# Presentation: 129595

## U.S. ATLAS SoftwareWBS 2.2

**S. Rajagopalan**
**July 8, 2003**
**DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing**

## Outline

- Organizational Issues
- ATLAS & U.S. ATLAS software
- Current Affairs
- Current resource allocation including LCG contributions
- Major milestones met
- FY04 Planning
- Planning, coordination with international ATLAS
- Near term milestones
- Priorities and request for FY04
- Conclusions

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## Organizational Issues

** **

## New Computing Organization

**x**

**x**

**x**

**x**

**x**

**x**

**x**

**x**

**x**

**x**

**x**

**x**

**x**

**x**

**x**

**x**

**x**

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## Computing Management Board

- Coordinate & Manage computing activities
- Set priorities and take executive decisions
- Computing Coordinator (chair)
- Software Project Leader (D. Quarrie, LBNL)
- TDAQ Liaison
- Physics Coordinator
- International Computing Board Chair
- GRID, Data Challenge and Operations Coordinator
- Planning & Resources Coordinator (T. Lecompte, ANL)
- Data Management Coordinator (D. Malon, ANL)
- Meets bi-weekly

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## Software Project Management Board

- Coordinate the coherent development of software
- (core, applications and software support)
- Software Project Leader (chair) D. Quarrie
- Simulation coordinator
- Event Selection, Reconstruction & Analysis Tools coordinator
- Core Services Coordinator (D. Quarrie)
- Software Infrastructure Team Coordinator
- LCG Applications Liaison (T. Wenaus, BNL)
- Physics Liaison
- TDAQ Liaison
- Sub-System: Inner Detector, Liquid Argon, Tile, Muon coordinators
- Liquid Argon: S. Rajagopalan (BNL), Muon: S. Goldfarb (U Mich)
- Meets bi-weekly

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## US ATLAS Software Organization

_**Software Project (WBS 2.2)**_
**S. Rajagopalan**

_**Core Services (WBS 2.2.2)**_
**D. Quarrie**

_**Data Management (WBS 2.2.3)**_
**D. Malon**

_**Application Software (WBS 2.2.4)**_
**F. Luehring**

_**Software Support (WBS 2.2.5)**_
**A. Undrus**

-  US ATLAS software WBS scrubbed, consistent with ATLAS
-  Resource Loading and Reporting established at Level 4
-  Major change compared to previous WBS:
- Production and Grid Tools & Services moved under Facilities

**Coordination (WBS 2.2.1)**

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## Current Affairs

** **

## WBS 2.2.1 Coordination

- David Quarrie (LBNL) :
- ATLAS Software Project Manager
- ATLAS Chief Architect
- U.S. ATLAS Core Services Level 3 Manager
- David Malon (ANL) :
- ATLAS Data Management Coordinator
- U.S. ATLAS Data Management Level 3 Manager
- Other U.S. Atlas personnel playing leading roles in ATLAS:
- S. Goldfarb (Muon), T. LeCompte (Planning),
- S. Rajagopalan (LAr), T. Wenaus (LCG Liaison)

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## WBS 2.2.2 Core Services(D. Quarrie)

- P. Calafiura (LBNL) :
- Framework support, Event Merging, EDM infrastructure
- M. Marino (LBNL) :
- SEAL plug-in and component support
- W. Lavrijsen (LBNL) :
- User interfaces, Python scripting, binding to dictionary, integration with GANGA.
- C. Leggett (LBNL) :
- Conditions infrastructure, G4 Service integration in Athena, Histogramming support. Redirected to other tasks in FY04
- H. Ma, S. Rajagopalan (BNL) (Base Program) : EDM infrastructure
- C. Tull (LBNL) (PPDG) : Athena Grid Integration coordination

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## WBS 2.2.2 Key Accomplishments

- Python based user interfaces to CMT, Athena, and ROOT
- Interval of Validity Service to allow time-based retrieval of conditions data into transient memory
- Support for plug-in manager in LCG/SEAL
- gcc-3.2 support, multithreading support, pile-up support.
- Services to upload persistent addresses for on-demand retrieval of data objects
- Common Material Definition across sub-systems, creation of G4 geometries from this description demonstrated

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## WBS 2.2.3 Data Management(D. Malon)

- S. Vanyachine (ANL) :
- Database Services & Servers, NOVA database
- Kristo Karr (ANL) :
- New Hire, replaces S. Eckmann
- Collections, Catalogs and Metadata
- Valeri Fine (BNL) :
- Integration of Pool with Athena
- David Adams (BNL) :
- Event datasets
- Victor Perevotchikov (BNL) :
- POOL evaluation, foreign object persistent in ROOT.

