1. US ATLAS Project Management J. Shank DOE/NSF review of LHC Computing 8 July, 2003 NSF Headquarters

2. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing2 Outline/Charge International ATLAS organizationInternational ATLAS organization Org. Chart, Time Line, DC plans, LCG software integration US ATLAS organizationUS ATLAS organization Project management plan for the Research Program WBS and MS Project scheduling Procedure for determining Computing/M&O budget splitProcedure for determining Computing/M&O budget split FY03 BudgetFY03 Budget FY04 BudgetFY04 Budget Answers to Jan. review management issuesAnswers to Jan. review management issues

3. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing3 New ATLAS Computing Organization x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Slide from D. Barberis. LHCC 1 July, 2003

4. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing4 ATLAS Computing Timeline 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 NOW Jul 03POOL/SEAL release Jul 03 ATLAS release 7 (with POOL persistency) Aug 03 LCG-1 deployment Dec 03 ATLAS complete Geant4 validation Mar 04 ATLAS release 8 Apr 04 DC2 Phase 1: simulation production Jun 04 DC2 Phase 2: reconstruction (the real challenge!) Jun 04 Combined test beams (barrel wedge) Dec 04 Computing Model paper Jul 05 ATLAS Computing TDR and LCG TDR Oct 05 DC3: produce data for PRR and test LCG-n Nov 05 Computing Memorandum of Understanding Jul 06 Physics Readiness Report Oct 06 Start commissioning run Jul 07 GO! Slide from D. Barberis. LHCC 1 July, 2003

5. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing5 How to get there: 1) Software Software developments in progress:Software developments in progress: Geant4 simulation validation for production GeoModel (Detector Description) integration in simulation and reconstruction Full implementation of new Event Data Model Restructuring of trigger selection, reconstruction and analysis environment POOL persistency Interval of Validity service and Conditions DataBase Detector response simulation in Athena Pile-up in Athena (was in atlsim/G3) Slide from D. Barberis. LHCC 1 July, 2003

6. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing6 How to get there: 2) Data Challenges DC1 (2002-2003) completed in April 2003:DC1 (2002-2003) completed in April 2003: 2 nd pass of reconstruction with Trigger L1 and L2 algorithms for HLT TDR in progress Zebra/Geant3 files will be converted to POOL format and used for large-scale persistency tests they will be used as input for validation of new reconstruction environment DC2 (1 st half 2004):DC2 (1 st half 2004): provide data for Computing Model document (end 2004) full use of Geant4, POOL and Conditions DB simulation of full ATLAS and of 2004 combined test beam prompt reconstruction of 2004 combined test beam DC3 (2 nd half 2005):DC3 (2 nd half 2005): scale up computing infrastructure and complexity provide data for Physics Readiness Report Commissioning Run (from 2 nd half 2006):Commissioning Run (from 2 nd half 2006): real operation! Slide from D. Barberis. LHCC 1 July, 2003

7. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing7 SEAL SEAL Plug-in manager Internal use by POOL now Full integration into Athena Q3 2003 Data Dictionary Integrated into Athena now Includes Python support POOLPOOL Integration underway Goal is to have demonstrated support for POOL by 31 July Ability to read and write components of the ATLAS EDM Complete support by Oct 2003 SEAL Maths LibrarySEAL Maths Library Integrate in time for DC-2 PIPI Integrate ROOT implementation of AIDA API Q3 2003 SPI Software Project InfrastructureSPI Software Project Infrastructure LCG Applications Components Slide from D. Barberis. LHCC 1 July, 2003

8. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing8 US ATLAS Computing Organization Chart

9. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing9 US ATLAS Computing Management Plan Existing document from Nov., 2001Existing document from Nov., 2001 Includes Tier-2 selection process (timescale has slipped) Being rewritten now to take into account new structure and Research ProgramBeing rewritten now to take into account new structure and Research Program Main change: relative roles of Shank/Huth In broad brush-strokes: Shank: day-to-day management of the computing plan Budget allocation for project funded people Work plan for all computing activities Huth: deals with issues broader than just US ATLAS NSF Large ITR: DAWN Grid projects: PPDG, GriPhyN, iVDGL LCG (POB) ICB (ATLAS International Computing Board) This new organization with Shank/Huth is working well.

10. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing10 US ALTAS Computing planning Complete scrubbing of the WBS from January review is in progress.Complete scrubbing of the WBS from January review is in progress. Series of WBS scrubbing meetings culminating on 6/6/03Series of WBS scrubbing meetings culminating on 6/6/03 Participants: Level 3 managers and above Concentrated on project funded resources This part is done and is reflected in talks today. More work needed on base and other funded resources. More work needed on integration with ATLAS planning Working with new ATLAS planning officer. ATLAS planning will be complete in Sept. manpower reviewATLAS planning will be complete in Sept. manpower review

11. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing11 Facilities/GTS/Production MS Project

12. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing12 MS Project Facilities Milestones

13. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing13 Grid3/GTS Milestones

14. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing14 Software MS Project Milestones for ATLAS overall, LCG and U.S. ATLAS

15. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing15 Computing/M&O budget split US Executive Board and US Level 2 managers advise the Project Manager(PM) on M&O/Computing splitUS Executive Board and US Level 2 managers advise the Project Manager(PM) on M&O/Computing split Long standing US Management Contingency Steering Group from the construction project now becomes an advisory body to the PM for the Computing/M&O splitLong standing US Management Contingency Steering Group from the construction project now becomes an advisory body to the PM for the Computing/M&O split Members: P. Jenni, T. Akesson, D. Barberis, H. Gordon, R. Leitner, J. Huth, L. Mapelli, G. Mikenberg, M. Nessi, M. Nordberg, H. Oberlack, J. Shank, J. Siegrist, K. Smith, S. Stapnes, W. Willis Represents all ATLAS interests Meets ~ quarterly Unique body that has served ATLAS and US ATLAS well. Decisions based on interleaved priorities, case-by-case.Decisions based on interleaved priorities, case-by-case. US computing presently working with ATLAS computing to prepare “planning tables” as used in the construction project. requires detailed resource loaded schedule RP profile

16. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing16 U.S. ATLAS Research Program

17. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing17 FY03 Commitments Existing effort on Athena and data managementExisting effort on Athena and data management FY03: 12 FTEs $2,293k Project management/coordination 2 FTE Core services 3.75 FTE Program flow, kernel interfaces, user interfaces, calibration Infrastructure, EDM Data management 3.6 FTE Deploying DB services, Persistency service, Event store, geometry+primary numbers Collections, catalogs, metadata Application software 1.4 FTE Geant3 + reconstruction Infrastructure support 1.25 FTE Librarian Existing effort on data challenges, facilitiesExisting effort on data challenges, facilities 4.5 FTE for T1 infrastructure/management $925k Existing effort on Physics support: 1 FTE $100kExisting effort on Physics support: 1 FTE $100k UM Collaboratory tools $20kUM Collaboratory tools $20k Total FY03 expenditure: $3,338k

18. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing18 Proposed FY04 increment Athena + Data ManagementAthena + Data Management Ramps from 12 to 16.5 4.5 FTE priorities / work plan covered in SW talk Facilities/DC ProductionFacilities/DC Production T1: (priorities discussed in facilities talk) $390k for capital equipment Ramp from 4.5 to 6.5 for T1 Ramp DC production FTE from 0.9 to 2.5 1.5 FTE at the T1 center 1.0 at university This would ramp overall budget from $3.338 M in FY03 to approximately $5.2M in FY04.This would ramp overall budget from $3.338 M in FY03 to approximately $5.2M in FY04.

19. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing19 FY04 Budget studies 1-6 run from very bare bones to what we think is the appropriate level for US ATLAS Current projections put us at model 4 Details of the SW FTE increment covered in SW talk by S. Rajagopalan

20. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing20 Effect on SW FTEs in FY04 budget scenarios 1.0 FTE in Graphics1.0 FTE in Graphics 0.5 FTE in Analysis Tools 0.5 FTE in Analysis Tools 1.0 FTE in Data Management1.0 FTE in Data Management 1.0 FTE in Detector Description1.0 FTE in Detector Description 1.0 FTE in Common Data Management Software1.0 FTE in Common Data Management Software 0.5 FTE in Event Store0.5 FTE in Event Store Model 4 Models 1-3 (increments are in production) Model 5 Model 6 Details of these priorities will be in the sw talk

21. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing21 If forced into a $4.7M FY04 budget SW Cuts :SW Cuts : Graphics(1.0 FTE) Data Management (1 FTE): support for non-event data (0.5 FTE) supporting basic database servicessupporting basic database services (0.5 FTE) Analysis tools (0.5 FTE) Det. Description. (1.0 FTE) Other cuts in DB/Athena jeopardize our ability to test the computing model in the DC.Other cuts in DB/Athena jeopardize our ability to test the computing model in the DC. Other cuts in production capability don’t allow us to run the DC.Other cuts in production capability don’t allow us to run the DC. Delay new hires 1-3 months into the year to balance the budget.Delay new hires 1-3 months into the year to balance the budget.

22. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing22 The University Problem US ATLAS has 3 National LabsUS ATLAS has 3 National Labs Lots of expertise, which we are effectively using With budget pressures, little project funding left for university groups, both small and large.With budget pressures, little project funding left for university groups, both small and large. On day 1, when we will extract physics from ATLAS, we NEED university groups fully involved (students, postdocs)On day 1, when we will extract physics from ATLAS, we NEED university groups fully involved (students, postdocs) Solution:???Solution:??? Call on the Management Reserve We are making a list Will include some support for universities already working in the testbed A little goes a long way! Increase in base funding?

23. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing23 FY05 and beyond Major management task for next few monthsMajor management task for next few months Assigning priorities, establish profile. Guidance ramp up to 7155 k$ helps But, many things ramping up in FY05: Tier 1 Tier 2’s ! Software Ramp things we cant afford in FY04 Further ramps in things like analysis tools Production More DC’s  more FTE’s for production Makes FY05 look like a tough year also. Guidance for FY06-7 looks better

24. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing24 Jan 2003 LBL Review questions(1) FacilitiesFacilities Given funding shortfall, how will grid and networking support be covered Relying on the US testbed facility (university/other labs) for some support + 1 FTE new hire @ Tier 1 in FY04 Network bandwidth support Not critical for FY04: all will have OC12-192 RHIC is only using 15-20% of the OC12 bandwidth now. Coherent plan for grids (testing…) Not clear on the confusing relationships that exist between projects within ATLAS and external grid Grid3 Task force: Rob Gardner, Rich Baker. Aligns all our efforts leading up to DC2: Aug. BNL tutorials, SC2003 demo, Pre-DC2 tests, DC2.

25. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing25 Jan 2003 LBL Review questions(2) SWSW US ATLAS must take care to properly plan across its operation the impact on US-specific efforts of taking on new central tasks. We see the new international ATLAS management helping us here Find extra, non-US help Our scrubbed WBS is our guide! Athena-Grid integration should be a priority Is seen as important in overall ATLAS org. chart NSF DAWN funding should solve this. concerned about the necessary reliance of ATLAS on the newly formed LCG ATLAS fully committed to LCG software. We see “value added” in the LCG applications area. Grids: some worries. We have viable US grid projects delivering middleware Will emphasize inter-operability.

26. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing26 Jan 2003 LBL Review questions(3) Many milestonesMany milestones No baseline How do trade-offs impact the overall schedule We have redefined the WBS and milestones Many fewer milestones; aligned with our quarterly reporting to facilitate tracking

27. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing27 Project Management comments from Jan. 2003 review(1) The scope should be more formally defined with software agreements. The scope should be more formally defined with software agreements. SW agreements have been “on hold” in ATLAS for over 1 yr. Is working for Athena; ADL experience has made most wary. Probably makes sense for our DB effort. Will pursue… US ATLAS should continue to be wary of taking on additional projects from International ATLAS US ATLAS should continue to be wary of taking on additional projects from International ATLAS Working with ATLAS (DQ/DB + planning officer) to make sure tasks are covered by international effort Our US WBS scrubbing sharply defines our tasks/deliverables. The project managers could benefit from increased use of traditional project management tools The project managers could benefit from increased use of traditional project management tools MS Project. Demonstrated here today. BNL project management office helping us. Weekly phone meetings with all managers down to level 2 Keeps all informed, on the same page, engaged.

28. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing28 Project Management comments from Jan. review (2) It is important to have some personnel at CERN to assist the US ATLAS members It is important to have some personnel at CERN to assist the US ATLAS members Always been our priority, BUT, not as high as maintaining sw development team. LBL has always had ~1 at CERN. Currently 2 (D. Quarrie, M. Marino) BNL has P. Nevski, T. Wenaus. UM has 1 (base): S. Goldfarb, Muon sw coordinator.

29. 8 July, 2003J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing29 Conclusions New management in placeNew management in place Working well! New WBSNew WBS Project funded parts scrubbed. Scope, near-term deliverables well-defined Working on long term and overall ATLAS planning Working on non-project funded parts Budget pressure still hurtsBudget pressure still hurts SW scope smaller than we think appropriate Facilities ramping slowly University support lacking