D-Zero International Finance Committee Meeting (October 21, 2004)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

Attendance: Appel (FNAL-Directorate), Blazey(D0-NIU),
Boehnlein(FNAL-CD/D0), Brooijmans(D0-CD/Columbia), Davies (IC
London/D0), Ehret (Germany)-video, De Jong (Nijmegen/D0)-video, Kajfasz
(Marseille/D0)-video, LeDiberder(IN2P3), Lokajicek (Prague/D0), Maettig
(Wuppertal/D0)-video, Montgomery (FNAL-directorate), O'Dell(FNAL-PPD-D0
Upgrade), O'Neil(Simon Fraser/D0), Peach (PPARC)-video, Petroff
(LAL/D0), Simak (Prague/D0), Strait (FNAL-PPD), Stutte(FNAL-PPD/D0),
Tschirhart (FNAL-CD), Wyatt (Manchester/D0)-video.

Agenda and all talks are available at:

http://d0server1.fnal.gov/projects/spokes/financialcommittee/index.html

**Notes**

These notes were developed from an original draft from Bob Tschirhart

**Scrutiny Group**

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

Terry Wyatt, M/c/ Ken Peach-UK -- Chair

Klaus Ehret-Germany/ Peter Maettig-Wuppertal-Germany

Francois Lediberder-IN2P3/ Pierre Petroff-LAL

Amber Boehnlein, D0-CD

Linda Stutte, D0-CD

Jim Strait, FNAL-PPD

Bob Tschirhart, FNAL-CD

This group was provided with budget spreadsheet details before the IFC
Meeting and exchanged some e-mail communications.

The spreadsheet prepared showing the expected operating costs for D0 in
the different categories will be attached to the web page.

**Montgomery -- Welcome/News.**

Collider program is going well. Increasing amounts of offsite computing.
RunII computing review went well, GCC/LCC going well.

Discussion of proton economics.

Procario-DOE said BTeV is very close to receiving CD1.

Question from Wuppertal about how cold RF effort at Fermilab effort is
going and about its relationship to DESY work. Mont emphasised that DESY
is a part of the discussions about what was needed but there is general
agreement that a broader expertise with SC cavities is essential.

**Blazey -- D-Zero Status**

35 US institutes, 49 non-US. 670 collabs: 100 Postdocs, 150 students.
590 pb-1 delivered to date, 470 pb-1 on tape, 440 fb-1 in some analyses
today.

90% operating efficiency now, max reasonable goal is 93%. There are some
detector mortality concerns, 15% SMT HDIs disabled, growing trend, not
driven by luminosity yet. AT 25% mortality physics starts to degrade
rapidly.

There was a scare last November when CFT VLPC mortality jumped from 0.1%
to 1%. No clear cause. Water contanmination model not validated.

Grounding on calorimeter substantially improved, noise improved. Expect
improvements in missing Et width & tails. P17 just released, better
calibration, GRID friendly, reco improved by 30% for one high luminosity
run, kudos to CD.

There were 40 new results for summer confs, lot of different analyses;
world best on Bs -\>mumu (great muon coverage). 6 submitted papers from
RunII, two accepted. Project 20-25 submitted papers within the next
year. 327 Bs candidates were included in lifetime plots.

In response to a question Jerry reaffirmed that lots of the results come
fromaround the world

Scintillator Tracker AFE upgrades \[not (yet) approved\] to provide
better pedestal performance and and timing information which will
provide z-position information reducing tracking time by a factor two,
corresponding to (Gerry, Gustaff) a drop in mean reco time of 40%.

Don\'t expect a flight to LHC until 2006/2007, Europe for sure, US as
well in that time frame. Current MOUs being re-worked, cast in 2002.
Projected luminosity lifetime

of silicon is still 3.6+/-1.8 fB, not enough time lever-arm to get a
better projection. Layer-00 will help this problem a lot.

Claim that 360 FTEs, yes FTEs, are required to operate the experiment.
\[Ed. Operate in this case includes maintaining the physics groups in
full analysis funtionality and productivity??\]

**Stutte -- D0 Operating Plan**

PPD operating budget: Process: Bottoms up estimate toegether with
Division guidance. FY04 actual: \$1495K, FY05 projected: \$1455K. FY05
Video conf \$50K, not down from FY04? Foreign contribution to PPD in
FY05 will be \$100K, down from \$150K in FY04. Foreign contributions are
targetted through consultation with foreign contributors.

Terry asked about when ISDN for video conf support to smaller institutes
will be cut off.

Terry: Why is travel for Fermilab staff on operating costs?? Linda\'s
presentation is actually her budget request to PPD. PPD operating budget
to be split among foreign institutions is still being developed, goal of
having a foreign-contribution spreadsheet within the next two weeks.

**Boehnlein -- D0 Computing Status**

Reviewed BaBar model, which is the \"virtual center\" cost (costed as if
at Fermilab). Discussed shortcomings of this model, notably efficiency
of use and accounting for the retirement cycle. Step from 16 Hz to 30 Hz
logging rate in 2006 is part of the nominal RunIIb DAQ upgrade.

Discussion again of the retirement model, discussion of the out-year
model for reco/re-reco time projections which now are based on
demostrated P14 performance.

