CDF International Finance Committee Meeting (October 18, 2004)

Notes prepared based on originals made by Bob Tschirhart.

Attendance: Bedeschi (INFN-CDF),

Appel (FNAL-Directorate), Belforte (INFN-CDF)-video, Cooper (FNAL-CD),
Dosselli(INFN), Guibellino (INFN), Kerzel (CDF-Karlsruhe), DongHee Kim
(Korea-CDF), ShinHong Kim (Japan-CDF), YoungKee Kim(CDF), Kotwal
(CDF-Duke/FNAL), Lancaster (UK-CDF), Montgomery (FNAL-directorate),
Peach (PPARC)-video, Procario (DOE), Riska (Finland-CDF)-phone, Ristori
(CDF), Roser (CDF-PPD), Ruiz (Spain-CDF), Sexton(FNAL/CDF/CD), Snider
(FNAL-CD), St Denis (CDF-Glasgow), Strait (FNAL-PPD), PK Teng
(CDF-Taiwan), Tschirhart (FNAL-CD), Trischuk (Canada-CDF), Wuerthwein
(CDF-San Diego)-video.

Agenda & all talks are available at:

> [http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/ifc/]{.underline}

This web page attepts to capture the postings associated with previous
meetings.

**Notes**

**Scrutiny Group**

In the preparation for this meeting, Montgomery had nominated the
following to act as a Scrutiny Group:

Paolo Giubellino, INFN, Chair

Shinhong Kim, Japan,

Ken Peach/Mark Lancaster, UK

William Trischuk, Canada

Rob Roser, CDF-PPD

Rick Snider, CDF-CD

Jim Strait, FNAL-PPD

Bob Tschirhart, FNAL-CD

This group was provided with budget spreadsheet details and about half
of the committee met on the day before the IFC Meeting.

The spreadsheet prepared showing the expected operating costs for CDF in
the different categories is attached to the web page.

**Montgomery -- Welcome/News.**

At some point Mont noted the elevation of Dosselli to the Executive
Board of INFN and of Trischuk to Director of the Canadian particle
physics organisation.

Mont reviewed the Fermilab program, more upbeat than last fall. Tevatron

running well, emerging programs highlighted were DES and Nova. Good
words

about the LPC, and hopeful words about the TBD Astrophysics center.

**Young Kee Kim -- Status of CDF**

Expt running well, MOUs written in 2001 good \'till 2005.

In process of rewriting them.

There was some discussion about how well the ID groups work and whether
or not the tracking range in eta.

Dosselli was concerned about whther the yield of top was significantly
better than Run I, which is expected due to improvements in the
detector.

INFN reps quite concerned about Run-II brain/operating drain to
LHC\...more of a concern for detector operations rather than computing.
CDF claims they need about 150 \"people\" (less FTEs) to operate
detector, mostly postdocs and students. Ongoing MOU negotiations with
universities are now showing a 75% continuation of current level of

postdoc effort. There was a query as to how tasks are allocated; is it
managed?

Lots of concern all around, HEPAP has a subpanel investigating effort
level for Run-II in out-years. Mont has responsibility of producing this
profile for the lab.

**Roser -- CDF Operations**

Silicon projected to have a rad tolerance of at least 4 fb-1, probably
longer. Pilot error is a bigger concern.

There was concern as to whether or not what had happened with the COT is
understood at a satisfactory level. Rob responded with a brief
description of his understanding.

PPD CDF operating guidance is \$1.5M, \$1.1M is fixed cost, FY05
projected at \$1.8M.

PaoloGiubellino (Scrutiny chair) concerned that operating costs are not
going

down, and projected level of external support is reducing which might
lead to an increrasing burden on the survivors.

**Snider -- (Implementation of the) CDF Computing Status/Budget.**

35% computing offite, goal in FY05 is 50%. Long-term support model is
Run-II/LHC(LPC). Particular data sets moved to remote sites to attract
users there. Calculus of foreign contributions does not include hardware
that is hosted at Fermilab. These hosted resources provide general
computing beyond that committed to privledged access for donating
institution(s).

Ken Peach asked the key question about what sets the scale

for logging rate, which threatens to rise from 20 MB/s to 35 MB/s in
FY05 and more beyond..? PAC says (CSL B-physics upgrade): it\'s great,
as long as somebody else (non-US) pays for the consequent computing.
There were comments from Young Kee saying it\'s great, but the committee
didn\'t directly face the question head-on as to whether they as the IFC
\"approves\" this level of support in the future.

Rick presented an FY04 equivalent foreign contribution of \$800K costed
in Fermilab units. There was a technical question none of us could
answer, and that was how to convert from SPECINT-2000 to P4-GHZ. A cheat
sheet is needed on this, not the first time it came up.

