Top 5 Experiment Issues ExperimentALICEATLASCMSLHCb Issue #1xrootd- CASTOR2 functionality & performance Data Access from T1 MSS Issue.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
HEPiX Edinburgh 28 May 2004 LCG les robertson - cern-it-1 Data Management Service Challenge Scope Networking, file transfer, data management Storage management.
Advertisements

Resources for the ATLAS Offline Computing Basis for the Estimates ATLAS Distributed Computing Model Cost Estimates Present Status Sharing of Resources.
INFSO-RI Enabling Grids for E-sciencE The Grid Challenges in LHC Service Deployment Patricia Méndez Lorenzo CERN (IT-GD) Linköping.
Les Les Robertson WLCG Project Leader WLCG – Worldwide LHC Computing Grid Where we are now & the Challenges of Real Data CHEP 2007 Victoria BC 3 September.
Ian M. Fisk Fermilab February 23, Global Schedule External Items ➨ gLite 3.0 is released for pre-production in mid-April ➨ gLite 3.0 is rolled onto.
Les Les Robertson LCG Project Leader LCG - The Worldwide LHC Computing Grid LHC Data Analysis Challenges for 100 Computing Centres in 20 Countries HEPiX.
LCG Milestones for Deployment, Fabric, & Grid Technology Ian Bird LCG Deployment Area Manager PEB 3-Dec-2002.
LHCC Comprehensive Review – September WLCG Commissioning Schedule Still an ambitious programme ahead Still an ambitious programme ahead Timely testing.
Frédéric Hemmer, CERN, IT DepartmentThe LHC Computing Grid – October 2006 LHC Computing and Grids Frédéric Hemmer IT Deputy Department Head October 10,
SC4 Workshop Outline (Strong overlap with POW!) 1.Get data rates at all Tier1s up to MoU Values Recent re-run shows the way! (More on next slides…) 2.Re-deploy.
Frédéric Hemmer, CERN, IT Department The LHC Computing Grid – June 2006 The LHC Computing Grid Visit of the Comité d’avis pour les questions Scientifiques.
CHEP – Mumbai, February 2006 The LCG Service Challenges Focus on SC3 Re-run; Outlook for 2006 Jamie Shiers, LCG Service Manager.
Computing Infrastructure Status. LHCb Computing Status LHCb LHCC mini-review, February The LHCb Computing Model: a reminder m Simulation is using.
SRM 2.2: status of the implementations and GSSD 6 th March 2007 Flavia Donno, Maarten Litmaath INFN and IT/GD, CERN.
INFSO-RI Enabling Grids for E-sciencE Geant4 Physics Validation: Use of the GRID Resources Patricia Mendez Lorenzo CERN (IT-GD)
LCG Service Challenge Phase 4: Piano di attività e impatto sulla infrastruttura di rete 1 Service Challenge Phase 4: Piano di attività e impatto sulla.
CCRC08-1 report WLCG Workshop, April KorsBos, ATLAS/NIKHEF/CERN.
Ian Bird LCG Deployment Manager EGEE Operations Manager LCG - The Worldwide LHC Computing Grid Building a Service for LHC Data Analysis 22 September 2006.
The Worldwide LHC Computing Grid WLCG Service Ramp-Up LHCC Referees’ Meeting, January 2007.
1 The LHC Computing Grid – February 2007 Frédéric Hemmer, CERN, IT Department LHC Computing and Grids Frédéric Hemmer Deputy IT Department Head January.
CERN IT Department CH-1211 Genève 23 Switzerland Visit of Professor Karel van der Toorn President University of Amsterdam Wednesday 10 th.
The LHC Computing Grid – February 2008 The Challenges of LHC Computing Dr Ian Bird LCG Project Leader 6 th October 2009 Telecom 2009 Youth Forum.
INFSO-RI Enabling Grids for E-sciencE Porting Scientific Applications on GRID: CERN Experience Patricia Méndez Lorenzo CERN (IT-PSS/ED)
Ian Bird LCG Deployment Area Manager & EGEE Operations Manager IT Department, CERN Presentation to HEPiX 22 nd October 2004 LCG Operations.
CERN IT Department CH-1211 Genève 23 Switzerland t Frédéric Hemmer IT Department Head - CERN 23 rd August 2010 Status of LHC Computing from.
ATLAS Bulk Pre-stageing Tests Graeme Stewart University of Glasgow.