Discussion of the apparent presence of spare capacity at GRIDKA\...why
is this true in aGRID-ified world? Comments from Wuppertal indicated
that some of this drop in activity was associated with getting SAM-GRID
going at GRIDKA.

Infrastructure costs delayed in FY04. Projected FY05 infrastructure need
of \$547K compared to \$140K in FY04.

Dbase infrastructure costs up from \$20K to \$70K due to Luminosity DB?
I(Bob) don\'t understand this. General concerns raised about delaying
infrastructure.

Procario: Lot of value associated with re-processing, about 1/2 value,
how is this plan (once a year for the integrated data set) defended &
supported?

Mont: What\'s the high-level split between Fermilab and outside? Gerry:
Model is that institutions outside Fermilab support MC and Reprocessing
\[full data set reprocessing at remote sites\] which in FY05 is \$1.8M.
Internally Fermilab is contributing \$3.2M in computing (integrated +
FY05).

Question raised by Erik Kajfasz about big step in FY2006 of \$3.3M
driven by re-reco of the full data set. Decision not taken inside of D0
about re-reco in FY2006 and beyond\...strategy needed here, thumbnails,
etc.

**Davies -- D0 Remote Computing**

Model requires 3 THz outside Fermilab during an era when money and
effort is

moving to the LHC. SAM-GRID/JIM is producing 1-1.5M MC events/week, and
they are broadly distributed. This is really distributed computing, not
yet grid. Step to P17 will be closer to grid, SAMGrid will be default,
they hope it will use shared LCG resources. Big, big, job. There is a
common Runjob effort between D0, CDF, and LHC. Terry: Reprocessing
challenge is big, consider a typical LHC experiment, which aspires to
10M events reprocessed/mo, D0 will be at 200M/mo this coming year!

Gavin: D0 reprocessing and analysis will test/stress Starlight.

Ken Peach: Bandwidth resources world-wide not being fully
exploited\...why not? Similar issue raised at CHEP by Peter Clark.
Gustaff pushed back that Fermilab ESNET is at the limits, and that
analysis efforts within the next year will demand resources beyond
ESNET.

**O'Dell - D0 Run IIb Upgrades**

It is expected that the luminosity will be at 3e32 at the end of running
this decade.

There will be a new Layer-0 silicon layer. L0 primarily supported by
\$700K

NSF MRI.

Discussion of trigger/DAQ upgrades. R&D for AFE-II board is going well.

Question about whether the improved z-poisition will be available to
track trigger\...probably not.

AFE-II cost estimate of \$2.1M held in Management Reserve.

There was encouragement from Peach to push improved z-information down
to trigger. Total burdened Dzero RunIIb project is \$20M, base cost is
\$13M. DOE MIE is \$10M, excluding silicon closeout costs.

Discussion of project structure. DOE has project done in June \'06,
internal aggressive milestone of July \'05. Project on budget and ahead
of schedule.

**Statements fromContributing Agencies**

Peter & Klaus (Germany): Kudos for D0, the big progress is appreciated,
no questions.

Sybrand DeJong (Holland): NIKHEF is under funding pressure. The funding
agency

FOM is shifting to applied physics. LHC expts will have higher priority
than D0.

Ken Peach (UK): Running expt resources reviewed this past summer, known
now for the next 4 years. Increases in operating budgets, D0 will be
reasonably well supported for the next two years.

Terry Wyatt(M/C): Have clear picture of operating budgets through April
06 with a provisional allocation through to April 07. Have enjoyed
significant increases that will be translated to travel and D0 ops. When
they try toproject through 4 years, they have some concern among UK
groups about migration timescale to LHC.

Gavin(IC London): Imperial heavily committed to CMS, resources are
\"ring-fenced\", issues of sharing resources between projects.

Francois Lediberder(IN2P3): They are happy with D0 status, France is
versy satisfied. They have no concerns about support through 06. He
supports interoperability between SAMGRID and LCG, sees opportunity to
use LHC computing resources.

Mont pitch on interoperability: Appeals to European groups to support
interoperability to OSG and GRID3. Mont reported that CERN is a bit
nervous about whether computing resources for LHC are assured.

Peach: Issue of Computer Center autonomy .vs. GRID the key issue.

Vlada Simak (Czech institutes: Support will continue, particularly
computer

buys at Fermilab and Prague regional center. SAMGRID is operational. The
grants for computing through 2007 will be through a regional center

Procario: (DOE): Glad to hear committments sound strong.

Dugan O'Neil (Canada): Two more institutes added (York, McGill).
WestGrid size will double in two years. In 2006 will start reducing
personnel.

Congratulations: As a result of the several congratulatory comments from
around the room about the accelerator performance, and the impact of the
experiments in the big conferences. Montgomery assured the meeting that
he would convey those congratulations to the Accelerator Division (This
he did that same afternoon.)

Terry: What does lab want from Scruitiny group?

Mont: Wants scrutiny group to ratify that the costs as presented in the
Spreadsheets for operations of the Experiment and of the Computing are
acceptable. In this respect, we would like a ratified spreadsheet in the
standard form which separates the costs chargeable to the collaboration
separated from purely FNAL charges, posted on the web site. In addition,
the Scrutiny Group should ratify the Global Computing Centre estimates.

**Continued Operations/MOUs (Montgomery)**

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.