There was a lot of discussion about the 3-year retirement cycle. BaBar
is finding 3 years in not optimal, and Umberto will provide me with some
numbers in the near future regarding the BaBar analysis.

**Belforte -- Report of Computing Usage Task Force**

Report on task-force on analysis computing. During the Spring IFC there
was a sense that gains were possible with better code, and a better
understanding w=of what physicists do\...a task force was formed.

Conclusion is that there is little gain with work on the framework, and
the big gains are in physicist algorithms and improving efficiency, by
for example, reducing the use of trial and error utilization of CAF
resources. Some discussion of introducing a market economy on the CAF,
which finds its resources max\'d out at the moment. The market economy
would favor structured batch submissions and disfavor highly interactive
use.

**Wurthwein -- CDF Remote Computing**

Paolo Giubellino asked about getting a clear comparision of offsite
actual useage vs availability. Refered to a model in CDF where
CDF/CMS/LPC would provide the stablizing path this decade, referred to
difficulties in getting performant grids and inter-operability, and that
patience/pragmatism and moral-support was required to get to a
productive grid world. There was a clear consensus in the committee that
grid computing was the clear path, and that near term pain was worth
long-term gains.

**Scrutiny Group**

The report from the Scrutiny Group appears on the IFC web page. They
would like to understand better in the next cycle the actual
contribuitions to the different aspects of CDF operations.

The IFC would like to than the Scrutiny Group for its efforts.

**General Discussion / Statements fromAgencies**

INFN-Dosselli: Stresed long-term commitment to CDF, leading to level
support for this year and beyond. For the next IFC (spring \'05) would
like to see an explicit table of foreign contributions by country. INFN
is very supportive of moving toward grid, as their computing
invenstments will primarily be focused on the Bologana computing center.
As for the general level of support for CDF, \$3M/year (M&S) appears
about right, matches the BaBar experience. INFN will stay in the game
with a level of about 250K

Euros/year, despite the fact they are losing 2%/year.

Japan-Shinhong Kim: Happy with recent CDF success and Tevatron
performance\.... They are looking forward to CDF results in several
important physics areas, W mass, Top quark mass, B_s mixing.

But, next year will be the begining of there ramp-down of effort. FY04:
contribution was \$200K common fund + \$200K contribution to CAF. In
FY05 the common fund contribution will still be \$200K but they will not
contribute to CAF.

UK-Peach: impressed by the Tevatron, it is good to see the analyses from
CDF/D0 which did indeed make a big impact at the Beijing conference.

The realism from Rob Roser ini assessing the operations and their future
is appreciated.

The level of UK support for CDF will maintain current level through
FY05, don\'t expect the level to go up in any out-years.

He has understood that the practicallity of a complete funding model
incorporating both operations and computing is limited. Nevertheless, we
need to keep the pressure on to be sure that the budget is controlled.

He feels that the long term embrace of the grid and also the LHC physics
Center are good.

Canada- Trischuk: FY05 marks the transition from where 1/2 of the 5-8
FTEs in Canada on CDF will start splitting time to Atlas (50%).
Additional Support for the common fund will continue to drop as Atlas
involvement ramps up. He sees this as a natural evolution driven by the
desires of the physicists.

William noted the interanl issues with grid computing in canada with the
incompatibility of species demoinstrating that we can get things wrong
if we are not careful.

Spain-Ruiz: Will maintain current level through FY05. There continue to
be more students interested in CDF. They are increasing the computing
designated for CDF. Although there are political problemsa with the
grid, it is likely the way to go.

Korea- DongHee Kim: They are providing \$25-30k to CDF operations. For
computing, the are focusing on local DCAF growth. Growth in future
contributions will occur through DCAF.

DOE-Procario: was present particularly to hear the situation with
respect to evolution of support for running CDF. He was very interested
to hear the international statements. DOE also has a goal to understand
this.

**Recommendation:**

Following the positive report from the Scrutiny Group, CDF management,
PPD and CD should use the spreadsheet accessible from the IFC web page
to estimate the appropriate desired contribution level.

We should attempt to understand better the contributions of all agencies
to all of the aspects of CDF operations.

**Continued Operations/MOUs**

In several fora, the issue of whether or not, as a field, and as
individual experiments there is sufficient effort to maintain the
current experiments operating while building and starting to operate the
new, particularly the LHC experiments. The experiment and the Laboratory
will be attempting to raise the level of attention given to this issue.
Already some MOUs are being regenerated. We may try to set some specific
goals.

**Next Meeting**

Spring 2005 at Fermilab, Agenda and details will be forthcoming.