1. Page 1 May 10, 2011 IT for the 12 GeV Era 2011 Review Review Closing Summary

2. Page 2 May 10, 2011 Effort in preparing talks is appreciated! –All presenters appeared open in their presentations and self evaluations –Presentations contain lots of useful details No show stoppers… everything is either in good shape, or could be put into good shape with appropriate actions Some areas need improvement in staffing and/or management Summary of Observations

3. Page 3 May 10, 2011 Lots of work underway Software for the halls is a big job; core components already in place, including pieces to scale up in bandwidth and performance Computing requirements easily met (Moore’s Law helps); storage slightly more challenging / costly Halls A & C are in good shape, small changes relative to the 6 GeV program (excepting SOLID, still far out) Planned A & C sharing of software sounds good Observations (1)

4. Page 4 May 10, 2011 Overall, the best staffing status was “adequate”, so staffing needs additional scrutiny Supporting groups (MIS, CNI, SCI) mostly in good shape –SciComp benefits from experience with much larger LQCD systems –CNI: Continuous improvements, e.g. smooth transition to VoIP underway (good) –MIS: supporting experiments as needed, e.g. shift schedules; willingness to help with tracking experiments in the future Staffing increases for MIS and CNI are planned to address increasing requirements Observations (2)

5. Page 5 May 10, 2011 Halls High Level: 12 GeV computing requirements don’t fit into constant effort of base program (not funded by 12 GeV project), and are assumed to be covered by the base program –don’t have numbers to say in what year the 50-50-50 fails to meet requirements (but it will) Software: No common process for defining requirements, no common management structure 4 halls not sharing much software Concerns (1)

6. Page 6 May 10, 2011 Hall B: –Distributed processing / analysis plans: creates dependencies on remote services (24/7 operations requirement to keep it all up?) Hall D: –D’s requirements not as well defined as other halls –Software head seems to have insufficient authority to direct software development priorities (i.e. software architect) –2 FTE seems too small for 40% of effort planned for Jefferson Lab –Hall D Offsite computing & networking requirements nebulous Concerns (2)

7. Page 7 May 10, 2011 Halls do not yet have robust plans for testing and reviewing readiness to operate. Identification of risks, and addressing risks, still needs to be done. WAN Plans for WAN upgrades / bandwidth availability above a second 10g link are fuzzy (budget if students watch lots of movies?); also plans for 2 nd independent path Videoconferencing is now a critical service: seeing who is speaking matters, following cursor is also useful (desktop sharing); self-support won’t be adequate Concerns (3)