M.Frank, CERN/LHCb Persistency Workshop, Dec, 2004 Distributed Databases in LHCb  Main databases in LHCb Online / Offline and their clients  The cross.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Database System Concepts and Architecture
Advertisements

1 Databases in ALICE L.Betev LCG Database Deployment and Persistency Workshop Geneva, October 17, 2005.
Grid and CDB Janusz Martyniak, Imperial College London MICE CM37 Analysis, Software and Reconstruction.
6/4/20151 Introduction LHCb experiment. LHCb experiment. Common schema of the LHCb computing organisation. Common schema of the LHCb computing organisation.
23/04/2008VLVnT08, Toulon, FR, April 2008, M. Stavrianakou, NESTOR-NOA 1 First thoughts for KM3Net on-shore data storage and distribution Facilities VLV.
Control and monitoring of on-line trigger algorithms using a SCADA system Eric van Herwijnen Wednesday 15 th February 2006.
Distributed Data Stores – Facebook Presented by Ben Gooding University of Arkansas – April 21, 2015.
LHCb Simulation Tutorial CERN, 21 st -22 nd February B 00 l e Detector Simulation and Geant4.
ILDG5QCDgrid1 QCDgrid status report UKQCD data grid Chris Maynard.
M.Frank LHCb/CERN - In behalf of the LHCb GAUDI team Data Persistency Solution for LHCb ã Motivation ã Data access ã Generic model ã Experience & Conclusions.
Conditions DB in LHCb LCG Conditions DB Workshop 8-9 December 2003 P. Mato / CERN.
LHC: ATLAS Experiment meeting “Conditions” data challenge Elizabeth Gallas - Oxford - August 29, 2009 XLDB3.
Your university or experiment logo here Caitriana Nicholson University of Glasgow Dynamic Data Replication in LCG 2008.
UKQCD QCDgrid Richard Kenway. UKQCD Nov 2001QCDgrid2 why build a QCD grid? the computational problem is too big for current computers –configuration generation.
ALICE Upgrade for Run3: Computing HL-LHC Trigger, Online and Offline Computing Working Group Topical Workshop Sep 5 th 2014.
ATLAS Database Operations Invited talk at the XXI International Symposium on Nuclear Electronics & Computing Varna, Bulgaria, September 2007 Alexandre.
Databases E. Leonardi, P. Valente. Conditions DB Conditions=Dynamic parameters non-event time-varying Conditions database (CondDB) General definition:
November SC06 Tampa F.Fanzago CRAB a user-friendly tool for CMS distributed analysis Federica Fanzago INFN-PADOVA for CRAB team.
ALICE, ATLAS, CMS & LHCb joint workshop on
Giuseppe Codispoti INFN - Bologna Egee User ForumMarch 2th BOSS: the CMS interface for job summission, monitoring and bookkeeping W. Bacchi, P.
And Tier 3 monitoring Tier 3 Ivan Kadochnikov LIT JINR
Clara Gaspar, March 2005 LHCb Online & the Conditions DB.
The Persistency Patterns of Time Evolving Conditions for ATLAS and LCG António Amorim CFNUL- FCUL - Universidade de Lisboa A. António, Dinis.
Distributed Information Systems. Motivation ● To understand the problems that Web services try to solve it is helpful to understand how distributed information.
CHEP /21/03 Detector Description Framework in LHCb Sébastien Ponce CERN.
Introduction CMS database workshop 23 rd to 25 th of February 2004 Frank Glege.
Databases in CMS Conditions DB workshop 8 th /9 th December 2003 Frank Glege.
