Presentation on theme: "L.Perini1 LCG TDR Un tentativo di presentazione critica Note e commenti di L.Perini e C. Grandi Una prima versione presentata."— Presentation transcript:
22-Settembre-2005CSN1@Napoli L.Perini1 LCG TDR Un tentativo di presentazione critica Note e commenti di L.Perini e C. Grandi Una prima versione presentata referees INFN GRID 9-9 Qualche modifica introdotta da feedback 9-9 Riportati alla fine gli statements preparati da INFN per la discussione LCG-EGEE con management CERN
22-Settembre-2005CSN1@Napoli L.Perini2 Il documento 22EXPERIMENTS’ REQUIREMENTS 2.1Logical Dataflow and Workflow 2.2Event Simulation 2.3Resource Expectations 2.4Baseline Requirements 2.5Online Requirements 2.6Analysis Requirements and Plans 2.7Start-up Scenario 3BASIC LCG ARCHITECTURE 3.1Grid Architecture and Services 3.2Tier-0 Architecture 3.3Tier-1 Architecture 3.4Tier-2 Architecture 4TECHNOLOGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE 4.1EGEE Middleware 4.2Grid Standards and Interoperability 4.3Grid Operations and Regional Centre Service-Level Agreements 4.4Life-Cycle Support – Management of Deployment and Versioning 4.5Fabric Technology — Status and Expected Evolution 4.6Databases – Distributed Deployment 4.7Initial Software Choices at CERN 4.8Initial Hardware Choices at CERN 4.9Hardware Life-Cycle 4.10Costing 4.11Networking 4.12Security 5COMMON APPLICATIONS 5.1High-Level Requirements for LCG Applications Software 5.2Software Architecture 5.3Operating System Platforms 5.4Core Software Libraries 5.5Data Management 5.6Event Simulation 5.7Software Development Infrastructure and Services 5.8Project Organization and Schedule 6EXPERIENCE: PROTOTYPES AND EVALUATIONS 6.1Data Challenges 6.2Service Challenges 6.3ARDA 7PLANS 7.1Baseline Services 7.2Phase-2 Planning 8PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 8.1High-Level Committees: 8.2Participating Institutes 8.3Interactions and Dependencies
22-Settembre-2005CSN1@Napoli L.Perini3 La stesura del TDR EDITORIAL BOARD (LCG, Esperimenti, Tier1) –I. Bird, K. Bos, N. Brook, D. Duellmann, C. Eck, I. Fisk, D. Foster, B. Gibbard, C. Grandi, F. Grey, J. Harvey, A. Heiss, F. Hemmer, S. Jarp, R. Jones, D. Kelsey, J. Knobloch, M. Lamanna, H. Marten, P. Mato Vila, F. Ould-Saada, B. Panzer-Steindel, L. Perini, L. Robertson, Y. Schutz, U. Schwickerath, J. Shiers, T. Wenaus Metodo –Ogni parte assegnata ad 1 o 2 writers –Eliminare dal testo anything “contenzioso” –Cosmesi finale Risultato (mia valutazione) –Alcune parti di testo informativo (magari piatto ma utile) –Planning debole, decisioni non prese (mai discusse), ambiguità –Alcune parti rischiano di essere misleading ( quanto scritto e’ non-falso, ma può occultare problemi) Ma, data la tempistica scelta, era difficile ottenere qualcosa di molto migliore e sopratutto piu’ utile
22-Settembre-2005CSN1@Napoli L.Perini4 Contenuto del talk Survey informazioni rilevanti incluse nel TDR –Riuso slides Jurgen Knobloch LHCC fine giugno quando possibile Indicazione problemi ancora aperti Indicazione di punti a rischio “misleading” –A giudizio mio e/o di Claudio e sulla base anche del feedback avuto in seguito a riunione 9-9 Non esaustivo…prevalentemente in forma di commento alle slides di Jurgen
LCG Slide No. 5 LHC Computing Grid – Technical Design Report 5Jürgen Knobloch, CERN-IT Organizational Structure for Phase 2 LHC Committee–LHCC Scientific Review Computing Resources Review Board-C-RRB Funding Agencies Overview Board-OB Management Board-MB Management of the Project Architects Forum Coordination of Common Applications Grid Deployment Board Coordination of Grid Operation Collaboration Board–CB Experiments and Regional Centres LHC Committee–LHCC Scientific Review Computing Resources Review Board-C-RRB Funding Agencies Overview Board-OB Management Board-MB Management of the Project Architects Forum Coordination of Common Applications Grid Deployment Board Coordination of Grid Operation Collaboration Board–CB Experiments and Regional Centres MB e GDB sono quasi uguali come composizione. MB è grosso per funzionare
22-Settembre-2005CSN1@Napoli L.Perini6 The MB membership includes the LCG Project Leader, the Technical Heads of the Tier-1 centres, the leaders of the major activities managed by the Board, the Computing Co-ordinator of each LHC Experiment, the Chair of the Grid Deployment Board (GDB), a Scientific Secretary and other members as decided from time to time by the Board.. The Grid Deployment Board (GDB) is the forum within the Project where the computing managements of the experiments and the regional computing centres discuss and take, or prepare, the decisions necessary for planning, deploying, and operating the LHC Computing Grid. Its membership includes: as voting members — one person from each country with a regional computing centre providing resources to an LHC experiment (usually a senior manager from the largest such centre in the country), a representative of each of the experiments; as non-voting members — the Computing Co-ordinators of the experiments, the LCG Project Leader, and leaders of formal activities and projects of the Collaboration. The Chair of the GDB is elected by the voting members of the board for a two-year term. The GDB may co-opt additional non-voting members as it deems necessary. The GDB reports to the LCG Management Board which normally meets immediately after the GDB ratifying the decisions prepared by the GDB.
