# Presentation: 740537

## U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project

**John Huth **
**Harvard University **
- PCAP Review 21 May 2001

## Topics for Discussion

- Budget for FY 02-03
- Balance between software and facilities
- International ATLAS plans
- Grid efforts
- Division of labor between software and facilities: is this correct?
- Plans:
- Integration with efforts (PPDG, iVDGL, other experiments, EU grids...)
- Is the workplan as coherent is it can be under the circumstances?

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Updates

- NSF/DOE funding less than profile given by agencies
- I.e. not only did our “compromise budget” not materialize, the agency guidance didn’t materialize
- Borrowing $500k from construction project
- Database effort at ANL funded at level for 01
- I.e. we took recommendation to fun this effort
- PPDG funding just approved
- NSF internal issues – uncertainty in amount of funds/strings attached
- iVDGL (GriPhyN II) proposal submitted
- Funds 2 prototype tier 2 facilities

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Locally

- BNL
- Facilities understaffed compared to plan 38% of plan currently
- Base program support for software (working with Torre) didn’t materialize – may be stabilize
- ANL
- Funded at current level
- LBNL
- $80k short of plan – may bridge with NSF funds

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## International ATLAS

- Database product decision delayed one year
- Requires detailed comparison, using MDC 0
- Commensurate with CMS delay in plans
- Evaluation of Oracle 9i under serious discussion
- Boundary layer interface of ATLAS alleviates this as a major problem
- Group issues still
- Possibly competing framework from Amako/dell Aqua
- Ostensibly a framework for fast evaluation of Geant 4
- Software agreement for framework dragging on
- Athena is getting more use in mainstream
- XML choice for geometry proving cumbersome

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## ATLAS Detector/Task matrix

|  | Offline Coordinator | Reconstruction | Simulation | Database |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Chair | N. McCubbin | D. Rousseau | K. Amako | D. Malon/
 R.D. Schaffer |
| Inner Detector | D. Barberis | D. Rousseau | F. Luehring | S. Bentvelsen |
| Liquid Argon | J. Collot | S. Rajagopalan | M. Leltchouk | S. Simion/
R. Sobie |
| Tile Calorimeter | A. Solodkov | F. Merritt | A. Solodkov | T. LeCompte |
| Muon | G. Poulard | J.F. Laporte | A. Rimoldi | S. Goldfarb |
| LVL 2 Trigger/ Trigger DAQ | S. George | S. Tapprogge | T. Hansl-Kosenecki | H. P. Beck |
| Event Filter | V. Vercesi | F. Touchard |  |  |

**Physics Coordinator: F.Gianotti      Chief Architect: ****D.Quarrie**

- From N. McCubbin’s talk

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Major Milestones

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Budget issues

- Uncertain FY 02-03  budget – no updates from agencies, only worries
- Assumptions: take NSF/DOE guidance for 02/03
- Subtract off iVDGL
- Earmarked for Proto-tier 2 facilities
- (can provide some core effort nonetheless)
- Allocate PPDG funds, but subtract this off as well
- Rationale: agencies, strapped, consider this their contribution
- Comment: grid activities become more of a burden – in effect an unfunded mandate

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Initial Pass using guidance

- Category            FY 02        FY03
-  Physics                197            202
- SW                   2,450         2,871
- Fac.                  1,289         2,252
- Support                 74             140
- Reserve                   0             547
-  Total                  4,010        6,314

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Subtracting out iVDGL

- Category    FY 02    FY 03
-  Physics      197          202
- SW           2150       2536
- Fac           1139       1989
- Support        74         140
- Reserve         0          547
-  Total        3560        5414

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Impact: Software

- FY 02
- Cutback essentially at 2 FTE, but probably can maintain major efforts (Database, control/framework) at adquate levels
- FY 03
- Basically on plan
- Issues:
- Grid related “mandates”, efficacy of collaborations like GriPhyN, iVDGL at supplying resources
- Mission creep in International ATLAS

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## BNL’s Role in Software (Slide from BNL DoE review)

- Absolutely critical
- Co-location of S/W manager and Regional Center
- Regional center is main U.S. user support facility
- Makes the difference between simple physical plant and a functional center
- This is a critical aspect of the future of the U.S. HEP
- Base program support for Torre Wenaus is essential
- C.f. contrast with CMS
- This is a critical aspect of the future of BNL Physics
- Base support for Torre is essential

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Impact: Facilities

- More severe
- Shortfalls
- 01	received 38% of request
- 02	receive 71%
- 03	receive 83%
- Reduce hardware, staffing capabilities
- Delay ramp by one year, in effect

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Tier 1 Facility Capacity

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Tier 1 Facility Staffing

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Impact of delay in Regional Center

- Disk storage capabilities delayed by one year
- Question – projection of usage in FY 02-03
- Build it and they will come?
- Grid activities – support
- Mock data challenge 2  in FY 03
- Comment on MDC 2: test of complexity major issue – not total capacity
- Comment from N. McCubbin – level of BNL facility for FY 03 is likely to be “adequate”, but we need to work this out in more detail

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Grid activities

- Multiple sources – PPDG, GriPhyN, iVDGL, EU grid
- Division between facilities and software – change from November – now projected out into WBS
- Broad areas:
- Software does incorporation of grid tools
- E.g. grid enabling Athena
- Facilities does instrumentation of the “grid” and implementation/deployment of software

