1. Status of 2015 pledges 2016 requests RRB Report Concezio Bozzi INFN Ferrara LHCb NCB, November 3 rd 2014

2. 2015 pledges Reminder: 2015 requests were already scrutinized and approved at the April RRB, and discussed in the June NCB Current status in REBUS shows – (T0+T1) pledges ~13% above requests – Part of this is due to Russia now pledging a Tier1 for LHCb (RRCKI) – Slight (8%) underpledge for Tier2 CPU Thanks for your continuing efforts on securing resources to LHCb! 03/11/14C. Bozzi - Status of 2015 pledges, 2016 requests, RRB Report2

3. Tier0 + Tier1 pledged resources 03/11/14C. Bozzi - Status of 2015 pledges, 2016 requests, RRB Report3

4. Tier2 pledged resources 03/11/14C. Bozzi - Status of 2015 pledges, 2016 requests, RRB Report4

5. 2016 (and 2017) requests No changes in computing model and requests with respect to what already shown Reminder of main features wrt Run1: – Postpone reprocessing of raw data to LS2 – Use smaller microDST for real and (later) simulated data – Assume reduced CPU consumption for reconstruction and simulation – Assume real data event size will not grow substantially – Assume reduction in size of simulated events Big jump in tape from 2015 to 2016. Largely for RAW data, but significant space for preservation of derived datasets. Documents submitted to and reviewed by the CRSG: – LHCB-PUB-2014-041 (resource requests for 2016 and 2017) LHCB-PUB-2014-041 – LHCB-PUB-2014-042 (resource usage in first half of 2014) LHCB-PUB-2014-042 03/11/14C. Bozzi - Status of 2015 pledges, 2016 requests, RRB Report5

6. Summary of requests CPU Running assumptions Disk 03/11/14C. Bozzi - Status of 2015 pledges, 2016 requests, RRB Report6

7. Tape HI Running pp Running 03/11/14C. Bozzi - Status of 2015 pledges, 2016 requests, RRB Report7

8. Comparison with “flat budget” Definition of flat budget: same money will buy – 20% more CPUs – 15% more disk – 25% more tape 03/11/14C. Bozzi - Status of 2015 pledges, 2016 requests, RRB Report8

9. Resource usage: data popularity (see PhC talk later this week) ATLAS Volume of data versus number of accesses for ATLAS for previous 3, 6 and 12 months 03/11/14C. Bozzi - Status of 2015 pledges, 2016 requests, RRB Report9

10. Resource usage: data popularity (see PhC talk later this week) LHCb Volume of data versus number of accesses for LHCb for previous 3, 6 and 12 months 03/11/14C. Bozzi - Status of 2015 pledges, 2016 requests, RRB Report10

11. Resource usage: Tier0+Tier1 disk (see Stefan’s talk) Tier0+Tier1 CPU Jan-Aug 2014 Remaining disk space should be sufficient to host Data from MC production and other activities until Apr 2015 03/11/14C. Bozzi - Status of 2015 pledges, 2016 requests, RRB Report11

12. Tier2 disk occupancy (see Andrew’s talk) 03/11/14C. Bozzi - Status of 2015 pledges, 2016 requests, RRB Report12 Real data Simulated data

13. RRB outcome CRSG and RRB endorsed our 2016 preliminary requests. Definitive decision in April 2015 RRB General comments from CSRG (from J. Flynn’s slides) 03/11/14C. Bozzi - Status of 2015 pledges, 2016 requests, RRB Report13

14. Specific comments to LHCb “Even though the CRSG endorses the LHCb requests we would like to point out a few items: The 79% increase in the tape request from 2015 to 2016 exceeds what can be reasonably expected with a flat budget. The CRSG acknowledges that the driver for the request is mostly related to the increased trigger rate and the associated increase in RAW data and endorses the request. However, we encourage LHCb to continue its considerations on possible moves to mitigate effects if the request cannot be met. Partly due to shortage of manpower, but also for technical and practical reasons, LHCb has chosen to replicate derived datasets instead of regenerating them in case of tape loss. The CRSG understands the difficulties involved in regenerating derived datasets and appreciates that LHCb is actively investigating ways to overcome the challenges. The CRSG also appreciates the work being done in order to ensure funding for sufficient manpower to support the regeneration in case of data loss. Some trade- off between cost, data integrity, and the time needed to reproduce the derived data — including the preservation of software and hardware environments — might be possible. We thank LHCb for providing information on data popularity and unaccessed data. We look forward to hearing in future scrutinies what measures have been taken to make better use of the available disk space. 03/11/14C. Bozzi - Status of 2015 pledges, 2016 requests, RRB Report14

15. Summary 2015 looks good Keep momentum in the following years – CPU and disk within flat budget – Tape increase worrisome Verify projected improvements on input parameters of computing model on Run2 data 03/11/14C. Bozzi - Status of 2015 pledges, 2016 requests, RRB Report15