LCG Slide No. 7 LHC Computing Grid – Technical Design Report 7Jürgen Knobloch, CERN-IT Cooperation with other projects Network Services LCG will be one of the most demanding applications of national research networks such as the pan-European backbone network, GÉANT Grid Software Globus, Condor and VDT have provided key components of the middleware used. Key members participate in OSG and EGEE Enabling Grids for E-sciencE (EGEE) includes a substantial middleware activity. Grid Operational Groupings The majority of the resources used are made available as part of the EGEE Grid (~140 sites, 12,000 processors). EGEE also supports Core Infrastructure Centres and Regional Operations Centres. The US LHC programmes contribute to and depend on the Open Science Grid (OSG). Formal relationship with LCG through US-Atlas and US-CMS computing projects. The Nordic Data Grid Facility (NDGF) will begin operation in 2006. Prototype work is based on the NorduGrid middleware ARC. ~Vero! EGEE sembra sullo stesso piano dei providers esterni Vedi next slide
22-Settembre-2005CSN1@Napoli L.Perini8 Grid Operational Groupings The computing resources will be committed by funding agencies through a Memorandum of Understanding, which will specify the capacity to be provided at individual centres. These centres are organized into three major operational groupings: the EGEE Grid, the Open Science Grid, and the Nordic Data Grid Facility. Each of these groups uses a specific base set of middleware tools and has its own Grid operations infrastructure. The body governing the overall operational policy and strategy for the LHC project is the Grid Deployment Board (GDB). This has national representation, usually from the major centre(s) in each country. The GDB will agree on the basic services to be provided at each centre with the aim of providing a consistent environment for each experiment across the different operational groupings. Ma EGEE rischia di non avere un SUO deployment, dato che il management di SA1 è LCG, che deve fare interessi delle 3 GRIDs e non di EGEE
22-Settembre-2005CSN1@Napoli L.Perini9 The EGEE Grid ……… The long-term idea is that EGEE will evolve into an organization that will provide core operation for a science Grid in Europe and perhaps further afield, rather akin to the role of GÉANT in research networking. However, the EGEE project is at present funded only until March 2006. It is expected that the project will be extended for a further period of two years, which means that it would terminate at the beginning of the first full year of LHC operation. It is therefore important that LCG maintains its role in the core operation, and prepares a fall-back plan in the event that the EU-subsidized evolution beyond EGEE does not materialize or does not fulfil LCG's requirements. This is clearly a difficult strategy, with significant risk, but the long-term advantages of a multiscience Grid infrastructure receiving significant non-HEP funding must be taken into account. Maintenance e’ grosso problema long term
LCG Slide No. 10 LHC Computing Grid – Technical Design Report 10Jürgen Knobloch, CERN-IT The Hierarchical Model Tier-0 at CERN Record RAW data (1.25 GB/s ALICE) Distribute second copy to Tier-1s Calibrate and do first-pass reconstruction Tier-1 centres (11 defined) Manage permanent storage – RAW, simulated, processed Capacity for reprocessing, bulk analysis Tier-2 centres (>~ 100 identified) Monte Carlo event simulation End-user analysis Tier-3 Facilities at universities and laboratories Access to data and processing in Tier-2s, Tier-1s Outside the scope of the project
LCG Slide No. 12 LHC Computing Grid – Technical Design Report 12Jürgen Knobloch, CERN-IT The Eventflow Rate [Hz] RAW [MB] ESD rDST RECO [MB] AOD [kB] Monte Carlo [MB/evt] Monte Carlo % of real ALICE HI 100 12.5 2.5250 300100 ALICE pp 100 1 0.044 0.4100 ATLAS 200 1.6 0.5100 220 CMS 150 1.5 0.2550 2100 LHCb 2000 0.025 0.520 50 days running in 2007 10 7 seconds/year pp from 2008 on ~10 9 events/experiment 10 6 seconds/year heavy ion Ovvia, e grande, incertezza….
