Hall D Online Data Acquisition CEBAF provides us with a tremendous scientific opportunity for understanding one of the fundamental forces of nature. 75.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
31/03/00 CMS(UK)Glenn Patrick What is the CMS(UK) Data Model? Assume that CMS software is available at every UK institute connected by some infrastructure.
Advertisements

1 Software & Grid Middleware for Tier 2 Centers Rob Gardner Indiana University DOE/NSF Review of U.S. ATLAS and CMS Computing Projects Brookhaven National.
23/04/2008VLVnT08, Toulon, FR, April 2008, M. Stavrianakou, NESTOR-NOA 1 First thoughts for KM3Net on-shore data storage and distribution Facilities VLV.
ACAT 2002, Moscow June 24-28thJ. Hernández. DESY-Zeuthen1 Offline Mass Data Processing using Online Computing Resources at HERA-B José Hernández DESY-Zeuthen.
1 Data Storage MICE DAQ Workshop 10 th February 2006 Malcolm Ellis & Paul Kyberd.
Trigger and online software Simon George & Reiner Hauser T/DAQ Phase 1 IDR.
CERN/IT/DB Multi-PB Distributed Databases Jamie Shiers IT Division, DB Group, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland February 2001.
Large scale data flow in local and GRID environment V.Kolosov, I.Korolko, S.Makarychev ITEP Moscow.
May 2010 Graham Heyes Data Acquisition and Analysis group. Physics division, JLab Data Analysis Coordination, Planning and Funding.
Feb. 26, 2001L. Dennis, FSU The Search for Exotic Mesons – The Critical Role of Computing in Hall D.
Ian Fisk and Maria Girone Improvements in the CMS Computing System from Run2 CHEP 2015 Ian Fisk and Maria Girone For CMS Collaboration.
Hall D Trigger and Data Rates Elliott Wolin Hall D Electronics Review Jefferson Lab 23-Jul-2003.
Online Data Challenges David Lawrence, JLab Feb. 20, /20/14Online Data Challenges.
MICE VC June 2009Jean-Sébastien GraulichSlide 1 Feed back from the DAQ review o Facts o Detector DAQ o Important Comments o Bottom line Jean-Sebastien.
The GlueX Collaboration Meeting October 4-6, 2012 Jefferson Lab Curtis Meyer.
Alexandre A. P. Suaide VI DOSAR workshop, São Paulo, 2005 STAR grid activities and São Paulo experience.
GLAST LAT ProjectDOE/NASA Baseline-Preliminary Design Review, January 8, 2002 K.Young 1 LAT Data Processing Facility Automatically process Level 0 data.
D0 SAM – status and needs Plagarized from: D0 Experiment SAM Project Fermilab Computing Division.
Workfest Goals Develop the Tools for CDR Simulations HDFast HDGEANT Geometry Definitions Remote Access Education of the rest of the collaboration Needs.
Fermilab User Facility US-CMS User Facility and Regional Center at Fermilab Matthias Kasemann FNAL.
LHC Computing Review - Resources ATLAS Resource Issues John Huth Harvard University.
Tier 1 Facility Status and Current Activities Rich Baker Brookhaven National Laboratory NSF/DOE Review of ATLAS Computing June 20, 2002.
Finnish DataGrid meeting, CSC, Otaniemi, V. Karimäki (HIP) DataGrid meeting, CSC V. Karimäki (HIP) V. Karimäki (HIP) Otaniemi, 28 August, 2000.
Dr. M.-C. Sawley IPP-ETH Zurich Nachhaltige Begegnungen Standing at the crossing point between data analysis and simulation Knowledge Discovery Panel.
ALICE Upgrade for Run3: Computing HL-LHC Trigger, Online and Offline Computing Working Group Topical Workshop Sep 5 th 2014.
Data Grid projects in HENP R. Pordes, Fermilab Many HENP projects are working on the infrastructure for global distributed simulated data production, data.
14 Aug 08DOE Review John Huth ATLAS Computing at Harvard John Huth.
Grid Lab About the need of 3 Tier storage 5/22/121CHEP 2012, The need of 3 Tier storage Dmitri Ozerov Patrick Fuhrmann CHEP 2012, NYC, May 22, 2012 Grid.
Feb. 26, 2001L. Dennis, FSU The Search for Exotic Mesons – The Critical Role of Computing in Hall D.
Tier-2  Data Analysis  MC simulation  Import data from Tier-1 and export MC data CMS GRID COMPUTING AT THE SPANISH TIER-1 AND TIER-2 SITES P. Garcia-Abia.
ICOM 6115: Computer Systems Performance Measurement and Evaluation August 11, 2006.
