relazione referee calcolo lhc francesco forti, università e infn – pisa per il gruppo di...
TRANSCRIPT
Relazione referee calcolo LHCRelazione referee calcolo LHC
Francesco Forti, Università e INFN – Pisa
Per il gruppo di referaggio:F. Bossi, C. Bozzi, R. Carlin, R. Ferrari, F.F., M.Morandin, M. Taiuti
WLCGINFNGRIDTier1Tier2
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 2
LCG Comprehensive Review LHCC di Settembre 2006
Due giorni di review di LCG LCG Phase 2 = WLCG
Presentazioni dei referees:
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 3
LHC Committee - LHCCScientific Review
Computing Resources Review Board - C-RRB
Funding Agencies
Overview Board - OB
Management Board - MBManagement of the Project
LCG Organisation – Phase 2
Grid Deployment BoardCoordination ofGrid Operation
Architects ForumCoordination of
Common Applications
Collaboration Board – CBExperiments and Regional Centres
PhysicsApplications
Software
DistributedAnalysis &
Grid Support
GridDeployment
ComputingFabricActivity Areas
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 4
WLCG Infrastructure Based on two major science grid infrastructures:
EGEE (Enabling Grids for E-science) phase 2 approved after last CR, funded until Apr 2008
OSG (Open Science Grid) 5-year funding cycle pending approval with DOE/NSF, (positive) decision
expected in a few months At time of 2005 CR, interoperability between grids was a major
concern this issue has been worked on in the
meantime: authentication, job submission, mass storage access across grids show progress, though no common interface in sight
Jobs/Day - EGEE Grid
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Jun-05
Jul-05
Aug-05
Sep-05
Oct-05
Nov-05
Dec-05
Jan-06
Feb-06
Mar-06
Apr-06
May-06
Jun-06
Jul-06
Aug-06
month
K jobs/day
alice
atlas
cms
lhcb
geant4
dteam
non-LHC
Jobs per day (EGEE Jobs per day (EGEE grid)grid)
Jobs per day (OSG grid)Jobs per day (OSG grid)
10 10 kk
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 5
Metrics & Monitoring
Monitoring of availability & reliability has been major milestone for T-1 centers now
done now regularly (fails on some sites)
still below MoU level Monitoring of job failures at application level is much harder experiment dashboards analysis of job logs. Still much manual work. reliable automated system for job failure classification not around
the corner key point to sustained reliability should be pursued with priority
~74~74%%
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 6
Accounting
Since ~4 months, full accounting data for CERN + T-1s
comparison with installed & pledged resources
Monthly use relatively low
related to present use pattern (testing/ commissioning/ challenges)
No indication that performance bottlenecks may be due to resource limitations
CERN + T-1sCERN + T-1s
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 7
Impact of Schedule Change Reminder: running scenarios assumed for TDR
requirements: 50 days of physics in 2007 107s pp + 106s AA in subsequent years
New scenario after revision of schedule:
Experiments will provide revised estimated requirements by begin of October WLCG & funding agencies preliminary (non-endorsed) numbers exist from ALICE, ATLAS & LHCb
NOTA: il processo di revisione è ancora in corso
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 8
Shortfall of 13.9 MCHF for phase 2 (as of Apr 2006) reduced to 3.4 MCHF
Assuming the preliminary numbers (!) from the experiments’ revised requirements estimate
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 9
WLCG Personnel Much depends on a suitable succession
project to EGEE-II from Apr 2008 onwards 15 FTEs at stake alone at CERN similarly crucial for external centers
This is a point of concern. WLCG should strive for a consolidation in terms of a more structural project, in particular also at the level beyond T-0
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 10
Commissioning Schedule Still an
ambitious programme ahead
Timely testing of full data chain from DAQ to T-2 chain was major item from last CR DAQ T-0
still largely untested
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 11
Middleware
Very significant progress during the last year on middleware and grid activities by the different experiments.
A system is in place and works in scheduled production periods.