LCG Slide No. 16 LHC Computing Grid – Technical Design Report 16Jürgen Knobloch, CERN-IT Experiments’ Requirements Single Virtual Organization (VO) across the Grid Standard interfaces for Grid access to Storage Elements (SEs) and Computing Elements (CEs) Need of a reliable Workload Management System (WMS) to efficiently exploit distributed resources. Non-event data such as calibration and alignment data but also detector construction descriptions will be held in data bases read/write access to central (Oracle) databases at Tier-0 and read access at Tier-1s with a local database cache at Tier-2s Analysis scenarios and specific requirements are still evolving Prototype work is in progress (ARDA) Online requirements are outside of the scope of LCG, but there are connections: Raw data transfer and buffering Database management and data export Some potential use of Event Filter Farms for offline processing Scalabilità dell’accesso a DB non garantita: possibile problema Finora nessun test reale a scala significativa
LCG Slide No. 17 LHC Computing Grid – Technical Design Report 17Jürgen Knobloch, CERN-IT Architecture – Grid services Storage Element Mass Storage System (MSS) (CASTOR, Enstore, HPSS, dCache, etc.) Storage Resource Manager (SRM) provides a common way to access MSS, independent of implementation File Transfer Services (FTS) provided e.g. by GridFTP or srmCopy Computing Element Interface to local batch system e.g. Globus gatekeeper. Accounting, status query, job monitoring Virtual Organization Management Virtual Organization Management Services (VOMS) Authentication and authorization based on VOMS model. Grid Catalogue Services Mapping of Globally Unique Identifiers (GUID) to local file name Hierarchical namespace, access control Interoperability EGEE and OSG both use the Virtual Data Toolkit (VDT) Different implementations are hidden by common interfaces Ok SRM ma mancano ancora molte funzionalita' e.g. : disk-only back- end debole. DPM? POSIX-like I/O problematico: NFS non adeguato. soluzioni proprietarie (rfio, dcap, ecc...) difficile avere applicazioni site-independent GFAL o gLiteIO potrebbero risolvere il problema ma sono deboli Almeno 2 interfacce: DLI, St.Ind.; molte (troppe) implementazioni: RLS, LFC, Fireman. Non dimostrate performances sufficienti -> sviluppi dei singoli esp. Nulla di testato davvero, per ruoli e uso accounting Le GRID non interoperano: per DM ATLAS ha servizio suo DQ; per submission nulla…
LCG Slide No. 18 LHC Computing Grid – Technical Design Report 18Jürgen Knobloch, CERN-IT Baseline Services Mandate The goal of the working group is to forge an agreement between the experiments and the LHC regional centres on the baseline services to be provided to support the computing models for the initial period of LHC running, which must therefore be in operation by September 2006. The services concerned are those that supplement the basic services for which there is already general agreement and understanding (e.g. provision of operating system services, local cluster scheduling, compilers,..) and which are not already covered by other LCG groups such as the Tier-0/1 Networking Group or the 3D Project. … Members Experiments: ALICE: L. Betev, ATLAS: M. Branco, A. de Salvo, CMS: P. Elmer, S. Lacaprara, LHCb: P. Charpentier, A. Tsaragorodtsev Projects: ARDA: J. Andreeva, Apps Area: D. Düllmann, gLite: E. Laure Sites: F. Donno (It), A. Waananen (Nordic), S. Traylen (UK), R. Popescu, R. Pordes (US) Chair: I. Bird, Secretary: M. Schulz Timescale: 15 February to 17 June 2005
