (ANL)  The current focus is on defining the WBS and establishing coherent short term plans.  US WBS used as a starting point!  Responsibility in monitoring all deliverables including non- ATLAS components (such as LCG) and assessing the impact from any delays.  Responsibility for establishing the software agreements and scope with international ATLAS institutions.

22. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 22 ATLAS Computing Timeline 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 NOW Jul 03POOL/SEAL release Jul 03 ATLAS release 7 (with POOL persistency) Jul 03 ATLAS release 7 (with POOL persistency) Aug 03 LCG-1 deployment Aug 03 LCG-1 deployment Dec 03 ATLAS complete Geant4 validation Dec 03 ATLAS complete Geant4 validation Mar 04 ATLAS release 8 Mar 04 ATLAS release 8 Apr 04 DC2 Phase 1: simulation production Apr 04 DC2 Phase 1: simulation production Jun 04 DC2 Phase 2: reconstruction (the real challenge!) Jun 04 DC2 Phase 2: reconstruction (the real challenge!) Jun 04 Combined test beams (barrel wedge) Jun 04 Combined test beams (barrel wedge) Dec 04 Computing Model paper Dec 04 Computing Model paper Jul 05 ATLAS Computing TDR and LCG TDR Jul 05 ATLAS Computing TDR and LCG TDR Oct 05 DC3: produce data for PRR and test LCG-n Oct 05 DC3: produce data for PRR and test LCG-n Nov 05 Computing Memorandum of Understanding Nov 05 Computing Memorandum of Understanding Jul 06 Physics Readiness Report Jul 06 Physics Readiness Report Oct 06 Start commissioning run Oct 06 Start commissioning run Jul 07 GO! Jul 07 GO!

23. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 23 Major near term milestones  July to Dec 2003: SEAL/POOL/PI deployment by LCG  Sept. 2003: Geant 4 based simulation release  Dec. 2003: Validate Geant4 release for DC2 and test-beam  Dec. 2003: First release of full ATLAS software chain using LCG components and Geant4 for use in DC2 and combined test-beam.  Spring 2004: Combined Test-Beam runs.  Spring 2004: Data Challenge 2  Principal means by which ATLAS will test and validate its proposed Computing Model  Dec. 2004: Computing Model Document released

24. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 24 U.S. scope issues  2003-2004: Develop sufficient core software infrastructure to deploy and exercise a reasonable prototype of the ATLAS Computing Model  ATLAS is quite far from being able to do this  Now is not the time to sacrifice core software development  Doing so puts the TDR and hence the readiness for LHC turn-on at risk.  U.S was asked to lead the effort in coordinating, developing and deploying the ATLAS architecture (from ground-zero in 1999).  Leadership roles in Software Project, Architecture and Data Management. + major responsibilities - but minimal resources to work with.  We are responsible to ensure the success of ATLAS architecture.  Efforts are continuing to be made in encouraging and recruiting non-US institutions & US universities to contribute to core and leveraging from LCG.

25. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 25 Core Software & Physicists  The presence of a strong core team in the U.S. has helped U.S. physicists make significant contributions to reconstruction, simulation and physics analysis. – in turn allowing them to play an influential role in the overall ATLAS software program.  Examples from LAr, InDet simulation and Calo, Muon reconstruction, event generation infrastructure, egamma, tau, jet reconstruction, calibration, …  Conversely, this has also allowed U.S. physicists to provide valuable feedback to core software and in some cases contribute to the core development  Examples are the Event Data Model and the Detector Description efforts. This harmony is necessary to allow U.S. to develop the necessary expertise and effectively contribute to the physics at turn-on.

26. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 26 Incremental Effort: Core Services  Redirections:  C. Leggett (0.5 Calibration Infrastructure to EDM)  M. Marino (0.25 Training to SEAL/Framework)  Additions (prioritized):  + 1.0 FTE in Detector Description, WBS 2.2.2.3 (U. Pittsburgh)  New Hire to work with J. Boudreau  + 0.5 FTE in Analysis Tools support, WBS 2.2.2.5  New Hire or redirection of effort  + 1.0 FTE in Graphics, WBS 2.2.2.4 (UC Santa Cruz)  Existing person (G. Taylor) who is currently making significant contributions to ATLANTIS (Atlas Graphics Package). Decreasing Priority

27. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 27 Detector Description  ATLAS lacked a Detector Description Model  Numbers hardwired in reconstruction, no commonality with simulation.  Along came Joe Boudreau (U. Pittsburgh) CDF experience  Successfully designed, developed and deployed a prototype model for both material and readout geometry. We encouraged this!  Automatically handles alignments, Optimized for memory (5 MB for describing ATLAS geometry), Not coupled to visualization software.  Currently resident at Oxford, helping sub-systems migrate.  No surprise, the work load on Joe has increased  Critical items include Material Integration Service, Configuration Utility, Identifiers and Transient Model for readout geometry Important to support such university based initiatives to core software

28. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 28 Incremental Effort: Data management  Our plan has always been to sustain 6.5 FTE effort.  Recent Cuts in 2002 …  Ed Frank, U. Chicago  BNL Hire : job offered but retracted due to last minute budget cuts … have impacted our ability to deliver the promised  Unable to save and restore objects from persistent event store  No ATLAS interfaces to Event collections, catalogs and metadata Approximate allocation of new effort: Approximate allocation of new effort:  + 1.0 FTE Collections, Catalogs, and Metadata (WBS 2.2.3.5)  + 1.0 FTE Common Data Management Software (WBS 2.2.3.2)  + 0.5 FTE Event Store (WBS 2.2.3.3)  Redirect from WBS 2.2.3.1 & 2.2.3.5 (0.5 each) if no funds available. Decreasing Priority

29. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 29 Impact of Insufficient Funds  -1.0 FTE in Graphics  Impacts our ability to have any reasonable visualization software for test-beam or Data Challenge 2.  - 0.5 FTE in Analysis Tools  Impacts our ability to deliver a framework for analysis  - 1.0 FTE in Data Management  0.5 FTE for supporting Non-Event Data Management.  0.5 FTE in supporting basic database services  - 1.0 FTE in Detector Description  Jeopardizes our ability to deliver key components including Material Service Integration, common geometry for simulation and reconstruction,  - 1.0 FTE in Common Data Management Software  Impacts contributions to POOL and integration aspects, schema management  - 0.5 FTE in Event Store  Support for a persistent EDM and Event Selection Descoping Order Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

30. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 30 FY04 Ramp-Up Cost Prioritized incremental Ramp-Up in FTE Cost (FY04 k$) FY04 guidance from J. Shank +0+0.5+1.5+2.5 +3.5+4+5

31. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 31 WBS-Personnel Summary

32. DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003 S. Rajagopalan 32 Conclusions  Request for a + 5 FTE in FY04:  2.5 FTE to bring Data Management to its intended Level of Effort  1 FTE university based for Detector Description  0.5 FTE for contribution to Analysis Tools  1 FTE university based for support Graphics  Guidance given for FY04 can handle only 1.5 FTE  U.S. ATLAS LCG contribution will be 4.0 FTE in FY04  2.0 FTE each in Core Services and Data Management WP