It has been used by the experiments and if/when stable and reliable it should meet needs. Now robustness and stability is the key to make sure the system survives heavy (unscheduled) use as LHC startup approaches.
Many important aspects still not totally accomplished (remote site monitoring, accounting, job priorities & user
tools) essential in a realistic system for a running experiment Fundamental to allocate the required level of manpower
beyond 2008 to maintain basic functionality, user support, upgrades and interoperability among grids. Interoperability essential to make use of all available resources
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 12
EEGE Middleware Development
gLite 3.0 Successfully deployed in May 2006 Debug of different components still continuing Reliability, reliability, reliability
50% resources spent on user support of existing infrastructure and software bug fixing.
Current activities (triggered by experiments) Security Data Management Usage Accounting Job Priorities (new GP-Box project…one year time scale)
Job priorities: absolutely non trivial when it is a decentralized system…experiments should carefully develop and manage this (perhaps starting from existing examples in running experiments)
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 13
Application Area Projects SPI – Software process infrastructure (A. Pfeiffer)
Software and development services: external libraries, savannah, software distribution, support for build, test, QA, etc.
ROOT – Core Libraries and Services (R. Brun) Foundation class libraries, math libraries, framework services,
dictionaries, scripting, GUI, graphics, SEAL libraries, etc.
POOL – Persistency Framework (D. Duellmann) Storage manager, file catalogs, event collections, relational
access layer, conditions database, etc.
SIMU - Simulation project (G. Cosmo) Simulation framework, physics validation studies, MC event
generators, Garfield, participation in Geant4, Fluka.
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 14
AA Example - PROOFRelative speed-up
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 15
AA – CONCLUSIVE REMARKS 1/2 Lots of of work
important progress and achievements Managerial difficulties due to the project fragmentation
the Simulation project some difficulties in interfacing some Monte Carlo
generators to the LCG simulation infrastructure ROOT project
properly managed ; appropriate manpower resources achievements: consolidation, fast access to data Merging of SEAL (Shared Environment for Applications
at LHC) progressing successfully important progress of PROOF, powerful tool to extend
ROOT to run on a distributed, heterogeneous system Alice, CMS and LHCb are expressing interest in using of
PROOF clear decisions by the experiments needed
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 16
AA – CONCLUSIVE REMARKS 2/2 persistency framework project
key ingredient for LHC computing difficult to assess the progress level
important effort by AA to keep the link with the experiments and the users strong and effective
LCG Generator monthly meetings Architects Forum, AA Meetings every 2 weeks Savannah portal
manpower present level globally very near to the needs some reassignment can cure the limitations affecting
individual projects possible manpower crisis in 2008 (retirements and
contract ends) appropriate action be taken in2007 to guarantee
adequate manpower level in 2008 and beyond
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 17
Computing fabric - CERN T0 and CAF are well on track
But aggregate capacity for 4 experiments not demonstrated Still slightly underfunded despite recent improvements Impressice empty space in computer center
Building, cooling and power upgrades planned as required T0 well understood
Demonstrated capabilities in full scale ATLAS test CAF requirements still not well defined
CERN Analysis Facility or Calibration and Alignment Facility ? Experiments need to deliver well in advance Keep in mind purchasing cycles of 6+ months
Storage systems have improved performance Still adding features, need ongoing attention
Manpower tight; need perspective with EGEE successor Scalability - still an order of magnitude to go:
CASTOR2 and Directory service are critical
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 18
Computing fabric – storage Storage Resource Manager v2.2
WLCG Standard storage interface, defined in May 2006 Hybrid between 2.1 and 3.0 Implementation is essential for LCG service