LCG Slide No. 19 LHC Computing Grid – Technical Design Report 19Jürgen Knobloch, CERN-IT Baseline Services – preliminary priorities Service ALICEATLASCMSLHCb Storage ElementAAAA Basic transfer toolsAAAA Reliable file transfer serviceAAA/BA Catalogue servicesBBBB Catalogue and data management toolsCCCC Compute ElementAAAA Workload ManagementB/CAAC VO agentsAAAA VOMSAAAA Database servicesAAAA Posix-I/OCCCC Application software installationCCCC Job monitoring toolsCCCC Reliable messaging serviceCCCC Information systemAAAA
22-Settembre-2005CSN1@Napoli L.Perini20 La tabella non esaurisce quello che serve agli esperimenti Dal Baseline documento medesimo (pag.25) Specific services where the group has identified more work is needed to understand and specify requirements, are the following: VO-specific agent service machines, and the requirements of the services Experiment (and other) application software installation mechanisms Monitoring tools Reliable messaging service VO policy management – priorities, access control, etc. Information service and devlopments
LCG Slide No. 21 LHC Computing Grid – Technical Design Report 21Jürgen Knobloch, CERN-IT Architecture – Tier-0..96....10.. ~6000 CPU servers x 8000 SPECINT2000 (2008)..32.. ~2000 Tape and Disk servers Campu s networ k Experimenta l areas Experimenta l areas WAN Gigabit Ethernet Ten Gigabit Ethernet Double ten gigabit Ethernet 10 Gb/s to 32×1 Gb/s..96.. ….…. 2.4 Tb/s CORE Distribution layer
LCG Slide No. 22 LHC Computing Grid – Technical Design Report 22Jürgen Knobloch, CERN-IT Tier-0 components Batch system (LSF) manage CPU resources Shared file system (AFS) Disk pool and mass storage (MSS) manager (CASTOR) Extremely Large Fabric management system (ELFms) Quattor – system administration – installation and configuration LHC Era MONitoring (LEMON) system, server/client based LHC-Era Automated Fabric (LEAF) – high-level commands to sets of nodes CPU servers – ‘white boxes’, INTEL processors, (scientific) Linux Disk Storage – Network Attached Storage (NAS) – mostly mirrored Tape Storage – currently STK robots – future system under evaluation Network – fast gigabit Ethernet switches connected to multigigabit backbone routers
LCG Slide No. 23 LHC Computing Grid – Technical Design Report 23Jürgen Knobloch, CERN-IT Technology - Middleware Currently, the LCG-2 middleware is deployed in more than 100 sites It originated from Condor, EDG, Globus, VDT, and other projects. Will evolve now to include functionalities of the gLite middleware provided by the EGEE project which has just been made available. In the TDR, we describe the basic functionality of LCG-2 middleware as well as the enhancements expected from gLite components. Site services include security, the Computing Element (CE), the Storage Element (SE), Monitoring and Accounting Services – currently available both form LCG-2 and gLite. VO services such as Workload Management System (WMS), File Catalogues, Information Services, File Transfer Services exist in both flavours (LCG-2 and gLite) maintaining close relations with VDT, Condor and Globus. Attenzione: gli esperimenti hanno anche loro soluzioni..vobox etc…
LCG Slide No. 24 LHC Computing Grid – Technical Design Report 24Jürgen Knobloch, CERN-IT Technology – Fabric Technology Moore’s law still holds for processors and disk storage For CPU and disks we count a lot on the evolution of the consumer market For processors we expect an increasing importance of 64-bit architectures and multicore chips The cost break-even point between disk and tape store will not be reached for the initial LHC computing Mass storage (tapes and robots) is still a computer centre item with computer centre pricing It is too early to conclude on new tape drives and robots Networking has seen a rapid evolution recently Ten-gigabit Ethernet is now in the production environment Wide-area networking can already now count on 10 Gb connections between Tier-0 and Tier-1s. This will move gradually to the Tier-1 – Tier-2 connections.
