**CDF International Finance Committee Meeting (April 15, 2005)**

Notes prepared based on originals made by Bob Tschirhart.

Attendance: Bedeschi (INFN-CDF), Appel (FNAL-Directorate), Belforte
(INFN-CDF), Guibellino (INFN), Mueller (CDF-Karlsruhe), DongHee Kim
(Korea-CDF), YoungKee Kim(CDF), Kotwal (CDF-Duke/FNAL), Lancaster
(UK-CDF)-video, Montgomery (FNAL-directorate), Peach (PPARC)-video,
Procario (DOE), Riska (Finland-CDF), Ristori (CDF), Roser (CDF-PPD),
Sexton(FNAL/CDF/CD), Snider (FNAL-CD), Strait (FNAL-PPD), PK Teng
(CDF-Taiwan), Tschirhart (FNAL-CD), Trischuk (Canada-CDF), Jim Whitmore
(NSF).

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, in particular its Chair exchanged information with the CDF
Management before the IFC Meeting.

**Montgomery -- Welcome/News. **

Mont commented that this is the mid-year meeting and that the focus is
on status, of the experiment, of the collaboration and of the
contributions with a view toward the future. Fermilab was recently
reviewed by a strong DOE committee. Things are going well but there are
risks associated with budget projections which are flat in dollars. The
corollary, if we are to be able to purchase materials is that staff
drops by 4% every year. Of course he hopes that we can convince the US
government otherwise.

Paolo Giubellino asked about the SWF projections, retirements, and
possible savings of dollars by replacing older staff with younger staff.
His is a second order effect because there is no hard retirement age.

Mont discussed progress on university MOUs. Review cycle will be two
years.

Mueller: What is the impact of Fermilab taking a leadership role in ILC?
Mont, it\'s an issue. But first steps have been taken with technolgy
decision and there may now be a synergy between the different possible
directions at Fermilab.

**Luciano Ristori CDF Status**

Congratulated the accelerator for its performance. He noted that 6 fb-1
by 2009 is a factor of ten to go.

Review of upgrades, offline. Close to \"final\" version of offline.
Progress on infrastructure, SAM deployed to faciliate GRID computing.

Discussion of how to design trigger tables to exploit/survive high

luminosity. Means some physics will be prescaled. Discussion of
university

MOUs. Encountering pressure from LHC. Discussion of \"volunteers\"

throughout collaboration filling effort holes created by institutions
not able to meet all MOU responsibilities.

27 papers published or submitted, 41 under review. Goal of 40 published
papers in 2005. The strategy is to publish papers based on the data up
to the 2004 shutdown. INFN reps were not overwhelmed by this strategy.

Discussion of Bs & top measurements.

In the Bs mixing group there are 70active participants and 24 PhD
students! Semileptonic and hadronic Bs

channels limit DMs to more than 7.9 ps-1 (95% CL). Current world limit
is 14ps-1, expectation is around 19-21 ps-1. Need x10 sensitivity. Some
from luminosity, some from better analysis. In principle as much as a
factor of x4 in analysis improvements is possible.

Discussion of improved top quark mass measurment. An informa stab at a
new world average of top quark mass yields a Higgs central mass about 80
Gev\....pushed farther into the region excluded by LEP (\<114 GeV).
Discussion of top quark mass systematics between channels. Discussion of
Jet-Energy scale systematics.

**Rob Roser: CDF Operations**

Discussion of various operational strategies and tactics.

25% of TDC modules modified, processed by PREP, and integrated into
operations where they are running well.

750 pb-1 of 900 pb-1 delivered on tape.

Discussion of COT recovery.

Silicon running at about 88% coverage.

Discussion of kicker prefires.

Discussion of impacts due to holes in silcon coverage.

Budgets from PPD, they essentially received what they requested for M&S
and Guests and Visitors. PPD computing: \$400K (online, etc), \$100K is
core licensing & maintenance.

For contributions, Rob prefers a clean scheme where Fermilab generates

invoices\...will engender discussion.

Last round of MOUs 2001-2005. It is looking good for MOUs to 2007.

\"Offline computing\" is listed in the contents of MOUs.

