# Presentation: 686136

** ****Erik Gottschalk****3 November, 2005**

** **

## Overview

**Charge for our task force**
**Task force members & advisory committee members**
**What we have been (or will be) working on:**
** ****Requirements**
** ****Review recommendations**
** ****Site visits**
** ****WBS**
** ****FY06 budget**
** ****LHC@FNAL space**
** ****Computing security**
** ****Status**

## Charge

- Charge from Fermilab Director Mike Witherell (April 2005):
- Define the high level requirements for a remote operations center for commissioning and operations of CMS and the LHC accelerator.
- Develop cost and schedule estimates for the implementation of a remote operations center.
- I would like the committee to prepare a preliminary report by the end of July 2005, describing the requirements and scope of a remote operations center located at Fermilab.
- The committee should prepare its final report, including a resource loaded schedule, by the end of 2005.

## LHC@FNAL Task Force

- Erik Gottschalk – Chair (FNAL-PPD)
- Kurt Biery (FNAL-CD)
- Elvin Harms (FNAL-AD)
- Shuichi Kunori (U. of Maryland)
- Mike Lamm (FNAL-TD)
- Mike Lamont (CERN-AB)
- Kaori Maeshima (FNAL-PPD)
- Patty McBride (FNAL-CD)
- Elliott McCrory (FNAL-AD)
- Suzanne Gysin (FNAL-CD)
- Jean Slaughter (FNAL-AD)
- Al Thomas (FNAL-CD)

## LHC@FNAL Advisory Committee

- Alvin Tollestrup (FNAL-PPD)
- Austin Ball (CERN)
- Avi Yagil (FNAL-PPD)
- Bob Mau (FNAL-AD)
- Dan Green (FNAL-PPD)
- David Rice (Cornell)
- Dragoslav Lazic (Boston U.)
- Frank Glege (CERN)
- Hans Falk Hoffmann (CERN)
- Hermann Schmickler (CERN)
- Jim Kowalkowski (FNAL-CD)
- Jim Patrick (FNAL-AD)
- Joel Butler (FNAL-PPD)

- Katherine Copic (U. of Mich.)
- Lothar Bauerdick (FNAL-CD)
- Margaret Votava (FNAL-CD)
- Mike Church (FNAL-AD)
- Mike Syphers (FNAL-AD)
- Mike Tartaglia (FNAL-TD)
- Roberto Saban (CERN)
- Roger Bailey (CERN)
- Sandor Feher (FNAL-TD)
- Steve Peggs (BNL)
- Vladimir Shiltsev (FNAL-AD)
- Wesley Smith (U. of Wisc.)
- William Trischuk (U. of Toronto)

## Requirements Document

** ****Requirements Document reviewed**
**July 21, 2005**
**Revisions made in response to recommendations from reviewers**
** ****Document submitted to FNAL Director**
**July 29, 2005**
** ****Meeting with Pier Oddone August 1****st**
**Enthusiastic response**
**...“****comprehensive document”**
**Discussed space for LHC@FNAL (FESS)**
** ****Presentation to CERN AB Management**
**August 8, 2005 (presented by Mike Lamont)**
**“...****project should receive some support from CERN but in view of limited benefits to us, the level of activity should be kept to a bare minimum.”****	**

- Erik’s comment: document is in good shape, but needs some more work.

## Review Recommendations

**All of the material for the review and recommendations ****from review committee are available on our website:**
**	****	****	**_**[http://](http://home.fnal.gov/~eeg/remop.html)**__**[home.fnal.gov/~eeg/remop.html](http://home.fnal.gov/~eeg/remop.html)**_
**Two of the seven recommendations:**
**#5: There should be a strong requirement that the Remote Operations Centre should maintain to the greatest extent possible ****consistency in hardware and software**** with CERN and CMS.**
**#6: More work needs to be done on the details of how this facility would be used... The project team should ****develop an operations model soon for both CMS and LHC**** that explains how the personnel at the Remote Operations Centre will interact with CERN and CMS staff (and members of the LHC community in North America).**

- Erik’s comment: despite good progress on the model, I don’t see this getting done soon.

## Site Visits

- Completed site visits:
- TRECC (Dupage Airport – near Fermilab)
- Gemini Project remote control room (Hilo, HI)
- Jefferson Lab control room (Newport News, VA)
- Hubble Space Telescope & STScI (Baltimore, MD)
- National Ignition Facility control room (Livermore, CA)
- General Atomics (San Diego, CA)
- Upcoming site visits (see Suzanne’s talk):
- SNS control room (Oak Ridge, TN)
- Argonne APS control room (Argonne, IL)

- Erik’s comment: site visits have been VERY useful as we develop our plans.

## WBS

- We are just now beginning to work on the WBS itself.
- Suzanne is evaluating our needs for participation in LHC.
- Kurt is beginning to evaluate our needs for participation in CMS(CMS KBook?  PVSS?)
- Gary’s work on the layout of LHC@FNAL is needed to developcost estimates for construction (FESS).
- Site visits have been useful to see what modern control rooms look like, and issues that are dealt with during the design.
- The 11th floor remote operations center is expected to give usfirsthand experience with remote participation in CMS & LHC.

- Erik’s comment: the WBS is where most of our effort needs to be focused now.

## FY06 Budget

- For FY06 we requested $146K of M&S for travel and R&D expenditures from PPD. We also asked for 2.7 FTEs from CD.
- We reduced our request to $110K after negotiations with PPD.
- In 2 out of 3 budget scenarios our PPD budget is $0.
- CD has reduced our FTE request to 0.7 FTEs.

- Erik’s comment: FY06 does not look good for us.

## LHC@FNAL Space

- See Elvin’s talk...

- Erik’s comment: I believe we are making very good progress on LHC@FNALspace considerations, but we also need to begin getting cost and schedule estimates for the WBS.

## Computing Security

- We need to do a better job of understanding how CERN and FNAL computing security affects LHC@FNAL.
- Can we have LHC@FNAL PCs on .cern.ch instead of .fnal.gov?
- Are CERN Windows Terminal Services enough to get access to data, or do we need other types of “gateways.”
- Do we need direct access to ORACLE databases, perhaps using some form of database replication.

## Status

- We have an excellent start on LHC@FNAL requirements, but additional work is needed before the end of the year.
- We have developed ideas regarding LHC operations, but don’t have anything for CMS. On the other hand, CMS itself doesn’t have an operations model.
- Site visits have been very successful.
- Most of our efforts need to be focused on the WBS.
- We don’t have a budget.
- We have made good progress on space considerations.
- We have much more to learn about CERN & FNAL computing security.