16 october 2005 lsp@alice-usa collaboration meeting1 computing issues & status l. pinsky...

16 October 2005 LSP@ALICE-USA Collaboration Meeting

1

Computing Issues & Status

L. PinskyComputing Coordinator

ALICE-USA


2

Overview of the ALICE Computing Plan

• Some Raw Numbers (All from TDR)– Recording Rate: 100 Hz of 13.75 MB/Event Raw

• w/reconstruction 3.8 PB/Yr (Pb-Pb Only)• 2 Copies—1 FULL Archival @ CERN• …& 1 Net Distributed (Working) Copy

– Simulated Data: 3.9 PB/Yr (Pb-Pb Only)– Event Summary Data (ESD): 3.03 MB/Event

• 2 Net Copies—1 Archival @ CERN• …& 1 Net Distributed (Working) Copy

– (Physics) Analysis Object Data (AOD): ~0.333 MB/Event

• Multiple local working copies• Size varies depending upon application…• Archival copies of everything @ CERN


3

Embedded Aside Comment on Trigger

• Note that an “ESD”-like file will be saved from ALL High Level Trigger processed events (but the full raw data will be saved only for the “selected” events).

• We should think about what information we want preserved in these “HLT- ESD’s” from the Jet-Finding exercises…


4

ALICE Computing Resources Needed

• TOTALS:Pb-Pb & p-p (~10% of Pb-Pb) – CPU: 35 MSi2K

• 8.3 MSi2K @ CERN & 26.7 MSi2K Distributed

– Working Disk Storage: 14 PB• ~1.5 PB @ CERN & 12.5 PB Distributed

– Mass Storage: 11 PB/Year• ~3.6 PB/Yr @ CERN & 7.4 PB/Yr Distributed


5

ALICE “Cloud” Computing Model

• Tier-0 Facility @ CERN– HLT + First Reconstruction (?) + Archive

• 7 Tier-1 Facilities (1 @ CERN)– Mass Storage for Distributed (Working)

Copies of Raw Data & ESD– Tasks—Reconstruction, ESD and AOD

Creation– Tier-1’s are a NET Capability and may

themselves be distributed (Cloud Model)

• N Tier-2 Facilities– CPU and Working Disk w/no Mass Storage– Focus mostly on simulation and AOD analysis

1o October 2005 YS@Computing Board 6

Computing Resources

Status before MoU approval by RRB

http://pcaliweb02.cern.ch/Collaboration/Boards/Computing/Resources/


Sites (> 10%) • Sites which have pledged resources to ALICE and which

corresponding Funding Agencies will sign the LCG MoU– 6 sites with Tier1 services: CAF (CERN), IN2P3-Lyon

(France), INFN-CNAF (Italy), GridKa (Germany), UK Tier1 (UK), NL Tier1 (The Netherlands)

– 9 sites with Tier2 services: INFN Tier2 Federation (Italy), FZU AS Prague (Czech Rep.), RDIG (Russia), VECC/SINP Kolkata (India), UK Tier2 Federations, French Tier-2 Federation (France), CCIN2P3 (France), GSI (Germany), Polish Tier-2 Federation (Poland).

• Sites which have pledged resources to ALICE and are NOT part of the LCG MoU– 4 sites with Tier2 services: Cape Town (South Africa),

Korean Federation (Korea), Wuhan (China), OSC (USA)– 3 sites with Tier3 services: Bucharest, Muenster, Slovakia

• Future sites– 1 site with Tier1 services: LBNL (USA)– 1 site with Tier2 services: US Tier2 Federation (USA)


Present status of pledged resources• Tier 0 at CERN

– ALICE requirements satisfied, including peak for first pass reconstruction

• Tier 1 and Tier 2– As declared to LCG and presented to RRB– CAF not included

T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2

TDR requirement (MSI 2K) 4,9 2,7 12,3 5,0 16,0 6,8 20,9 8,5

Missing % -48% -54% -46% -65% -35% -64% -28% -65%

TDR requirement (TB) 3175 698 7937 1412 10319 2189 13414 2961

Missing % -65% -53% -65% -59% -57% -52% -51% -50%

TDR requirement (TB) 2779 - 6947 - 9031 - 17880 -

Missing % -56% - -54% - -33% - -49% -

CPU

Disk

MS

Pledged by external sites versus required MoU

2007 2008 2009 2010


What can we expect more

• Tier 1 and Tier 2– As declared to LCG and presented to RRB– CAF included, assume fully funding (45% so