A.Golunov, “Remote operational center for CMS in JINR ”, XXIII International Symposium on Nuclear Electronics and Computing, BULGARIA, VARNA, September,
EGEE is a project funded by the European Union under contract IST HEP Use Cases for Grid Computing J. A. Templon Undecided (NIKHEF) Grid Tutorial,
November 2013 Review Talks Morning Plenary Talk – CLAS12 Software Overview and Progress ( ) Current Status with Emphasis on Past Year’s Progress:
US ATLAS Tier 1 Facility Rich Baker Brookhaven National Laboratory DOE/NSF Review of U.S. ATLAS and CMS Computing Projects Brookhaven National Laboratory.
CMS Computing and Core-Software USCMS CB Riverside, May 19, 2001 David Stickland, Princeton University CMS Computing and Core-Software Deputy PM.
Hall-D/GlueX Software Status 12 GeV Software Review III February 11[?], 2015 Mark Ito.
ESFRI & e-Infrastructure Collaborations, EGEE’09 Krzysztof Wrona September 21 st, 2009 European XFEL.
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Page 1 CLAS12 Computing Requirements G.P.Gilfoyle University of Richmond.
Slide David Britton, University of Glasgow IET, Oct 09 1 Prof. David Britton GridPP Project leader University of Glasgow UK-T0 Meeting 21 st Oct 2015 GridPP.
Status report of the KLOE offline G. Venanzoni – LNF LNF Scientific Committee Frascati, 9 November 2004.
CBM Computing Model First Thoughts CBM Collaboration Meeting, Trogir, 9 October 2009 Volker Friese.
Predrag Buncic Future IT challenges for ALICE Technical Workshop November 6, 2015.
Large scale data flow in local and GRID environment Viktor Kolosov (ITEP Moscow) Ivan Korolko (ITEP Moscow)
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Page 1 Overview Talk Content Break-out Sessions Planning 12 GeV Upgrade Software Review Jefferson Lab November.
US ATLAS Tier 1 Facility Rich Baker Deputy Director US ATLAS Computing Facilities October 26, 2000.
GlueX Computing GlueX Collaboration Meeting – JLab Edward Brash – University of Regina December 11 th -13th, 2003.
Ian Bird WLCG Networking workshop CERN, 10 th February February 2014
PCAP Close Out Feb 2, 2004 BNL. Overall  Good progress in all areas  Good accomplishments in DC-2 (and CTB) –Late, but good.
LHCbComputing Computing for the LHCb Upgrade. 2 LHCb Upgrade: goal and timescale m LHCb upgrade will be operational after LS2 (~2020) m Increase significantly.
Distributed Physics Analysis Past, Present, and Future Kaushik De University of Texas at Arlington (ATLAS & D0 Collaborations) ICHEP’06, Moscow July 29,
ALICE RRB-T ALICE Computing – an update F.Carminati 23 October 2001.
Meeting with University of Malta| CERN, May 18, 2015 | Predrag Buncic ALICE Computing in Run 2+ P. Buncic 1.
Monitoring the Readiness and Utilization of the Distributed CMS Computing Facilities XVIII International Conference on Computing in High Energy and Nuclear.
A Data Handling System for Modern and Future Fermilab Experiments Robert Illingworth Fermilab Scientific Computing Division.
ALICE Physics Data Challenge ’05 and LCG Service Challenge 3 Latchezar Betev / ALICE Geneva, 6 April 2005 LCG Storage Management Workshop.
A proposal for the KM3NeT Computing Model Pasquale Migliozzi INFN - Napoli 1.
05/14/04Larry Dennis, FSU1 Scale of Hall D Computing CEBAF provides us with a tremendous scientific opportunity for understanding one of the fundamental.
Accounting systems design & evaluation 9434SB 18 March 2002.
May 23, 2007ALICE DOE Review - Computing1 ALICE-USA Computing Overview of Hard and Soft Computing Resources Needed to Achieve Research Goals 1.Calibration.
1 GlueX Software Oct. 21, 2004 D. Lawrence, JLab.
ATLAS Computing: Experience from first data processing and analysis Workshop TYL’10.
Hall D Computing Facilities Ian Bird 16 March 2001.
Pasquale Migliozzi INFN Napoli
ALICE Computing Model in Run3
ALICE Computing Upgrade Predrag Buncic
ILD Ichinoseki Meeting
Scientific Computing At Jefferson Lab
Heavy Ion Physics Program of CMS Proposal for Offline Computing
Presentation transcript:

Hall D Online Data Acquisition CEBAF provides us with a tremendous scientific opportunity for understanding one of the fundamental forces of nature. 75 MB/s 900 MB/s

Critical Role for Computing in Hall D The quality of Hall D science depends critically upon the collaboration’s ability to conduct it’s computing tasks.

Design Focus Get the job done Minimize the effort required to perform computing Fewer physicists Lower development costs Lower hardware costs Keep it simple Provide for ubiquitous access and participation

Goals for the Computing Environment 1. Only two people are required to run the experiment. 2. Everyone can participate in solving experimental problems – no matter where they are located. 3. Offline analysis can more than keep up with the online acquisition. 4. Simulations can more than keep up with the online acquisition. 5. First pass analysis and simulations can be planned, conducted, monitored, validated and used by a group. 6. First pass analysis and simulations can conducted automatically with group monitoring. 7. Subsequent analysis can be done automatically if individuals so choose.

Goal #1: Two person acquisition team 100 MB/s raw data. Need an estimate of designed good event rate to set online trigger performance Automated system monitoring Automated slow controls Automated data acquisition Automated online farm Collaborative environment for access to experts Integrated problem solving database links current to past problems and solutions Well defined procedures Good training procedures

Goal #2: Ubiquitous expert participation Online system information available from the web. Collaborative environment for working with online team. Experts can control systems from elsewhere when data acquisition team allows or DAQ inactive.

Goal #3: Concurrent Offline Analysis Offline analysis can be completed in the same length of time as is required for data taking (including detector and accelerator down time). This includes: Calibration overhead. Multiple passes through the data (average of 2). Evaluation of results. Dissemination of results

Goal #4: Concurrent Simulations Simulations can be completed in the same length of time as is required for data taking (including detector and accelerator down time). This includes: Simulation planning. Systematic studies ( up to 5-10 times as much data as is required for experimental measurements). Analysis of simulation results. Dissemination of results.

Goal #5: Collaborative computing First pass analysis and simulations can be planned by a group. Multiple people can conduct, validate, monitor, evaluate and use first pass analysis and simulations without unnecessary duplication. A single individual or a large group can manage appropriate scale tasks effectively.

Goal #6: Automated computing First pass analysis and simulations can conducted automatically without intervention. Progress is reported automatically. Errors in automatic processing are automatically flagged.

Goal #7: Extensibility Subsequent analysis can be done automatically if individuals so choose. The computational management system can be extended to include any Hall D computing tasks.

April 16, 2001L. Dennis, FSU Technical Details Technical requirements that the computing system must meet.

Technical Details 100 MB/s raw data. Need an estimate of designed good event rate to set online trigger performance. Average of two analysis passes through the data. Average of 10 events simulated for every event taken. All required information available online – no electronically generated information will go unrecorded. All computer tasks automated - can be submitted and monitored from any computer system that can reach the internet.

Trigger Rates for Hall D Detector 180 kev/s Trigger 15 kev/s 5 kB/ev 75 MB/s Trigger requires ~100 CPU’s* * Assume a factor of 10 improvement over existing CPU’s 5 CPU-ms/evFull Reconstruction (CLAS) 50 ms/ev today. 100 CPU-ms/evFull Simulation (CLAS) 1-3 s/ev today. 1/3Assumed detector & accelerator efficiency.

Required Sustained Reconstruction Rate [15 kev/s] * [1/3] * [2] = 10 kev/s Equipment Duty Factor Raw Rate Duplication Factor 10 kev/s * 5 CPU-ms/ev = 50 CPU’s

Required Sustained Simulation Rate 5 kev/s * 100 CPU-ms/ev = 500 CPU’s [15 kev/s] * [1/3] * [10] * [1/10] = 5 kev/s Equipment Duty Factor Raw Rate Systematics Studies Good Event Fraction PWA error is determined by one’s knowledge of systematic errors. This requires extensive simulations, but not all events simulated are accepted events.

Annual Date Rate to Archive Raw Data 75 MB/sec * (3 *10 7 s/yr) * (1/3)= 0.75 PB/yr Simulation Data 25 MB/sec * (3 *10 7 s/yr) = 0.75 PB/yr Reconstructed Data 50 MB/sec * (3 *10 7 s/yr) = 1.50 PB/yr Total Rate to Archive ~ 3 PB/yr

Requirements Summary

Some comparisons: Hall D vs. other HENP Data Volumes (tape) TB/year Data rates MB/s Disk Cache TB CPU SI95/year People CMS2 000 (total) ~1800 US Atlas (Tier 1) ~500 (?) STAR20040>207000~300 D0/CDF Run II 300~500 BaBar300~500 Not just an issue of equipment. These experiments all have the support of large dedicated computing groups within the experiments well defined computing models JLAB– current ~240 (CLAS) Hall D

April 16, 2001L. Dennis, FSU Proposed Solution “You can’t always get what you want. You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, well you just might find You’ll get what you need.” Rolling Stones, You can’t always get what you want.

Meeting the Hall D Computational Challenges Moore’s law: Computer performance increases by a factor of 2 every 18 months. Gilder’s Law: Network bandwidth triples every 12 months. Solving the information management problems requires people working on the software and developing a workable computing environment. Dennis’ Law: Neither Moore’s Law nor Gilder’s Law will solve our computing problems.

Hall D Computing Tasks First Pass Analysis Data Mining Physics Analysis Partial Wave Analysis Physics Analysis Acquisition Monitoring Slow Controls Data Archival Planning Simulation Publication Calibrations

Initial Estimate of Software Tasks & Timeline

Hall D Grid

Hall D Grid Sites First Pass Analysis (Jefferson Lab) Simulation Sites (3-5) Physics Analysis Sites (3-5) Partial Wave Analysis Sites (2) Calibration Site

Hall D Offline Data Flow

Grid Efficiency Considerations Need extensive resources. Need universal access. Need good workflow. Need good communication about what has been done and what needs to be done.