Castor2 Deployment at T0 successful, well integrated Inherent performance problems hit ATLAS and CMS, fix underway Tier sites had problems - high support load for CERN Review in June positive towards the project, but
„Many years of […] periods of operational distress“ dCache
Project manpower has improved - 1 FTE for dCache user support now No clear deadline for implementing SRM v2.2 - But seems to be on
track Community Support: OSG fund their own requests
DPM – Disk Pool Manager In widespread use at 50+ smaller sites Will be late in implementing SRM v 2.2 Serious manpower troublesNot an issue for T0 and CAF
Indirect issue for T1s (transfer to/from T2s with DPM)
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 19
Fabric – Distributed Deployment of Databases – 3D Provides database infrastructure and replication
eg. for detector conditions and geometry, file catalogues, event tags
Initially set up at CERN and 6 “phase 1” Tier1 sites to do: monitoring and (at some sites) backup systems Replication performance sufficient for conditions and
catalogues T0->T1 replication 50% of T0->T0 rates. More optimisation
possible Moving from R&D to service phase Experiment data rates and access patterns still not
fully known All experiments are testing real applications on the real
infrastructure Tier1 resources should be adequate
CNAF one of the first sites online for 3D
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 20
target 88%74% 75%85% 86%
avail: 95% reliability: 95% avail: 69% reliability: 71% avail: 94% reliability: 94%
avail: 69% reliability: 73% avail: 59% reliability: 60% avail: 83% reliability: 83%
avail: 87% reliability: 87% avail: 97% reliability: 97% avail: 4% reliability: 4%
avail: 88% reliability: 88% avail: n/a reliability: 0% avail: n/a reliability: 0%
USCMS-FNAL-WC1
IN2P3-CC
SARA-MATRIX
NDGF
Data from SAM monitoring. Site availability and reliability as agreed in WLCG MB on 11 July 2006 (scheduled interruptions are excluded when calculating reliability)
TRIUMF-LCG2 Taiwan-LCG2
CERN-PROD FZK-LCG2
INFN-T1 RAL-LCG2
scheduled downlegend:
PIC BNL
Availability of WLCG Tier-1 Sites + CERN August 2006
tests passed
average (8 best sites):
reliabilityaverage (all sites):
site average colour coding: < 90% of target ≥ 90% of target ≥ targetavailability
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 310%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
SAM tests fail due to dCache function failure that does not affect CMS jobs. The problem is understood and is being worked on
All sites assumed up while SAM had problems on 1, 3, 4 August
Site not integrated into the Site Availability Monitoring (SAM) system -
not included in overall average
Site not integrated into the Site Availability Monitoring (SAM) system -
not included in overall average
TIER1
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 21
Tier1 Issues and recommendations… Tier1s need to know the consequences of the
schedule change required resource changes affect procurement Tier1s must be fully integrated in the experiments’
planning and decision process Communication with experiments in vital to
bridge the “culture gap” Recommend liaison officer in both Tier1 and
experiments Meet regularly Tier1 liaisons should attend experiment computing
meetings Experiment monitoring should be available to Tier1s
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 22
…Tier1 Issues and recommendations
24x7 operation Requires “on-call” service
Still not at all Tier1s Can never have all experts on call all the time
Not all problems resolvable by on-call responsibles
Can reduce outages, but some are still unavoidable
Coordinate with experiments to avoid scheduling outages at multiple Tier1s at the same time
especially an issue with core MW upgrades Stability of Middleware is crucial
Both problems and upgrades lead to down-time Developers need to concentrate on reliability
over functionality, and very well-tested releases
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 23
7x24 Operations (K.Woller‘s view)
There´s no way to have experts 24x7 (x52)
Need to design services to survive trivial failures Commercially available load balancers may help
Need to design for increased reaction timesBy building service level redundancy where possible
For rare complex problems, „on duty“ coordinator may help getting the required experts together fast.