far) and equal sharing among experiments– Include Tier2 not signing the MoU and the

future US contribution

T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2

TDR requirement (MSI 2K) 6,5 6,2 12,3 15,4 21,2 20,0 27,6 26,0

Missing % -36% -40% -24% -60% -32% -56% -28% -54%

TDR requirement (TB) 3704 1499 9260 3747 12038 4871 15650 6332

Missing % -55% -44% -57% -57% -51% -48% -47% -40%

TDR requirement (TB) 3242 - 8105 - 10536 - 13697 -

Missing % -50% - -49% - -28% - -21% -

CPU

Disk

MS

Pledged versus required

2007 2008 2009 2010


Remarks

• Information: – mismatch between what I get from

you and what is reported by LCG: NDGF, RDIG, INFN T2, Poland (!)


We have a problem!

• Solutions?– Ask additional resources to main Funding Agencies …

who already have pledged most of the resources– Ask main resources providers to re-consider the

sharing algorithm among the LHC experiments• ALICE produces same quantity of data than ATLAS and

CMS and much more than LHCb• ALICE computing/physicist twice as much expensive as

for the other experiments– Ask all collaborating institutes (or at least those who

provide nothing or only a small fraction) to provide a share of computing resources following M&O sharing mechanism

– Have very selective triggers and take less data or analyze all data later waiting for better times


12

“Nominal” US Contribution (From TDR)

• 1/7 of the External Distributed Resources— Includes combined Tier-1 & Tier 2 assets– CPU — 3.44 MSi2K (net total)– Disk Storage — 1.26 PB (net total)– Mass Storage— 0.94 PB (by 2010 & then

annually)

• Acquisition Schedule…– 20% by early 2008– Additional 20% added by early 2009– Final 60% on-line by early 2010


13

“Nominal” ALICE-USA Allocation

• Planned allocation:– 1/3 each for OSC, UH and NERSC

(+Livermore?)• CPU = 1147 KSi2K• Disk = 420 TB• Mass Storage = 0.32 PB

• Estimated Costs (Including Manpower)– NERSC — $886K (Doug Olson-Feb. 2005)– OSC — $750K (NSF Proposal-Oct. 2005)– UH — $ 1050K (NSF Proposal-Oct. 2005)


NSF Proposal Contents & Status

• Proposal has been submitted!• …Walks a fine line between stand-alone

& ALICE/USA & EMCAL support• Argues that it will sustain a significant US

stand-alone contribution (buy-in) even if EMCAL is not built.

• Uses “Cloud” Model as distinguishing Niche…

• Asks for 2/3 of the total “Nominal” US Contribution…– Equal portions for OSC & UH– Announcement date ~ 6 months (Mar.-Apr.

2006)


15

Minimum ALICE-USA Computing Resources

• For December Review Exercize:– Plan A (Stay Within the ALICE

Computing Model)—Sub-options• Plan A.1 = $0• Plan A.2 = Arbitrary total with arbitrary

DOE Contribution…• Plan A.3 = DOE contributes NERSC

Request.

– Plan B (Separate ALICE-USA Resources)• Plan B.1 = Arbitrary total from DOE• Plan B.2 = Use existing Contributions and

nothing new from DOE (i.e. DOE = $0)


16

My Suggestion for the DOE Review• Chose Plan A.1 ( $0 from DOE for computing

resources)– Stay within the ALICE Computing Model!– The overall computing needs of ALICE are a global ALICE

Collaboration issue and NOT an isolated ALICE-USA issue.

– Give absolute priority to building EMCAL modules, and do not spend anything from the scarce DOE funding on computing…

• Once EMCAL is built, ALL ALICE-USA collaborators will have equal access to the overall ALICE DISTRIBUTED computing resources

• If they are insufficient, we will share the burden with all of our ALICE colleagues to find the missing computing capability, but there is NO minimum that we MUST supply, or indeed NEED to have to participate within the ALICE Computing Model.

16 october 2005 lsp@alice-usa collaboration meeting1 computing issues & status l. pinsky...

Documents