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## WBS 2.2.3 Key Accomplishments

- ATLAS specific
- Athena-Pool conversion service prototype
- Will be available to end user in July (tied to POOL release)
- Support for NOVA database
- (primary source for detector description for simulation)
- Support for interval of validity
- NOVA automatic object generation
- Data additions, embedded MYSQL support for G4
- Authentications, access to databases behind firewalls
- LCG contributions
- Delivered POOL collections/metadata WP interface, doc & unit tests
- Delivered relational implementation of POOL explicit collections
- Delivered MYSQL and related package support
- Foreign object persistence

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## WBS 2.2.4 Application Software(F. Luehring)

- Geant3 simulation support
- Calorimeter (LAr & Tile) software incl. calibration
- Pixel, TRT detector simulation & digitization
- Muon reconstruction and database
- Hadronic calibration, tau and jet reconstruction
- electron-gamma reconstruction
- High Level Trigger software
- Physics analysis with new software

- BNL

- ANL, BNL, Nevis Labs, U. Arizona, U. Chicago, U. Pittsburgh, SMU

- Indiana U., LBNL

- BNL, Boston U., LBNL, U. Michigan

- U. Arizona, U. Chicago, ANL, BNL, LBNL

- BNL, Nevis Labs, SMU

- U. Wisconsin

- U. S. ATLAS

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## WBS 2.2.5 Software Support(A. Undrus)

- Release and maintenance of ATLAS and all associated external software (including LCG software, LHCb Gaudi builds) at the Tier 1 Facility.
- Deployment of a nightly build system at BNL, CERN and now used by LCG as well.
- Testing releases with new compilers (gcc-3.2, SUN 5.2).
- Software Infrastructure Team : Forum for discussions of issues related to support of ATLAS software and associated tools. A. Undrus is a member of this body.

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## US FY03 contribution in international context

|  Category | US (FTE) | Non-US (FTE) | Total
(FTE) | LCG
(FTE) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Framework | 3.25 | 0.75 | 4.0 | 1.3 |
| EDM | 0.5P + 0.5B | 0 | 1.0 | 0.0 |
| Det. Description | 0.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 |
| Data Management | 4.6 | 4.0 | 8.6 | 1.2 |
| Graphics | 0.0 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.0 |
| SW Infrastructure | 0.7 | 2.95 | 3.45 | 0.1 |
| Total | 9.05P + 0.5B | 8.95 | 18.5 | 2.6 |

*** Excludes David Quarrie & Torre Wenaus coordination role contributions**

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## LCG Application Component

- US effort in SEAL : 1.0 FTE (FY03)
- Plug-in manager (M. Marino (0.75 FTE, LBNL)
- Internal use by POOL now, Full integration into Athena Q3 2003
- Scripting Services (W. Lavjrisen; 0.25 FTE, LBNL)
- Python support and integration
- US effort in POOL : 1.2 FTE (FY03)
- Principal responsibility in POOL collections and metadata WP
- D. Malon, K. Karr, S. Vanyachine (0.5 FTE) [ANL]
- POOL Datasets  (D. Adams, 0.2 FTE, BNL)
- Common Data Management Software
- V. Perevoztchikov, ROOT I/O foreign object persistence (0.3 FTE, BNL]
- POOL mysql package and server configurations (ANL, 0.2 FTE)

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## US ATLAS contribution in LCG

** ****Contribution to Application Area only**
** ****Snapshot (June 2003) contribution**

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## ATLAS interactions with LCG

- Lack of manpower has made ATLAS participation weaker than we would like
- Little or no effort available to :
- Participate in design discussions of POOL & SEAL omponents for which we are not directly responsible
- Evaluate and test new features
- Write ATLAS acceptance tests for POOL releases and for specifically requested  features
- Ensure that ATLAS priorities are kept prominent in LCG plans (ATLAS does this, but our voice has at times seemed not as loud as that of our sisters)
- Less development contributed in the collections/metadata work package (for which we are responsible) than we would have liked, though this should improve soon with recent hire at ANL

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## FY04 Plans

## International ATLAS Planning

- ATLAS has a planning officer: T. LeCompte (ANL)
- The current focus is on defining the WBS and establishing coherent short term plans.
- US WBS used as a starting point!
- Responsibility in monitoring all deliverables including non-ATLAS components (such as LCG) and assessing the impact from any delays.
- Responsibility for establishing the software agreements and scope with international ATLAS institutions.