1 FTE230 day x 8 hours
1840 h/year
24/7 expert service8760 h/year
4.8 FTE
What we have What people suggest
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 24
Tier2 Summary Tier2s are a very diverse bunch
400-2500 CPUs, 50-800 TB, 1-4 experiments (also non LHC) 1-13 staff FTE (most ~5), Mostly 1GB/s network, and no MSS
(tape) Most Tier2s participated in SC4 - Critical for experiments Funding uncertainties Some Tier2s are federations
up to 8 geographical sites Mostly 1 CE/SE per site (ie. Middleware sees them as separate)
Share experience and some services, allow small sites to participate
Can work well, but requires close cooperation Collaboration with “local” Tier1 is essential
Data transfers Tier1 can provide advice and perhaps some services CMS Europe: Not enough Tier1s for all Tier2s
2/3 of Tier2s rely on DPM concern for support and future compatibility (eg. SRM 2.2) DPM support team is undermanned
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 25
Service Challenge
Old data, new limit Come l’atrazina
Old target – 1.6GB/sNew target – 1.3GB/s
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 26
SC4 - What were the problems ? No simple answer
Many, many individual one-off problems were mentioned Little quantitative information was presented
Many reports of instabilities T1 sites (ATLAS report all 9 T1s only all available for a few
hours/month) Hardware failures SRM/mass storage Castor/dCache File catalogues
Site differences Firewalls Badly configured
nodes/sites EGEE software
File access (GFAL) File transfer (FTS)
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 27
SC4 – How to improve ?
• Many comments that manual intervention was required• “heroic efforts” ; “at the limit of what the system can do”
• Need for communication improvements and problem reporting between the sites
• Error reporting, tutorials, phone meetings, workshops, Wikis, etc.• He sees this as the way to improve performance and
reliability• Have to live with this level of problems; just get more efficient at
overcoming them when they occur• Castor is a notable exception
• However, must also put a lot of effort into bug fixing• Not “sexy”; may need to push to keep the effort in the right
direction• Effectively division of effort in maintenance vs. development• Important to get the balance of effort right here
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 28
SC4 – Other Comments• Experiments will not ramp up to nominal rates by Jul07
• E.g. ATLAS simulation is x10 below right now• Most are aiming for this around early 2008• No direct DAQ output has been included yet• Hence, service commissioning period will not be based on realistic
loads• Should commissioning targets be relaxed for 2007, given LHC
schedule? Only makes sense if frees up effort to use elsewhere; not clear if true
• Almost all service performance reported as data transfer rates• Obviously critical to get data out, both for storage and analysis• Some information given on job performance• Very little on CPU usage efficiency; this seems to be underutilised
• Scheduled outages can be worse than unscheduled ones• They hit more than one site simultaneously• More than one item tends to be removed from service
• A usable albeit imperfect service
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 29
Coordination and communication
Alberto Aimar CERN – LCG 17
Coordination Meetings
ECMExperimentsCoordination
Meeting OPSOperations
Meeting
SCMServices
CoordinationMeeting
EIS + ExperimentsFeedbackIssues with ServicesResource Requirements
Service updatesSC Team
Operating IssuesSite ReportsSites
Issues with ServicesSC Team
Change of RequirementsSC Team
Services
Status of ServicesProgress
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 30
Service coordination Meeting structure setup to ensure communication
Make sure experiment and sites representatives have enough authority
Service Coordination Meetings ideally should regularly be held at each Tier1 site in addition to CERN.
Clear need for a sort of service operation coordinator that acts as a central collection point for everything’s that going on Discussion on length of term for operation coordinator
appointment Should be reasonably long (>2-3 months)
Need to continue to increase the involvement of remote sites in the decision, planning, and monitoring process Develop realistic plans and adhere to them Convince remote sites that the plans are real Keep everybody in the system consistenly informed Careful in keeping the bureaucracy under control and the
reporting load at acceptable levels
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 31
Middleware/deployment/Service Challenges
Stability needs to be improved. No new functionality, but need stable, running service
Experiments need to start using all the features of gLite3, to find the new problems.
Need to keep developer to fix the bugs and make the system stable rather than devloping new nice functionality
Analysis of job failure rates still needs improvement User support model needs to be revisited
maybe a first line of defense internal to the experiment Target performance goals not quite reached Continuous unattended operation still a long way off A full scale test of the entire chain starting from
experiments DAQ is still missing
SU
MM
AR
Y
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 32
Fabric Technologically there doesn’t seem to be an issue
Some scalability issues with LSF and service machines CERN T0 still needs to demonstrate the full aggregated
capacity for 4 experiments CASTOR2 still an issue – critical item
Is manpower sufficient ? Issue of external sites support
SRM 2.2 Essential, but not yet ready nor deployed dCache a bit late in developing srm2.2
DPM – essential for small sites Is it going to be supported in the long term ? If yes, need
manpower. 24x7 operation and staffing at external sites very difficult
Mixed level of readiness To PROOF or not to PROOF
Encourage experiments to take a clear stand at whether they want it, since it has broad implications.