LCG Slide No. 25 LHC Computing Grid – Technical Design Report 25Jürgen Knobloch, CERN-IT Common Physics Applications Core software libraries SEAL-ROOT merger Scripting: CINT, Python Mathematical libraries Fitting, MINUIT (in C++) Data management POOL: ROOT I/O for bulk data RDBMS for metadata Conditions database – COOL Event simulation Event generators: generator library (GENSER) Detector simulation: GEANT4 (ATLAS, CMS, LHCb) Physics validation, compare GEANT4, FLUKA, test beam Software development infrastructure External libraries Software development and documentation tools Quality assurance and testing Project portal: Savannah Full compatibility ROOT POOL ancora missing
LCG Slide No. 26 LHC Computing Grid – Technical Design Report 26Jürgen Knobloch, CERN-IT Prototypes It is important that the hardware and software systems developed in the framework of LCG be exercised in more and more demanding challenges Data Challenges have been recommended by the ‘Hoffmann Review’ of 2001. They have now been done by all experiments. Though the main goal was to validate the distributed computing model and to gradually build the computing systems, the results have been used for physics performance studies and for detector, trigger, and DAQ design. Limitations of the Grids have been identified and are being addressed. Presently, a series of Service Challenges aim to realistic end-to-end testing of experiment use-cases over in extended period leading to stable production services. The project ‘A Realisation of Distributed Analysis for LHC’ (ARDA) is developing end-to-end prototypes of distributed analysis systems using the EGEE middleware gLite for each of the LHC experiments.
LCG Slide No. 27 LHC Computing Grid – Technical Design Report 27Jürgen Knobloch, CERN-IT Data Challenges ALICE PDC04 using AliEn services native or interfaced to LCG-Grid. 400,000 jobs run producing 40 TB of data for the Physics Performance Report. PDC05: Event simulation, first-pass reconstruction, transmission to Tier-1 sites, second pass reconstruction (calibration and storage), analysis with PROOF – using Grid services from LCG SC3 and AliEn ATLAS Using tools and resources from LCG, NorduGrid, and Grid3 at 133 sites in 30 countries using over 10,000 processors where 235,000 jobs produced more than 30 TB of data using an automatic production system. CMS 100 TB simulated data reconstructed at a rate of 25 Hz, distributed to the Tier-1 sites and reprocessed there. LHCb LCG provided more than 50% of the capacity for the first data challenge 2004-2005. The production used the DIRAC system.
LCG Slide No. 28 LHC Computing Grid – Technical Design Report 28Jürgen Knobloch, CERN-IT Service Challenges A series of Service Challenges (SC) set out to successively approach the production needs of LHC While SC1 did not meet the goal to transfer for 2 weeks continuously at a rate of 500 MB/s, SC2 did exceed the goal (500 MB/s) by sustaining throughput of 600 MB/s to 7 sites. SC3 will start now, using gLite middleware components, with disk- to-disk throughput tests, 10 Gb networking of Tier-1s to CERN providing SRM (1.1) interface to managed storage at Tier-1s. The goal is to achieve 150 MB/s disk-to disk and 60 MB/s to managed tape. There will be also Tier-1 to Tier-2 transfer tests. SC4 aims to demonstrate that all requirements from raw data taking to analysis can be met at least 6 months prior to data taking. The aggregate rate out of CERN is required to be 1.6 GB/s to tape at Tier-1s. The Service Challenges will turn into production services for the experiments. Possibili conflitti fra soluzioni LCG e di “esperimento”
LCG Slide No. 29 LHC Computing Grid – Technical Design Report 29Jürgen Knobloch, CERN-IT Key dates for Service Preparation SC3 LHC Service Operation Full physics run 200520072006 2008 First physics First beams cosmics Sep05 - SC3 Service Phase May06 –SC4 Service Phase Sep06 – Initial LHC Service in stable operation SC4 SC3 – Reliable base service – most Tier-1s, some Tier-2s – basic experiment software chain – grid data throughput 1GB/sec, including mass storage 500 MB/sec (150 MB/sec & 60 MB/sec at Tier-1s) SC4 – All Tier-1s, major Tier-2s – capable of supporting full experiment software chain inc. analysis – sustain nominal final grid data throughput (~ 1.5 GB/sec mass storage throughput) LHC Service in Operation – September 2006 – ramp up to full operational capacity by April 2007 – capable of handling twice the nominal data throughput Apr07 – LHC Service commissioned
LCG Slide No. 30 LHC Computing Grid – Technical Design Report 30Jürgen Knobloch, CERN-IT ARDA- A Realisation of Distributed Analysis for LHC Distributed analysis on the Grid is the most difficult and least defined topic ARDA sets out to develop end-to-end analysis prototypes using the LCG-supported middleware. ALICE uses the AliROOT framework based on PROOF. ATLAS has used DIAL services with the gLite prototype as backend. CMS has prototyped the ‘ARDA Support for CMS Analysis Processing’ (ASAP) that us used by several CMS physicists for daily analysis work. LHCb has based its prototype on GANGA, a common project between ATLAS and LHCb. ARDA è stato poco utile (salvo forse LHCb): analisi nel 2005 era problema “prematuro” rispetto a sto di GRID