Offsite CAF-like computing (maintinence & infrastructure & computing HW)
is intended to be captured in MOUs.

**Ken Peach** observes: FNAL has tough SWF times ahead\... asks can
responsibilities be transferred out of FNAL? PPARC announcement of
funding recently not so great. \"PPARC welcomed annoucement, not
contents.\" Peach expects flat, not flat-flat through the out years.

Rob indicated that \"Can operate at with less resources, but will cost
running efficiency.\" What is the perturbation theory of this?

**Bob T.** pinged the committee and experiment on this, and there was
significant push-back that the operation is as lean as possible
now\...and that there is no viable pertubation theory at this operating
point. Now operating with 5-6% running deadtime at 1.5e32. Looking for
people to run operational shifts\...not necessarily experts.

**Pat Lukens: Discussion of upgrades.**

Luminosity profile projects x7-x10.

L3 processing power needed by 2007 (x3 luminosity & x2 event size).
RunIIb L3 spec is 40 MB/sec. With CSL spec this grows to 60 MB/sec (says
YKK).

There was some discussion of whether the trigger table had been
scrutinised.

**Rick Snider: CDF Offline Computing**

()

New tape technology not arriving till late 2005.

They are concentrating on the strategy of getting to a single-pass
production. This is not factored into cost projection table. Discussion
of possible non-linearities in compute projection.

Non-linear fraction is +30% between 10e31 and 10e32 (Ashutosh).

Remote disk will be an issue with Grid deployments.

Showed M&S 1.8M request for FY05. Allocated 1.26M. Biggest hit is

in tape drives. Starting to work on procurements now. Extending

retirement cycle to 4 years.

Could not accept all contributions to CAF in past 6 months.

1 THz now onsite from contributions.

Future? Problem for small institutions. Sum of many small contributions
expected to be 0.3 THz.

**Ken Peach:** Disk not following Moore\'s law?

RS: Not seeing a a dramatic effect. Dual core technology may mitigate
Moore\'s law softening.

\$500K shortfall at Fermilab will mean we miss target.

**Igor Sfiligoi: Remote Computing**

)

Nine dedicated dCAFs 2.3 THz, 80 TB. Exploiting 1.1 THz at CNAF.

FNAL CPU utilization close to 100%.

Remote sites are mostly local users. Discussion that the opportunistic
LHC window of under-utilized resources. One year? 2-3 years?

**Ken Peach:** Not stable in long term.

**Paulo Giubellino**: A fixed fraction (base) is allocated to CDF.

**Stefano Belforte:** CDF is not assuming that all or even bulk will be
opportunistic\...a base is required. LCG based CAF under development,
not ready for users\...no effort yet on OSG version(?).

**Discussion with Funding agencies:**

**Dan Riska(Finnish):** Appreciate reduced security (ease of physical
access).

**Ken Peach (UK-PPARC):** Impressed with progress, CDF doing remarkably
well, there is a good approach to the future program. Results from
previous investment. The following are comments, not criticism. Both
Fermilab and UK entering a period of strain on budgets, this is
particularly bad timing for Moore\'s law to fall off\...predicts
difficutly for LHC.

**Thomas Mueller(Germany):** LHC computing will soon overwhelm LHC
resources that may now be available\...don\'t link too tightly. At the
latest in 2008 CDF will need to be independent.

**Nando Ferroni(INFN):** The experiment is doing remarkably well.
Worried about the risk of manpower rolloff threatens a lot of physics.
There is no problem with INFN supporting the physicists if they are
staying. For computing, this will be the last year when CDF can ask for
serious additional resources from CNAF; CNAF is buying for Italian Tier
1.

**Mont:** Along as doubling time remains reasonable then one might hope
the physicists will stay:

**Jim Whitmore (NSF):** NSF does not contribute a lot to CDF. Their main
problems are with the manpower. Manpower if flat. Not making explicit
statements about moving to LHC, but of course there is an implicit
constraint due to unitarity. They have put an extra post-doc in CDF for
three years.

**Paolo Giubellino (Scrutiny-INFN): ** My notes indicate a comment from
Paolo???