SU
MM
AR
Y
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 33
Management and global issues
Involvement of external sites improved, but keep going. Communication, communication, communication
Experiments involvement is essential At CERN as well as at Tier1 sites
Staffing problem if there is not EGEE-III How to make a transition to structural operation
staffing The modification in LHC schedules somewhat
reduces the gap between needed and available resources. There should be no temptation for the funding agencies to reduce the level of funding.
SU
MM
AR
Y
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 34
In Italia: INFN GRID EGEE Operation: Il Regional Operation Center Italiano garantisce
Il funzionamento giornaliero della e-infrastruttura Europea Un supporto per Molte VO (Virtual Organizations) sulla stessa infrastruttura multi-
science Sviluppo e mantenimento di MiddleWare: gLite Garantire l’ evoluzione del Middleware Grid Open Source verso standards
internazionali: OMII Europe La disponibilità del MW in un’efficiente repository: ETICS Partecipare alle attivita’ informatiche di Ricerca e Sviluppo Coordinare l’espansione di EGEE nel mondo
Gilda – attività di disseminazione EUMedGrid , Eu-IndiaGrid (MoU…) EUChinaGrid (Argo..) , EELA(LHC-B…)
Sostenere l’allargamento di EGEE a nuove comunita’ scientifiche GRIDCC (Applicazioni real time e controllo apparati) BionfoGrid (Bionformatici; Coordinato dal CNR) LIBI (MIUR; Bionfomatici in Italia) Cyclops (Protezione Civile)
Garantire la sostenibilita’ futura delle e-Infrastrutture con consorzi et al. A livello EU : EGEE II -> EGI A livello Nazionale IGI A livello di middleware EU OMII EU A livello di middleware nazionale c-OMEGA
Coordinare la partecipazione all’Open Grid Forum (ex GGF)
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 35
CNAF Punto focale di tutte le attività INFNGRID
Manpower finanziato sui progetti Tier1 per esperimenti LHC
Funzionante e pienamente utilizzato Manpower INFN fortemente carente Sia per la gestione, sia per l’upgrade infrastrutturale
Indicazione dei referee: Concentrarsi sulle attività di Core GRID necessarie per il calcolo
degli esperimenti LHC Questione delicata per i contributi approvati dall’INFN ai progetti
internazionali Piano di sviluppo ancora in discussione. Elementi da definire:
Necessità degli esperimenti nel 2007-2008 Espandibilità del CNAF nel 2007
Le infrastrutture esistenti mostrano forti limiti sia per il condizionamento sia per la distribuzione elettrica
Interventi urgenti previsti in parallelo all’upgrade infrastrutturale completo (che non si concluderà prima di primavera 2008)
Le risorse pledged a WLCG per il 2007 non sembrano raggiungibili
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 36
Risorse fornite vs. pledged
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 37
Suddivisione risorse CNAF Comitato di gestione
Gruppo deputato a definire la suddivisione delle risorse e le altre scelte operative del centro
Da utilizzare in modo sistematico e continuativo Nuovo coordinatore delle richieste degli esperimenti è
Umberto Marconi (grazie Paolo) Richieste da parte di esperimenti di CSN2
Argo, Virgo, Pamela, Opera, Magic Soprattutto spazio disco: critico perchè gli esperimenti
sono in presa dati Da privilegiare l’acquisto di disco, che consuma anche meno
potenza... Incontro con la commissione II domani
Tutti gli esperimenti che calcolano al CNAF dovrebbero essere referati nello stesso gruppo Attualmente Babar e CDF sono a parte
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 38
Tier2 I Tier2 sono finanziati per il 2007
esclusivamente con fondi SJ. Gli esperimenti stanno preparando un piano
dettagliato di attività per il 2007 in modo da definire gli sblocchi di SJ Pronto verso fine anno
Esaminati in dettaglio i progetti di Roma (Torino) e Pisa Relazione di referaggio di CCR (26/10/06):
R. Gomezel, M. Morandin, L. Pellegrino, R. Ricci, R. Stroili
In generale sono stati fatti notevoli progressi L’efficienza di utilizzo e la collaborazione tra
TIER2 cresciuti notevolmente
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 39
T2-Roma Il progetto ha raggiunto un livello globalmente adeguato di
approfondimento delle questioni tecniche, tale da poter permettere il passaggio alla fase esecutiva.