Artemis School On Calibration and Performance of ATLAS Detectors Jörg Stelzer / David Berge.
21 April, 1999 Vincenzo Innocente LHC++ Meeting1 Time-Ordered Persistent Collections Vincenzo Innocente CMS Collaboration see also contribution to RD45.
Online System Status LHCb Week Beat Jost / Cern 9 June 2015.
CHEP /21/03 Detector Description Framework in LHCb Sébastien Ponce CERN.
Detector Description in LHCb Detector Description Workshop 13 June 2002 S. Ponce, P. Mato / CERN.
Some Ideas for a Revised Requirement List Dirk Duellmann.
Chapter 1 Revealed Distributed Objects Design Concepts CSLA.
DQM for the RPC subdetector M. Maggi and P. Paolucci.
INFSO-RI Enabling Grids for E-sciencE Using of GANGA interface for Athena applications A. Zalite / PNPI.
Summary of User Requirements for Calibration and Alignment Database Magali Gruwé CERN PH/AIP ALICE Offline Week Alignment and Calibration Workshop February.
LHCb Configuration Database Lana Abadie, PhD student (CERN & University of Pierre et Marie Curie (Paris VI), LIP6.
Markus Frank (CERN) & Albert Puig (UB).  An opportunity (Motivation)  Adopted approach  Implementation specifics  Status  Conclusions 2.
Maria del Carmen Barandela Pazos CERN CHEP 2-7 Sep 2007 Victoria LHCb Online Interface to the Conditions Database.
Meeting with University of Malta| CERN, May 18, 2015 | Predrag Buncic ALICE Computing in Run 2+ P. Buncic 1.
ATLAS The ConditionDB is accessed by the offline reconstruction framework (ATHENA). COOLCOnditions Objects for LHC The interface is provided by COOL (COnditions.
VI/ CERN Dec 4 CMS Software Architecture vs Hybrid Store Vincenzo Innocente CMS Week CERN, Dec
Joe Foster 1 Two questions about datasets: –How do you find datasets with the processes, cuts, conditions you need for your analysis? –How do.
Apr. 25, 2002Why DØRAC? DØRAC FTFM, Jae Yu 1 What do we want DØ Regional Analysis Centers (DØRAC) do? Why do we need a DØRAC? What do we want a DØRAC do?
ATLAS Distributed Computing Tutorial Tags: What, Why, When, Where and How? Mike Kenyon University of Glasgow.
Database Replication and Monitoring
CMS High Level Trigger Configuration Management
BOSS: the CMS interface for job summission, monitoring and bookkeeping
BOSS: the CMS interface for job summission, monitoring and bookkeeping
Database operations in CMS
The LHCb Software and Computing NSS/IEEE workshop Ph. Charpentier, CERN B00le.
Calibrating ALICE.
BOSS: the CMS interface for job summission, monitoring and bookkeeping
HEP detector description supporting the full experiment life cycle
TriggerDB copy in TriggerTool
Status of CVS repository Production databases Production tools
LHCb Detector Description Framework Radovan Chytracek CERN Switzerland
Data Persistency Solution for LHCb
Detector Description in LHCb
DQM for the RPC subdetector
The LHCb High Level Trigger Software Framework
Simulation and Physics
Major Design Criteria Clear separation between “data” and “algorithms”
ATLAS DC2 & Continuous production
Event Storage GAUDI - Data access/storage Framework related issues
Planning next release of GAUDI
Offline framework for conditions data
LHCb Detector Description Framework Radovan Chytracek CERN Switzerland
Presentation transcript:

