1. Project Overview John Huth Harvard University U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Project Review ANL October 2001

2. Oct. 30th John Huth, PCAP Review, ANL 2 Outline  News/assessment  International ATLAS  U.S. ATLAS  External Groups  Project Management Plan  Milestones  Status  Software  Facilities  Grid efforts  Physics  Funding Profile  Impact

3. Oct. 30th John Huth, PCAP Review, ANL 3 International ATLAS  Progress toward coherent, integrated effort  First Software Agreement Signed! (Control/framework)  Second one in progress (QA/AC)  Data Challenge Coordinator named (Gilbert Poulard)  Lund physics meeting (Lund Athena release)  ARC Report  Endorsement of Athena  Upcoming Data Challenge 0  Continuity test – October Athena release  Personnel Changes  D. Malon now solo data management leader  Helge Meinhard – planning, resigns

4. Oct. 30th John Huth, PCAP Review, ANL 4 ATLAS Detector/Task matrix Offline Coordinator ReconstructionSimulationDatabaseChair N. McCubbin D. Rousseau K. Amako D. Malon 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 To Be Named 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

5. Oct. 30th John Huth, PCAP Review, ANL 5 U.S. ATLAS Developments  Athena  Lund release done  DC 0 release set for mid-Nov  Incorporation of G4 interface  Database  Effort augmented  Coordination of Oracle,Obj, Root evaluations  Facilities  Ramp delayed by funding profile, DC preparation difficult  Common grid plan worked out  Modest personnel ramp – BNL SW/Fac/ANL  Loss of C. Day, E. Frank

6. Oct. 30th John Huth, PCAP Review, ANL 6 External Groups  iVDGL funding (Tier 2 personnel, Hardware) approved  PPDG effort in progress  ITR funding of Indiana (grid telemetry)  Integrated planning on software, facilities – ongoing  Liaisons named in PMP  GriPhyN/iVDGL – R. Gardner (J. Schopf CS liaison)  PPDG – T. Wenaus  EU Data grid – C. Tull  HEP Networking – S. McKee

7. Oct. 30th John Huth, PCAP Review, ANL 7 Project Management Plan  New Draft: extensive revisions  Description of institutional MOU’s  Two draft Inst. MOU’s exist  Liaison list  Performance metrics established  Personnel effort - FTE  Hardware – fraction of turn-on functional per year  Change control  Reporting  Quarterly reports  Transition to “Research Program” in FY 07

8. Oct. 30th John Huth, PCAP Review, ANL 8 Comments on Budgeting  Agencies have provided *less* than advertised “austere” profile  Borrowing, need to payback loan  We cannot plan based on our wishes, but rather “realistic” expectations  Current budgeting profile is the most pessimistic yet  Directing of funds to grid efforts  Possible relief in form of overall NSF funding for “research program”  N.B. many many attempts to fund through various NSF initiatives  Shortfall so far in FY 02, require additional $500k from NSF in planning (would get close to budget guidance)

9. Oct. 30th John Huth, PCAP Review, ANL 9 Major Milestones

10. Oct. 30th John Huth, PCAP Review, ANL 10 Software  Migration from SRT to CMT begun  Effort drain  Upcoming Nov. Release of Athena  Support of DC 0  Funding shortfall impacts  Shift of D. Day (USDP, Python scripting) – postdoc hire to fill  FY 03 delay hire at BNL possible – loss of ROOT expertise  Data management architecture proposed (non product specific)  Root I/O service  G4 Integration into Athena  Issue of Fads/Goofy still exists – parallel effort (?)  Development of “pacman” for deployment of software (BU)

11. Oct. 30th John Huth, PCAP Review, ANL 11 Facilities  Tier 1 particularly hard hit by budget shortfall  Delays in hiring  Scalable online storage prototype work delayed approx. 7 mos.  DC2 capability reduced substantially relative to plan (1 vs. 5%)  Small increments ($300k) can help substantially  Year end funding of $284k from DOE  Major usage of Tier 1 for shielding calculations  Anticipate major usage in DC’s and in grid tests  Examination of tertiary vs. disk for event store at start of data taking  Tier 2  Selection of first prototype centers (I.U., B.U.)  iVDGL funding of prototype hardware  Deployment of SW on testbed sites in progress

12. Oct. 30th John Huth, PCAP Review, ANL 12 Grid Efforts/Physics  Many sources of effort/shared  GriPhyN/iVDGL/PPDG/EU activities/New CERN mgmt.  Working on a common U.S. ATLAS plan  Use existing tools as much as possible  Use existing platforms as much as possible  Gain experience in  Replica catalog  Metadata description  Deployment/release of tools  Philosophy is to gain expertise, not await a grand international synthesis  Physics: Adhere tenaciously to support hire

13. Oct. 30th John Huth, PCAP Review, ANL 13 FTE by Category in 02

14. Oct. 30th John Huth, PCAP Review, ANL 14 Funding Guidance

15. Oct. 30th John Huth, PCAP Review, ANL 15 Profile by Activity

16. Oct. 30th John Huth, PCAP Review, ANL 16 Matching of Profiles

17. Oct. 30th John Huth, PCAP Review, ANL 17 Facility Capacity

18. Oct. 30th John Huth, PCAP Review, ANL 18 Risks  Software  Loss of expertise in control/framework (scripting)  New hire as mitigation  Loss of Ed Frank (U. Chicago) – data management  Loss of new hire at BNL – loss of ROOT persistency expertise  Support questions in tools (e.g. CMT)  Facilities  Slowed ramp-up in personnel, hardware  Facility preparation for DC2 implies reduced scale  Grid  Overall shift of effort from core areas into grid developments – following the funding mandates

19. Oct. 30th John Huth, PCAP Review, ANL 19 Summary  Much progress on many fronts  Funding profile is still a major problem  Setbacks in personnel  Ramp of facility  Some possible solutions  Funds for loan payback are incremental  “Research program” NSF profile is substantially better  Progress in International collaboration  Managers still have a determination to “make it succeed”