Il gruppo di Roma ha sfruttato competenze locali esistenti, si è appoggiato al servizio di LNL e inoltre si servirà per il progetto esecutivo di una ditta specializzata già individuata.
La questione tecnica risultata di più difficile soluzione, ovvero la collocazione delle macchine condensanti esterne, sembra ora risolta.
Le questioni tecniche critiche sono state affrontate e le opzioni tecniche presentate non presentano particolari rischi.
Si nota la mancanza di un documento preliminare di progettazione per gli impianti elettrici che invece è stato reso disponibile per la parte di condizionamento.
Da fare: progetto di massima del sistema di gestione dei guasti critici, integrazione impiantistica del sistema antiincendio della sala progetto aggiornato della rete locale
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 40
T2-Pisa Il progetto ha subito modifiche importanti rispetto alla sua prima
formulazione. Nella sua versione attuale, con il trasferimento di parte delle
macchine ad una nuova sala, si sono ottenuti considerevoli semplificazioni e risparmi.
I principali elementi del progetto sono stati definiti e le soluzioni tecniche proposte sembrano in generale adeguate.
I documenti forniti esaminano in dettaglio gli aspetti critici, ma, per servire come base per una progettazione esecutiva, andrebbero ulteriormente integrati con le informazioni che ora risultano mancanti.
Il gruppo si appoggia ai tecnologi disponibili in Sezione e non prevede di coinvolgere professionisti esterni per stilare il progetto esecutivo.
Da fare: Condizionamento:
Documento dettagliato per l’affidamento della progettazione Ottimizzazione e ridondanza dell’impianto Analisi guasti critici
Impianti elettrici tabella dei carichi elettrici includendo tutte le utenze (SNS; Dipartimento) Riconsiderae i margini di potenza, che sembrano molto stretti Analisi dell’affidabilità del sistema Riconsiderare la scelta di non utilizzare un UPS per una parte delle macchine
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 41
Piano dei TIER2 Il piano dettagliato dei TIER2 verrà
esaminato a gennaio Si vogliono finanziare le attività, non le tabelle
Per i TIER2 ancora SJ (Milano e Pisa) Come detto a settembre le condizioni tecniche
sono ragionevolmente soddisfatte (a volte funzionano meglio dei Tier2 approvati)
Le comunità di riferimento sono attive Rimane la questione generale dell’effettiva
necessità di calcolo di LHC Necessario finanziare anche i T2 SJ ad un livello
sufficiente a sopravvivere
27 Novembre 2006 F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC 42
Conclusioni La matassa del calcolo LHC è certamente intricata La GRID ha dimostrato che potenzialmente può
risolvere il problema, anche se la performance non è ancora sufficiente
Rispetto al passato, maggiore enfasi su reliability e availability piuttosto che su nuove caratteristiche
L’INFN è piazzato centralmente in questa attività e contribuisce moltissimo
E’ essenziale risolvere al più presto le difficoltà infrastrutturali del CNAF per farlo operare a pieno ritmo
E’ necessario focalizzare tutte le forze per la realizzazione del calcolo LHC, anche se questo può limitare altre attività interessanti
Le sezioni rappresentano un serbatoio vitale di idee e persone per far avanzare il programma e devono essere pienamente coinvolte