To: US ATLAS Physics and Computing Advisory Panel

Chip Watson (Chair), P. Elmer, I. Fisk, B. Jacak, D. Riley

From: Jim Shank, Executive Project Manager for Physics and Computing,

U.S. ATLAS.

Re: Charge to the Panel for 1-2 Feb., 2005 Meeting at BNL.

20 December, 2004

We will be soliciting your comments and recommendations on a number of
items that have changed since our last review.

# 1. Project Organization/Management

Our new WBS has now been in place for over 1 year. We have a new
quarterly reporting system. We would like advice on how this system is
working. We want to make sure our deliverables are clear, our priorities
are clear and the scope of the program is clear.

We are now into the Research Program phase of US ATLAS and must share
our computing funding with M&O for the construction project. We assign
priorities to tasks (that include M&O and computing items). Do we have
the right priorities/strategy for this allocation? We will present our
proposed computing funding plan, do we have this funding correctly
planned?

# 2. Core/Framework Software

Our Athena software framework is now well established. Are we paying
attention to overall performance and architecture issues? Is our
manpower well spent in this area?

# 3. Data Management

-   Are we adjusting our deliverables appropriately in response to
    recent changes to our effort profile?

-   Are our interactions with LCG (POOL, SEAL) and ATLAS
    proper/working/at the right level?

# 4. Other software areas.

We recently have effort in these areas:

-   Detector description

-   Distributed analysis

This reduces our Data Management effort. Is this the correct priority?

# 5. Grids.

-   interactions with other grid projects,
    GriPhyN/iVDGL/PPDG/LCG/OSG\... are these coordinated properly?

-   Are we effectively managing/exploiting all the resources from
    outside the US ATLAS computing program?

-   Are we using program funds effectively to harness the grid
    middleware?

# 6. Data Challenges and our T1/T2 facilities

We are very near to the end of DC2 and we now have a Computing Model
Document. We are also very near to selecting our first 3 Tier 2 sites

In light of these:

-   Is our T1 facility funded at the right level?

-   Is our T2 plan viable?

-   How should we monitor the T2 facilities? Are they functioning as
    expected?

-   Will we contribute to upcoming production (for the Rome Physics
    meeting and DC3) at the right level?

-   Are we on track with our production system software?

# 7. Physics Analysis Model

Given the closeness of real data and the winding down of construction,
more and more US physicists are getting involved in physics analysis. Do
we have the proper plan to accommodate their needs? Is it coherent?
Integrated with overall ATLAS? Does the Fermilab LHC Physics Center fit
into our model?

# 8. Next generation funding initiatives

We are participating in OSG and there may be opportunities for OSG
funding? How much effort do we put into OSG given that we have our last
DC in 1 year and real data in 2 years?

While we use this review as a "dress rehearsal" for our upcoming DOE/NSF
review, we want the PCAP review to be much more than that. We would like
use the PCAP to obtain advice on these important issues. We hope you
will report briefly to us at the end of the review on Feb. 2, then
provide us with a written report shortly thereafter.

Jim Shank <shank@bu.edu>

John Huth

Mike Tuts

Howard Gordon

Bill Willis