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## ATLAS Computing Timeline

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## Major near term milestones

- July to Dec 2003: SEAL/POOL/PI deployment by LCG
- Sept. 2003: Geant 4 based simulation release
- Dec. 2003: Validate Geant4 release for DC2 and test-beam
- Dec. 2003: First release of full ATLAS software chain using LCG components and Geant4 for use in DC2 and combined test-beam.
- Spring 2004: Combined Test-Beam runs.
- Spring 2004:  Data Challenge 2
- Principal means by which ATLAS will test and validate its proposed Computing Model
- Dec. 2004: Computing Model Document released

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## U.S. scope issues

- 2003-2004:  Develop sufficient core software infrastructure to deploy and exercise a reasonable prototype of the ATLAS Computing Model
- ATLAS is quite far from being able to do this
- Now is not the time to sacrifice core software development
- Doing so puts the TDR and hence the readiness for LHC turn-on at risk.
- U.S was asked to lead the effort in coordinating, developing and deploying the ATLAS architecture (from ground-zero in 1999).
- Leadership roles in Software Project, Architecture and Data Management.  + major responsibilities - but minimal resources to work with.
- We are responsible to ensure the success of ATLAS architecture.
- Efforts are continuing to be made in encouraging and recruiting non-US institutions & US universities to contribute to core and leveraging from LCG.

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## Core Software & Physicists

- The presence of a strong core team in the U.S. has helped U.S. physicists make significant contributions to reconstruction, simulation and physics analysis. – in turn allowing them to play an influential role in the overall ATLAS software program.
- Examples from LAr, InDet simulation and Calo, Muon reconstruction, event generation infrastructure, egamma, tau, jet reconstruction, calibration, **...**
- Conversely, this has also allowed U.S. physicists to provide valuable feedback to core software and in some cases contribute to the core development
- Examples are the Event Data Model and the Detector Description efforts.

- This harmony is necessary to allow U.S. to develop the necessary
- expertise and effectively contribute to the physics at turn-on.

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## Incremental Effort: Core Services

- Redirections:
- C. Leggett (0.5 Calibration Infrastructure to EDM)
- M. Marino (0.25 Training to SEAL/Framework)
- Additions (prioritized):
- + 1.0 FTE in Detector Description, WBS 2.2.2.3 (U. Pittsburgh)
- New Hire to work with J. Boudreau
- + 0.5 FTE in Analysis Tools support, WBS 2.2.2.5
- New Hire or redirection of effort
- + 1.0 FTE in Graphics, WBS 2.2.2.4 (UC Santa Cruz)
- Existing person (G. Taylor) who is currently making significant contributions to ATLANTIS (Atlas Graphics Package).

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## Detector Description

- ATLAS lacked a Detector Description Model
- Numbers hardwired in reconstruction, no commonality with simulation.
- Along came Joe Boudreau (U. Pittsburgh) CDF experience
- Successfully designed, developed and deployed a prototype model for both material and readout geometry. We encouraged this!
- Automatically handles alignments, Optimized for memory (5 MB for describing ATLAS geometry), Not coupled to visualization software.
- Currently resident at Oxford, helping sub-systems migrate.
- No surprise, the work load on Joe has increased
- Critical items include Material Integration Service, Configuration Utility, Identifiers and Transient Model for readout geometry

- Important to support such university based initiatives to core software

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## Incremental Effort: Data management

- Our plan has always been to sustain 6.5 FTE effort.
- Recent Cuts in 2002 ...
- Ed Frank, U. Chicago
- BNL Hire : job offered but retracted due to last minute budget cuts
- ... have impacted our ability to deliver the promised
- Unable to save and restore objects from persistent event store
- No ATLAS interfaces to Event collections, catalogs and metadata
-     Approximate allocation of new effort:
- + 1.0 FTE Collections, Catalogs, and Metadata (WBS 2.2.3.5)
- + 1.0 FTE Common Data Management Software (WBS 2.2.3.2)
- + 0.5 FTE Event Store (WBS 2.2.3.3)
- Redirect from WBS 2.2.3.1 & 2.2.3.5 (0.5 each) if no funds available.

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## Impact of Insufficient Funds

- -1.0 FTE in Graphics
- Impacts our ability to have any reasonable visualization software for test-beam or Data Challenge 2.
- - 0.5 FTE in Analysis Tools
- Impacts our ability to deliver a framework for analysis
- - 1.0 FTE in Data Management
- 0.5 FTE for supporting Non-Event Data Management.
- 0.5 FTE in supporting basic database services
- - 1.0 FTE in Detector Description
- Jeopardizes our ability to deliver key components including Material Service Integration, common geometry for simulation and reconstruction,
- - 1.0 FTE in Common Data Management Software
- Impacts contributions to POOL and integration aspects, schema management
- - 0.5 FTE in Event Store
- Support for a persistent EDM and Event Selection

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## FY04 Ramp-Up Cost

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## WBS-Personnel Summary

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003

## Conclusions

- Request for a + 5 FTE in FY04:
- 2.5 FTE to bring Data Management to its intended Level of Effort
- 1 FTE university based for Detector Description
- 0.5 FTE for contribution to Analysis Tools
- 1 FTE university based for support Graphics
- Guidance given for FY04 can handle only 1.5 FTE
- U.S. ATLAS LCG contribution will be 4.0 FTE in FY04
- 2.0 FTE each in Core Services and Data Management WP

- S. Rajagopalan

- DOE/NSF Review of LHC Computing, 8 July 2003