1. US-CMS Software and Computing 1st Meeting of the FNAL Oversight Panel, 23-25 October 2000 Core Applications Software Lucas Taylor Northeastern University

2. US-CMS Software and Computing Oversight Panel, FNAL, 23-25 October 2 Lucas Taylor, Core Applications Software US-CMS Core Applications Software v 2 sub-projects of US-CMS Software&Computing Project r User Facilities (focussed on Tier 1 and Tier 2 centres) r Core Applications Software (the subject of this talk) Two main tasks for “Core Applications Software” v US contributions to CMS Core Software r US responsibility for delivering a canonical fraction (~25%) v Software support specifically for US-CMS physicists r To enable them to meet their detector commitments r To enable them to fully exploit LHC physics r To enable them to do the above from their home institutes

3. US-CMS Software and Computing Oversight Panel, FNAL, 23-25 October 3 Lucas Taylor, Core Applications Software Core Software Scope v Architecture of CMS software v Software process and development environment v Software framework, persistency services, utilities,… v Tools for distributed data access / processing v Analysis environment and toolkits v etc… …requires professional software engineering expertise v In other words, all that is required to support the closely related (mostly PRS) activities of: r event generation, detector and trigger simulation, reconstruction, data selection (online & offline), physics analysis, test-beams, etc…....requires professional physicist expertise

4. US-CMS Software and Computing Oversight Panel, FNAL, 23-25 October 4 Lucas Taylor, Core Applications Software MONARC Spokesperson H. Newman, Caltech MONARC Spokesperson H. Newman, Caltech CMS Coordinator: L. Taylor, Northeastern CMS Coordinator: L. Taylor, Northeastern CMS Coordinator: D. Stickland, Princeton CMS Coordinator: D. Stickland, Princeton Core Software Planning v Three closely-related CMS projects with large software components r Core Software and Computing r Physics Reconstruction and Selection (PRS) r TriDAS v Adjustments to CMS organizational entities & plans are being refined v Software engineering resource needs will not change dramatically v N.B. this is an evolution not a revolution !

5. US-CMS Software and Computing Oversight Panel, FNAL, 23-25 October 5 Lucas Taylor, Core Applications Software Core Software Milestones May 2001: TriDAS: discovery at 100Hz Nov 2000: L2/L3  100 reduction Dec 2000: Trigger TDR End 2001: DAQ TDR End 2002: Software & Computing TDR May 2000: L2/L3  10 reduction 5% Mock Data Challenge ~2003: Physics TDR 20% Mock Data Challenge LHC/CMS turn on Functional prototype phase is now complete

6. US-CMS Software and Computing Oversight Panel, FNAL, 23-25 October 6 Lucas Taylor, Core Applications Software Aside remark on the LHC schedule v Current status (L.Maiani, RRB, 23 Oct 2000) r So far there is no change in the machine’s critical path r 5-6 months delay in ATLAS/CMS caverns r Expect ~2 weeks running in 2005; full running from April 2006 v What are the implications for the CAS project? r (Most of) CMS detector to be installed as originally planned r Still need functioning (if partial) TriDAS and offline in 2005 r Significant software work to be done before 2005 related to detector / TriDAS / physics optimization – No software delays possible if no detector/TriDAS delays v Some savings possible for (UF) hardware purchases v No significant savings for Software are anticipated......although more detailed consideration is required

7. US-CMS Software and Computing Oversight Panel, FNAL, 23-25 October 7 Lucas Taylor, Core Applications Software “Functional Prototype” Deliverables v Documented requirements v Set of Software Prototypes, Packages, & Documentation v Software Infrastructure r repository, multi-platform build, release, distribution, and documentation systems. v Proposal for a Baseline set of Technologies v Proposed Project Evolution Plan

8. US-CMS Software and Computing Oversight Panel, FNAL, 23-25 October 8 Lucas Taylor, Core Applications Software Where we go following the “Functional Prototype” v The Software is now moving into “pre-production” phase (also known as “Fully Functional Software”) v Evolutionary changes in CMS organisation; three closely-interacting projects: r Core Software and Computing r Physics Reconstruction and Selection r TriDAS v Increase formality for CMS planning r Collection and refinement of use-cases and user requirements r Systematic re-examination and documentation of architecture and framework (Café: new project with strong US involvement) r Re-alignment of schedule and milestones (with whole of CMS) r Definition of work packages and deliverables

9. US-CMS Software and Computing Oversight Panel, FNAL, 23-25 October 9 Lucas Taylor, Core Applications Software US-CMS Core Software Planning An interim team has been working on CAS planning: v 2. Core Applications Software r L. Taylor (Acting L2 - temporary), I. Fisk (Acting Deputy L2) v 2.1. Software Architecture r D. Stickland, L. Tuura,... v 2.2 Interactive Graphics and User Analysis r I. Gaponenko, L. Taylor,... v 2.3 Distributed Data Management and Processing r J. Bunn, I. Fisk, T. Wildish, R. Wilkinson,... v 2.4 Support r I. Fisk Level 2 and Level 3 managers to be defined once our new L1 manager (Lothar Bauerdick) is fully on board