22-Settembre-2005CSN1@Napoli L.Perini31 Topics to be discussed related to EGEE-II and WLCG MOU and TDR statements preparati da INFN per la discussione LCG-EGEE con management CERN In seguito a discussione 9-9 e follow-up
22-Settembre-2005CSN1@Napoli L.Perini32 -1- Relationship between EGEE and WLCG. –The relationship between EGEE and WLCG creates an asymmetry between EGEE and the other "Grid Operational Groupings" mentioned in 8.3. The US OSG and the Nordic NDGF as Naregi and UNICORE DEISA have an operational structure aimed at deploying and promoting the middleware they produce; on the other side the EGEE operational structure is under the leadership of WLCG, that sees as main part of his mission to mediate with OSG and NDGF. This situation weakens the common EGEE European middleware development effort and reflects into the EGEE project itself (see EGEE II proposal), where SA3, while main part of EGEE-II, seem to be mandated to consider the JRA1 mw on the same footing as the one produced by external providers.
22-Settembre-2005CSN1@Napoli L.Perini33 -2- Future CERN role in middleware development –In EGEE-II CERN is almost not contributing to the middleware development effort (~3 FTEs over 60). Together with the retirement from OMII Europe this seems to indicate that CERN has definitely renounced to lead and even contribute to the maintenance of an European excellence in the grid middleware domain. Consequences of this choice may impact badly on all national middleware efforts previously related to CERN.
22-Settembre-2005CSN1@Napoli L.Perini34 -3- Future evolution plans to make Europe ready for analysis –Different important points of the computing models of the LHC experiments have been only partially tested in a significant way on a realistic scale; this consideration is especially valid for the analysis, which is the crucial point of the models using Grid. No credible evolutionary and fall back plans for Grid middleware evolutions have been provided nor by the experiments neither by WLCG. The ARDA effort on analysis was scarcely useful in this respect: concentrating on a “theoretical” analysis when still were lacking the basic functionalities and reliability needed for the much simpler environment of organized production, was not the best path. In the WLCG MOU an EU infrastructure based on EGEE is explicitly referred to; however no clear indications and plans on how this could evolve from current situation, in particular with relation to point 1), are provided.
22-Settembre-2005CSN1@Napoli L.Perini35 -4- Middleware and EU e-Infrastructure long term maintenance plan –A planning how to provide the maintenance of the middleware after the end of the EGEE II project is largely missing and in particular if CERN is still aiming to play a role in this. Presently EGEE provides also a large fraction of the manpower needed for the operation of the European GRID and of the Centers that are the nodes of this GRID. The maintenance of the European GRID infrastructure for continued efficient operation need to be addressed at the same level as the maintenance of the middleware, and neither are really dealt in the WLCG TDR.
22-Settembre-2005CSN1@Napoli L.Perini36 -5- Experiment’s grid integration activities –The important point of an internal CERN team, discussed in the previous meeting with DG, supporting the experiments for interfacing their software to the g-Lite/EGEE based GRID and for being able to run efficiently using a common EU infrastructure and a common European mw, has not been addressed. The role of the CERN computing team in CMS is insignificant. No one of the key managerial computing positions is occupied by a CERN staff and the overall US dominance has not been sufficiently balanced. This reflects badly in the EGEE middleware development efforts. The lack of a specific internal, CERN based, EGEE focused effort inside the experiments in this field explains, at least in part, why often the experiments have preferred to develop their own implementations instead of relaying on the commons ones provided by EGEE/LCG.
22-Settembre-2005CSN1@Napoli L.Perini37 -6- Experiment Integration Support Group –The present EIS group worked well and is highly appreciated by the experiments also thanks to its location in SA1 and the consequent in depth knowledge of service configuration and possibility of quick feedback interventions. In the TDR and MoU the planning for the future of a support like the one that was provided by the EIS group seems still not specified. Support to the EIS team is one of the main contributions of INFN to WLCG.