M.Frank, CERN/LHCb Persistency Workshop, Dec, 2004 Distributed Databases in LHCb  Main databases in LHCb Online / Offline and their clients  The cross points  Where db replication is expected  What we expect from db replication

2M.Frank, CERN/LHCb Persistency Workshop, Dec, 2004 Design Goals  Distribute as few data as possible, but as many data as necessary  Keep online and offline as loosely coupled as possible  Learn from the BaBar experience  Try to achieve a clear hierarchy/information flow  Only the master copy(s) may be data sinks  Minimize replication trouble  Allow as few active writers as possible  Minimize concurrency

3M.Frank, CERN/LHCb Persistency Workshop, Dec, 2004 Calibration Data Processing Architecture GDML ? XML Condition Database Transient Store Materials Structure Geometry … Visualization (Panoramix) Simulation (Gauss/Geant4) Reconstruction (Brunel) Analysis (DaVinci) DAQ ?

4M.Frank, CERN/LHCb Persistency Workshop, Dec, 2004 Common Detector Data Access Geometry DetectorData Service Algorithm Transient Detector Store Manages store Synchronization updates DetElement Geometry Info IGeometryInfo Calibration ReadOut IReadOut ICalibration IDetElement MuonStation request request: get, update reference beginEvent Conditions DB Other DBs Persistency Service Conversion Service Conversion Service Conversion Service

5M.Frank, CERN/LHCb Persistency Workshop, Dec, 2004 The Inventory (not to be read) (1) (3) (2)

6M.Frank, CERN/LHCb Persistency Workshop, Dec, 2004 (1) Databases in the Online  Detector and DAQ Controls (PVSS), Online Configuration database  Stay at the PIT and never go out there  “Plug network off and still works”  Backup’ed but not replicated  Large data volume  Detector controls: ~ “sensors” Temperatures, trigger rates, detector configuration tag, …  ~0.5 MByte/second  ~5 TByte/year

7M.Frank, CERN/LHCb Persistency Workshop, Dec, 2004 (1) Databases in the Online  Database is accessed by relatively few tasks  These provide the necessary information for  High Level Trigger (HLT) processes  Prompt reconstruction  Online calibration processes  HLT farm has no database connection

8M.Frank, CERN/LHCb Persistency Workshop, Dec, 2004 (2) Databases in the Offline  File Catalogue  Used by POOL  Implemented/Accessed by Grid middleware  Not discussed here: courtesy of gLite/EGEE/…  If replication is necessary, we inherit gLite/EGEE requirements  Each worker node needs at least a slice containing all input data  Possibly not a database (XML Catalogue)  Implementation: gLite  Final capacity: ~15 x 10 6 files/year

9M.Frank, CERN/LHCb Persistency Workshop, Dec, 2004 (2) Databases in the Offline  Bookkeeping & Job Provenance  Allow eventually clones at Tier1 centers  Interactive access at Tier1s; Simple&Stupid replication  ~50 GByte/year  Possible future requirement: Access to provenance data from WN

10M.Frank, CERN/LHCb Persistency Workshop, Dec, 2004 (3) The Gray Area  Online / Offline Conditions  Main connection point between  Online and  Offline  Keep online and offline as loosely coupled as possible  Needs separate model

11M.Frank, CERN/LHCb Persistency Workshop, Dec, 2004 (3) Conditions: Writers  Online clients are likely to be tasks summarizing  Detector controls data  Online calibrations  Offline clients are likely to be human (with some interface) feeding explicitly offline calibrations

12M.Frank, CERN/LHCb Persistency Workshop, Dec, 2004 (3) Conditions: Readers Online:  Tasks providing the trigger farm with the conditions needed by:  HLT  Calibration tasks (Readers and writers)  Prompt reconstruction  …  All done at PA8 Offline:  Any data processing task  Physics analysis  Reprocessing  …  Anywhere in the world

13M.Frank, CERN/LHCb Persistency Workshop, Dec, 2004 Online / Offline Conditions  Clients see 2 very loosely coupled schemas  Single logical database  2 instances: “Online” and “Offline” instance Online Controls “Official” Calibrations Conditions database ~10 2±1 GB/year ~500 GB/year [ 10 % of PVSS ]

14M.Frank, CERN/LHCb Persistency Workshop, Dec, 2004 The Online Model Online Controls Conditions DB “Official” Calibrations Conditions DB PA8 [LHCb Pit]CERN Computer Center Tier 0 Database replication HLT Online Calib. …

15M.Frank, CERN/LHCb Persistency Workshop, Dec, 2004 The Offline Model  Worker node needs (fast) access to a valid database slice according to  Time intervals  Item tag(s) Conditions DB Tier0 Worker Node

16M.Frank, CERN/LHCb Persistency Workshop, Dec, 2004 The Offline Model  We expect to have a usable solution of the conditions database provided by POOL including:  Efficient database slice creation  Efficient access optimization “on the way”  Tier0 -> Tier1 -> Tier2 replication / slicing  What we do not need:  Write access at TierN (N>0)

17M.Frank, CERN/LHCb Persistency Workshop, Dec, 2004 Summary  Online databases stay where they are (PA 8)  Except PVSS extraction into online conditions  Offline databases must be accessible from worker nodes  Conditions database slices  File catalogue  Depending on grid middleware  Optionally bookkeeping/job provenance information is replicated