Transcript title

Phase 3 Letter of Intent (1/2)
 Short: N Pages
 May Refer to MONARC Internal Notes to Document Progress
 Suggested Format: Similar to PEP Extension
 Introduction: deliverables are realistic technical options and the associated
resource requirements for LHC Computing;
to be presented to the experiments and CERN, in support of
Computing Model development for the Computing TDRs.
 Brief Status; Existing Notes
 Motivations for a Common Project --> Justification (1)
 Goals and Scope of the Extension --> Justification (2)
 Schedule: Preliminary estimate is 12 Months from completion of
Phase 2, that will occur with the submission of the final Phase 1+2
Report. Final report will contain a proposal for the Phase 3
milestones and detailed schedule
 Phase 3A: Decision on which prototypes to build or exploit
 MONARC/Experiments/Regional Centres Working Meeting
 Phase 3B: Specification of resources and prototype configurations
 Setup of simulation and prototype environment
 Phase 3C: Operation of prototypes and of simulation; analysis of results
 Phase 3D: Feedback; strategy optimization
December 10,1999:
MONARC Plenary Meeting
Harvey Newman (CIT)
Phase 3 Letter of Intent (2/2)
 Equipment


Needs (Scale specified further in Phase 3A)
 MONARC Sun E450 server upgrade
 TB RAID Array, GB memory upgrade
 To act as a client to the System in CERN/IT, for distributed system
studies
 Access to Substantial system in the CERN/IT infrastructure
consisting of a Linux farm, and a Sun-based data server over Gigabit
Ethernet
 Access to a Multi-Terabyte robotic tape store
 Non-blocking access to WAN links to some of the main potential RC
(e.g. 10 Mbps reserved to Japan; some tens of Mbps to US)
 Temporary use of a large volume of tape media
Relationship to Other Projects and Groups
 Work in collaboration with CERN/IT groups involved databases and large
scale data and processing services
 Our role is to seek common elements that may be used effectively in the
experiments’ Computing Models
 Computational Grid Projects in US;
Cooperate in upcoming EU Grid proposals
 US other National Funded efforts with R&D components
Submitted to Hans Hoffmann for Information on our Intention to Continue
 Copy to Manuel Delfino
December 10,1999:
MONARC Plenary Meeting
Harvey Newman (CIT)
Phase 3 LoI Status

Monarc has met its milestones up until now
 Progress Report
 Talks in Marseilles: General + Simulation
 Testbed Notes: 99/4, 99/6, Youhei’s Note --> MONARC number
 Architecture group notes: 99/1-3
 Simulation: Appendix of Progress Report
 Short papers (Titles) for CHEP 2000 by January 15
December 10,1999:
MONARC Plenary Meeting
Harvey Newman (CIT)
MONARC Phase 3: Justification (1)
General: TIMELINESS and USEFUL IMPACT
 Facilitate the efficient planning and design of mutually
compatible site and network architectures, and services

Among the experiments, the CERN Centre
and Regional Centres
Provide modelling consultancy and service to the
experiments and Centres
 Provide a core of advanced R&D activities, aimed at LHC
computing system optimisation and production prototyping
 Take advantage of work on distributed data-intensive computing
for HENP this year in other “next generation” projects [*]

 For example in US: “Particle Physics Data Grid” (PPDG) of DoE/NGI;
+ “Joint “GriPhyN” proposal on Computational Data Grids by
ATLAS/CMS/LIGO/SDSS. Note EU Plans as well.
[*] See H. Newman, http://www.cern.ch/MONARC/progress_report/longc7.html
December 10,1999:
MONARC Plenary Meeting
Harvey Newman (CIT)
MONARC Phase 3 Justification
(2A)
More Realistic Computing Model Development
(LHCb and Alice Notes)



Confrontation of Models with Realistic Prototypes;
At Every Stage: Assess Use Cases Based on Actual Simulation,
Reconstruction and Physics Analyses;
 Participate in the setup of the prototyopes
 We will further validate and develop MONARC simulation system
using the results of these use cases (positive feedback)
 Continue to Review Key Inputs to the Model
 CPU Times at Various Phases
 Data Rate to Storage
 Tape Storage: Speed and I/O
Employ MONARC simulation and testbeds to study CM variations,
and suggest strategy improvements
December 10,1999:
MONARC Plenary Meeting
Harvey Newman (CIT)
MONARC Phase 3 Justification
(2B)
 Technology Studies
 Data Model
 Data structures
 Reclustering, Restructuring; transport operations
 Replication
 Caching, migration (HMSM), etc.
 Network
 QoS Mechanisms: Identify Which are important
 Distributed System Resource Management and Query

Estimators
 (Queue management and Load Balancing)
Development of MONARC Simulation Visualization Tools
for interactive Computing Model analysis (forward reference)
December 10,1999:
MONARC Plenary Meeting
Harvey Newman (CIT)
MONARC Phase 3: Justification (3)
Meet Near Term Milestones for LHC Computing

For example CMS Data Handling Milestones: ORCA4: March 2000
~1 Million event fully-simulated data sample(s)
 Simulation of data access patterns, and mechanisms used
to build and/or replicate compact object collections
 Integration of database and mass storage use
(including caching/migration strategy for limited disk space)
 Other milestones will be detailed, and/or brought forward to meet
the actual needs for HLT Studies and the TDRs for the
Trigger, DAQ, Software and Computing and Physics

ATLAS Geant4 Studies

Event production and and analysis must be spread amongst
regional centres, and candidates
 Learn about RC configurations, operations, network bandwidth,
by modeling real systems, and analyses actually with
 Feedback information from real operations into simulations
 Use progressively more realistic models to develop future
December 10,1999: MONARC Plenary Meeting Harvey Newman (CIT)
strategies
MONARC: Computing Model
Constraints Drive Strategies
 Latencies and Queuing Delays
 Resource Allocations and/or Advance Reservations
 Time to Swap In/Out Disk Space
 Tape Handling Delays: Get a Drive, Find a Volume,
Mount a Volume, Locate File, Read or Write
 Interaction with local batch and device queues
 Serial operations: tape/disk, cross-network, disk-disk
and/or disk-tape after network transfer
 Networks
 Useable fraction of bandwidth (Congestion, Overheads): 30-60% (?)
Fraction for event-data transfers: 15-30% ?
 Nonlinear throughput degradation on loaded or poorly configured
network paths.
 Inter-Facility Policies
 Resources available to remote users
 Access to some resources in quasi-real time
December 10,1999:
MONARC Plenary Meeting
Harvey Newman (CIT)