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Action items from last review

- Rec 2-1        The committee congratulates U.S. ATLAS for the progress made since January 2000.   **OK, thanks!**
- Rec 2-2        The committee recommends that U.S. ATLAS proposes ATHENA as the baseline architecture and framework for a decision to be taken as soon as practicable and the outcome of that decision should be endorsed by the Computing Steering Board (CSB). A clear position is required concerning the support for multiple languages.   **ARC has dragged on and on...it appears to be finishing up, but it is worrisome**

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Action items con’t

- The committee recommends to proceed rapidly with the hiring of at least two persons. We endorse the choices made on the two high priority tasks. We encourage the reassessment of the data management strategy in collaboration with other experiments. **DONE! Oracle 9i discussion slated for the summer**
- The Quality Control group should be strengthened to be able to put a realistic quality assurance program in place. Priority should be given to applying quality control procedures to the framework, since this is used in every data processing application. **See Torre’s report – shortly after review this was done**

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Action Items (con’t)

- Rec 2-1        We recommend to unify the ATLAS PBS with the U.S. ATLAS WBS as soon as possible. Some areas need to be developed in more detail. **Done**
- Rec 2-2        We endorse the plans developed by U.S. ATLAS to strengthen the ATHENA team, to hire with high priority people to work on databases and to increase the presence of U.S. developers at CERN. These plans should be executed without further delay.** Have presence at CERN (Tull, Marino), but hires depend on NSF funding (no word on this still!!!!)**

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Action Items

- 	     The committee supports the investigation of strategies for reducing the trigger rate, coupled with studies of the potential loss of physics these strategies may imply.**  In progress, but far from finished.**
- The committee recommends that an additional 1 FTE be identified to adequately provide for the support of interfaces to Monte Carlo codes. It should be born in mind, however, that such a contribution implies an on-going maintenance burden which would presumably require a formal commitment in the form of a software agreement.  **Still in the plan – funding issue of facilities/physics/software**

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Action Items

- The committee recommends that the goals of each MDC be clearly articulated and that a specific coordinator should be identified for each MDC. The named coordinator would coordinate the activities of the MDC to see that those goals are met – **More guidance on this, but no identified individual yet.  It is recognized that this is a slot to be filled.**
-  The committee recommends that a liaison between ATLAS and CLHEP be identified – **Nothing official, but Ian Hinchliffe is de facto liason **

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Action Items

- It is important to continuously track the sizing estimates of the computing facilities from the Hoffman panel to ensure the minimally required facility will be available for International ATLAS as well as for the U.S. ATLAS physicists. The design is scalable and flexible which we applaud. We recommend an assessment of whether Tier 2 sites are needed, and the optimal number of Tier 2 sites if they are indeed necessary.  **Yes to first part.  Second part: politics, exigencies of NSF funding – however, MONARC simulations are in progress for computing model of ATLAS**

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Action Items

- We recommend the cost figures of the User Facility be revisited to ensure that all integration costs are properly incorporated. Purchases for the RHIC Computing Facility would be a good model to calculate the “total cost of ownership” of the computing facility. The size of the facility seems reasonable, but we are concerned that the amount of CPU for Monte Carlo simulations is so small compared to the total CPU for the facility. **Costs are continually revisited, but note funding issues making this a pragmatic issue.**

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Action Items

- We find the U.S. ATLAS GRID work interesting, although perhaps not vital to U.S. ATLAS computing. However, since this work has great potential, we enthusiastically encourage ATLAS to pursue this work as long as it does not compromise the Software and Computing Project. ** This has been a large issue in recent months – and has grown in the effort allocated to understanding it.  **
- Although we feel that Tier 2 centers are an integral part of the U.S. ATLAS computing model, nonetheless there are clear priorities for U.S. ATLAS and the funding ramp up of Tier 2 centers in hardware and personnel should not jeopardize the Tier 1 center hardware or personnel funding, or the success of the overall software and computing project. **Agency issue – funds cannot be interchanged.**

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Action Items

- U.S. ATLAS should clarify with the computing coordinator the role of the ARC and suggest that executive decisions on setting priorities should come form the computing coordinator and not the ARC directly. ** Believe me, we try.  An ARC member quite because of this was not being done – a runaway committee.  This may be drawing to a close.**
- We recommend that U.S. ATLAS work vigorously with the funding agencies on a faster ramp-up in the funding profile as well as a higher level of funding. ** Yes, we tried, and got stiffed, multiple times. We continue to try.**

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Action Items

- We recommend that U.S. ATLAS take a critical look at the computing requirements, equipment needs and unit costs. A bottom-up cost assessment needs to be validated against actual experience to ensure its accuracy. **Collaboration with U.S. CMS on common costing – this is being done.**
- We recommend that U.S. ATLAS review the cost books for correctness and consistency as soon as possible. **An ongoing process.   Errors have been found and corrected, issues of associating funds with individuals needs to be sorted out (I.e. we have “generic” categories that don’t always correspond to salaries).**

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000

## Summary

- Battles:
- Organization of ATLAS still an issue (ARC report, etc.)
- Funding levels
- Strawman budget – leaves facilities short handed – is this the right direction?
- Grid activities create much attention – but is, in effect, doing more with less  (comment on GriPhyN)

- J. Huth        U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Status

- November  14-17, 2000