Service, Operations and Support Infrastructures in HEP Processing the Data from the World’s Largest Scientific Machine Patricia Méndez Lorenzo (IT-GS/EIS),
SC4 Planning Planning for the Initial LCG Service September 2005.
Procedure to follow for proposed new Tier 1 sites Ian Bird CERN, 27 th March 2012.
Ian Bird LCG Project Leader WLCG Update 6 th May, 2008 HEPiX – Spring 2008 CERN.
Procedure for proposed new Tier 1 sites Ian Bird WLCG Overview Board CERN, 9 th March 2012.
The LHC Computing Environment Challenges in Building up the Full Production Environment [ Formerly known as the LCG Service Challenges ]
Plans for Service Challenge 3 Ian Bird LHCC Referees Meeting 27 th June 2005.
EGEE is a project funded by the European Commission under contract IST NA4/HEP work F Harris (Oxford/CERN) M.Lamanna(CERN) NA4 Open meeting.
WLCG Service Report ~~~ WLCG Management Board, 31 st March 2009.
LCG Service Challenges SC2 Goals Jamie Shiers, CERN-IT-GD 24 February 2005.
The LHC Computing Grid Visit of Dr. John Marburger
1 The LHC Computing Grid – April 2007 Frédéric Hemmer, CERN, IT Department The LHC Computing Grid A World-Wide Computer Centre Frédéric Hemmer Deputy IT.
Ian Bird WLCG Networking workshop CERN, 10 th February February 2014
Victoria, Sept WLCG Collaboration Workshop1 ATLAS Dress Rehersals Kors Bos NIKHEF, Amsterdam.
Enabling Grids for E-sciencE INFSO-RI Enabling Grids for E-sciencE Gavin McCance GDB – 6 June 2007 FTS 2.0 deployment and testing.
GDB, 07/06/06 CMS Centre Roles à CMS data hierarchy: n RAW (1.5/2MB) -> RECO (0.2/0.4MB) -> AOD (50kB)-> TAG à Tier-0 role: n First-pass.
8 August 2006MB Report on Status and Progress of SC4 activities 1 MB (Snapshot) Report on Status and Progress of SC4 activities A weekly report is gathered.
The Grid Storage System Deployment Working Group 6 th February 2007 Flavia Donno IT/GD, CERN.
WLCG Status Report Ian Bird Austrian Tier 2 Workshop 22 nd June, 2010.
Summary of SC4 Disk-Disk Transfers LCG MB, April Jamie Shiers, CERN.
LCG LHC Grid Deployment Board Regional Centers Phase II Resource Planning Service Challenges LHCC Comprehensive Review November 2004 Kors Bos, GDB.
Status of GSDC, KISTI Sang-Un Ahn, for the GSDC Tier-1 Team
1 June 11/Ian Fisk CMS Model and the Network Ian Fisk.
The Worldwide LHC Computing Grid WLCG Service Schedule The WLCG Service has been operational (as a service) since late A few critical components.
Dominique Boutigny December 12, 2006 CC-IN2P3 a Tier-1 for W-LCG 1 st Chinese – French Workshop on LHC Physics and associated Grid Computing IHEP - Beijing.
Ian Bird LCG Project Leader WLCG Status Report 7 th May, 2008 LHCC Open Session.
ATLAS Computing Model Ghita Rahal CC-IN2P3 Tutorial Atlas CC, Lyon
2 CMS 6 PB raw/run Phobos 50 TB/run E917 5 TB/run.
Dr. Ian Bird LHC Computing Grid Project Leader Göttingen Tier 2 Inauguration 13 th May 2008 Challenges and Opportunities.
The Worldwide LHC Computing Grid WLCG Milestones for 2007 Focus on Q1 / Q2 Collaboration Workshop, January 2007.
T0-T1 Networking Meeting 16th June Meeting
“Replica Management in LCG”
WLCG Tier-2 Asia Workshop TIFR, Mumbai 1-3 December 2006
Grid Computing in HIGH ENERGY Physics
The LHC Computing Environment
Physics Data Management at CERN
Kors Bos NIKHEF, Amsterdam.
IT Department and The LHC Computing Grid
Jan 12, 2005 Improving CMS data transfers among its distributed Computing Facilities N. Magini CERN IT-ES-VOS, Geneva, Switzerland J. Flix Port d'Informació.
The LHC Computing Challenge
CMS transferts massif Artem Trunov.
LHC Data Analysis using a worldwide computing grid
The LHC Computing Grid Visit of Prof. Friedrich Wagner
Overview & Status Al-Ain, UAE November 2007.
Presentation transcript:

Top 5 Experiment Issues ExperimentALICEATLASCMSLHCb Issue #1xrootd- CASTOR2 functionality & performance Data Access from T1 MSS Issue #2xrootd-DPMIntegration of DDM/FTS/SRM/ GridFTP/LFC etc SRM I/F with functionality & performance glexec usage Issue #3FTS Service(Lack of) SRM 2.2FTS ServiceFile management Issue #4gLite WMSData Storage Management Tools Workload management Deployment procedure Issue #5VOMSStability of the Information System Information system

Integration of DM Components We agree that this is a very complex and important issue that must be addressed with high priority It is necessary that experiment, site and network service experts are involved in the debugging exercise, as all of these are intimately involved – a complete end-to-end solution must be demonstrated with adequate performance We propose a ‘back-to-basics’ approach, separating the main problems, which can be investigated (initially) independently and in parallel (& then ramping up…) We should not forget the role of the host lab in the WLCG model – we must be able to distribute data at the required rates for all VOs and to all sites  We still have not managed this – and we’ve been trying a long time! 3 MoU: Distribution of an agreed share of the raw data (+ESD) to each Tier1 Centre, in-line with data acquisition

Possible Initial Goals  Stable transfers of (each of) the two main (by rate) VOs to an agreed set of common sites.  Each VO can act as a ‘control’ for the other - any significant differences between them should be understood −filesize distribution, # active transfers / of streams, other key parameters etc.  Concurrent multi-VO transfers – first raised as a concern by ATLAS – also need to be demonstrated (WLCG milestones…)  The goal should be to obtain stable transfers with daily/weekly averages by site and by VO at an agreed fraction of the nominal rates e.g. initially 25%, then 50%, etc.) with a daily and weekly analysis of any fluctuations / other problems.  Then ramp-up in complexity: WLCG milestones, FDR preparations  Once stable transfers have been demonstrated, add complexity in a controlled fashion until full end-to-end testing has been achieved  In parallel, the 'heartbeat monitoring' proposed by both ATLAS and CMS should be better defined with the goal of reaching a common agreement that can be rapidly deployed across initially the T0 and T1s.  This is clearly needed both in the short-medium term, as well as in the long run, in order to provide a stable and reliable service 4

Backup Slides

HEPiX Rome 05apr06 LCG WLCG Service Hierarchy Tier0 – the accelerator centre  Data acquisition & initial processing  Long-term data curation  Data Distribution to Tier-1 centres Canada – Triumf (Vancouver) France – IN2P3 (Lyon) Germany –Karlsruhe Italy – CNAF (Bologna) Netherlands – NIKHEF/SARA (Amsterdam) Nordic countries – distributed Tier-1 Spain – PIC (Barcelona) Taiwan – Academia SInica (Taipei) UK – CLRC (Oxford) US – FermiLab (Illinois) – Brookhaven (NY) Tier1 – “online” to the data acquisition process  high availability  Managed Mass Storage –  grid-enabled data service  All re-processing passes  Data-heavy analysis  National, regional support Tier2 – ~100 centres in ~40 countries  Simulation  End-user analysis – batch and interactive  Services, including Data Archive and Delivery, from Tier1s

Multi-VO Rates (March 26+) VOMar 26Mar 27Mar 28Mar 29Mar 30Mar 31April 1Av. ALICE ATLAS CMS400500>300 LHCb

CMS CSA07 Export Targets SiteTarget (MB/s) Achieved Weekly av. Mar 26 Mar 27 Mar 28 Mar 29 Mar 30 Mar 31 Apr 1 ASGC CNAF ~-- FNAL FZK ~~ IN2P PIC RAL Above table shows rates read off from GridView plots. CMS goal is success transfers on 95% of the challenge days ➨ Target rate on 50% of the challenge days

Q – Tier0 / Tier1s 1.Demonstrate Tier0-Tier1 data export at 65% of full nominal rates per site using experiment-driven transfers –Mixture of disk / tape endpoints as defined by experiment computing models, i.e. 40% tape for ATLAS; transfers driven by experiments –Period of at least one week; daily VO-averages may vary (~normal) 2.Demonstrate Tier0-Tier1 data export at 50% of full nominal rates (as above) in conjunction with T1-T1 / T1-T2 transfers –Inter-Tier transfer targets taken from ATLAS DDM tests / CSA06 targets 3.Demonstrate Tier0-Tier1 data export at 35% of full nominal rates (as above) in conjunction with T1-T1 / T1-T2 transfers and Grid production at Tier1s –Each file transferred is read at least once by a Grid job –Some explicit targets for WMS at each Tier1 need to be derived from above 4.Provide SRM v2.2 endpoint(s) that implement(s) all methods defined in SRM v2.2 MoU, all critical methods pass tests –See attached list; Levels of success: threshold, pass, success, (cum laude) Status of the Milestones: The text explains well the status of the milestones. None of the milestones is fully “completed”; therefore specify a new deadline and mention the issue in the Outstanding Issues, with the corrective actions that are going to be undertaken in order to complete the milestones.