10. US-CMS Software and Computing Oversight Panel, FNAL, 23-25 October 10 Lucas Taylor, Core Applications Software Creation of the CAS WBS v Maintain the US-CMS WBS distinct from CMS WBS 4 Clarity regarding US roles and responsibilities 4 Inclusion of US-specific items (notably local support) 8 Requires ongoing integration with International CMS planning v Acknowledge that software is different to hardware r no mass-production of many similar components r software technologies continuously evolve r continuous need for functioning systems from now to turn-on v Adopt a rolling approach to software planning r More detail (deliverables, milestones, etc.) in short-term r Longer-term resources according to “level-of-effort” scaling – Optimal use of resources in a changing environment

11. US-CMS Software and Computing Oversight Panel, FNAL, 23-25 October 11 Lucas Taylor, Core Applications Software Granularity of the CAS WBS v t  t+1year (i.e. FY2001 for t=today) r Define US-CMS tasks to typically level 5 / 6 r Associate deliverables, milestones r Assign resources to each task r Ensure that, by definition, the rolled-up resources assigned in the US-CMS WBS are the sum of: – canonical 25% scaling of full CMS software project – US-specific support for physicists 25% of US-CMS total r Consult repeatedly with CMS v t+1year  t+2year (i.e. FY2002 for t= today) r As above but only define tasks to typically level 4 / 5 v beyond t+2years (i.e. FY2003,4,5,...for t= today) r As above but define tasks to ~ level 3 (~ ongoing resolution) r US-CMS responsibilities are essentially level-of-effort Recall, e.g. L2 = CAS L3 = IGUANA L4 = Interactive graphics L5 = GUI Extensions L6 = Tree widget

12. US-CMS Software and Computing Oversight Panel, FNAL, 23-25 October 12 Lucas Taylor, Core Applications Software Rolling the Planning Forward v Don’t panic… r there is always a complete plan r we roll forward the level-of-detail and responsibilities r the required resources are constrained by the CMS envelope v Need to ensure consensus of US-CMS & agencies. E.g. r Minor changes (~L5)quarterly review (ASCB / JOG) r Major changes (~L4)annual review (CB, DOE/NSF) v Need to ensure consensus of CMS r Increase formality of reporting to CMS project – CMS Software & Computing Technical Board(6 times / year) – CMS Software & Computing Board (4 times / year) Aside: can we rationalise the timing of the various reviews ? – FNAL Software and Computing Oversight group (twice / year ?) – DOE/NSF Reviews (twice / year ?) – CMS Software & Computing Internal Review (annual) – LHCC Review (annual)

13. US-CMS Software and Computing Oversight Panel, FNAL, 23-25 October 13 Lucas Taylor, Core Applications Software US-CMS CAS Tasks & Engineers Today v Detailed description of WBS tasks r Printed document, draft 1.3: “WBS Dictionary for the Core Applications Sub-Project (WBS items 2.1 - 2.4)” r Next talk by Ian Fisk

14. US-CMS Software and Computing Oversight Panel, FNAL, 23-25 October 14 Lucas Taylor, Core Applications Software CAS Software Engineers: Hiring Status

15. US-CMS Software and Computing Oversight Panel, FNAL, 23-25 October 15 Lucas Taylor, Core Applications Software Software (and Computing) MoU’s v Discussions on Software MoU’s in Hoffmann review r Distinct from detector Maintenance & Operations MoU’s ? – Opening discussion CERN RRB (23 Oct) – Further discussions in RRB’s of April 2001 / Oct 2001 / … r Range of opinions on appropriate level of detail for commitments r CMS tends to favour “level-of-effort” commitments – rather than detailed deliverables which are hard to define for software and sustain into the future v Appropriate time-scale for Software MoU’s r After detector M&O MoU’s > Oct 2001 ? r Before Software & Computing TDR’s < Dec 2002 ?

16. US-CMS Software and Computing Oversight Panel, FNAL, 23-25 October 16 Lucas Taylor, Core Applications SoftwareContingency v CAS resources are dominated by personnel r Variety of skills of software engineers (FTE is not well-defined) r We need more tracking experience to understand how much effort various tasks really require v Intrinsic uncertainty in overall CMS estimate r tens of percent; probably not a factor of two v Market forces influence salaries (  Nasdaq !?) v There may be unforeseen (US-)CMS crises needing injections of manpower, perhaps expert consulting v Proposal for CAS personnel contingency: r add a fixed percentage to base cost as management reserve e.g. – 10% for FY 2001 and 2002 – 25% for FY 2003 and beyond

17. US-CMS Software and Computing Oversight Panel, FNAL, 23-25 October 17 Lucas Taylor, Core Applications Software Summary of CAS Resources v Description of WBS tasks r Printed draft 1.3 of “WBS Dictionary for the Core Applications Sub-Project (WBS items 2.1 - 2.4)” r Next talk by Ian Fisk