23 September 2005

Collaboration Meeting David Britton – Imperial College

Tier-1 Planning

Version-35David Britton

Imperial College

16/Jan/06 Tier-1 Board David Britton – Imperial College

Inputs: Money

GridPP1 Hardware – £2,314KFinal out-turn now thrashed out with CCLRC. Less than previously reported because some money spent from the Hardware budget on other items such as staff costs, travel, overheads and general GridPP operations costs.

GridPP2 Hardware – £2,999KThis is increased slightly from previously reported due to slow hires at CCLRC. This number will continue to fluctuate at the 10% level because it effectively includes the contingency - E.g. Tier-2 depreciation (there is currently 135K further savings from CCLRC posts but not added to HW budget).

ProfileThe current model contains a profile which includes the current capacity purchase and a first stab at planning for Tape to be described later. There is slightly more bias towards disk since it is hard to over-allocate.

16/Jan/06 Tier-1 Board David Britton – Imperial College

Input: Hardware Costs

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

15 24 24 24 24 24

24 24 24 24 24 24

Date K£ / TB Dbling Date K£ / KSI2K DblingLatest 01-Apr-04 2.35 15 01-Apr-04 0.76 24

2nd 01-Mar-03 4.07 12 01-Mar-03 0.94 24

3rd 01-Mar-02 10.47 12 01-Mar-02 1.68 24

from latest 01-Jan-05 1.55 01-Jan-05 0.59

from 2nd 01-Jan-05 1.14 01-Jan-05 0.50

from 3rd 01-Jan-05 1.47 01-Jan-05 0.63

01-Jan-05 1.44 01-Jan-05 0.57

01-Jul-05 1.4

Date K£ / TB Dbling Date K£ / KSI2K Dbling01-Jul-05 1.400 24 01-Jan-05 0.57 24

01-Jan-06 1.177 24 01-Jan-06 0.405 24

01-Jan-07 0.832 24 01-Jan-07 0.286 24

01-Jan-08 0.589 24 01-Jan-08 0.202 24

01-Jan-09 0.416 24 01-Jan-09 0.143 24

01-Jan-10 0.294 24 01-Jan-10 0.101 24

01-Jan-11 0.208 24 01-Jan-11 0.072 24

01-Jan-12 0.147 24 01-Jan-12 0.051 24

01-Jan-13 0.104 24 01-Jan-13 0.036 24

Disk Capacity doubling time (months)

CPU

Model Input Parameters

CPU Power doubling time (months)

OVERRIDE PREDICTION HERE >>

This table contains the predicted costs of future hardware. The last three purchases (line 8-10) are used to predict the first entry (line 20) and it is extraoplated from there using Moore's law (lines 3 and 4). The first entry can be overriden by entering a date and cost in line 16

DiskHardware cost from recent purchases

Disk CPU

Weighted average prediction

Predictied hardware cost

Hardware cost from recent purchases

Email from Andrew Sansum 2/Aug/05:

Mid 2005 - 1.4 K/TB (recent quotation for small system with 400GB drives - 12 port PCI/RAID)

2007 - 0.63 (assume in early 2007 800GB drive - 1TB sometime in 2007 - 24 port PCI/RAID)

2008 - 0.48 (linear interpolate 2007-20010) 2009 - 0.32 (linear interpolate 2007-2010) 2010 - 0.168 (informed Guess 1Tb/inch - 3TB drives)

From Sep. Meeting:

16/Jan/06 Tier-1 Board David Britton – Imperial College

Inputs: New Hardware Costs

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

15 24 24 24 24 24

24 24 24 24 24 24

Date K£ / TB Dbling Date K£ / KSI2K DblingLatest 01-Apr-04 2.35 15 01-Apr-04 0.76 24

2nd 01-Mar-03 4.07 12 01-Mar-03 0.94 24

3rd 01-Mar-02 10.47 12 01-Mar-02 1.68 24

from latest 01-Jan-05 1.55 01-Jan-05 0.59

from 2nd 01-Jan-05 1.14 01-Jan-05 0.50

from 3rd 01-Jan-05 1.47 01-Jan-05 0.63

01-Jan-05 1.44 01-Jan-05 0.57

01-Jan-06 1.56 01-Jan-06 0.61

Date K£ / TB Dbling Date K£ / KSI2K Dbling01-Jan-06 1.560 24 01-Jan-06 0.61 24

01-Jan-07 1.103 24 01-Jan-07 0.431 24

01-Jan-08 0.780 24 01-Jan-08 0.305 24

01-Jan-09 0.552 24 01-Jan-09 0.216 24

01-Jan-10 0.390 24 01-Jan-10 0.153 24

01-Jan-11 0.276 24 01-Jan-11 0.108 24

01-Jan-12 0.195 24 01-Jan-12 0.076 24

01-Jan-13 0.138 24 01-Jan-13 0.054 24

01-Jan-14 0.097 24 01-Jan-14 0.038 24

This table contains the predicted costs of future hardware. The last three purchases (line 8-10) are used to predict the first entry (line 20) and it is extraoplated from there using Moore's law (lines 3 and 4). The first entry can be overriden by entering a date and cost in line 16

DiskHardware cost from recent purchases

Disk CPU

Weighted average prediction

Predictied hardware cost

Hardware cost from recent purchases

Disk Capacity doubling time (months)

CPU

Model Input Parameters

CPU Power doubling time (months)

OVERRIDE PREDICTION HERE >>

Disk costs are 33%

more than expected

CPU costs are 50%

more than expected

16/Jan/06 Tier-1 Board David Britton – Imperial College

Outputs: Tier-1 Capacity

Tier1Plan29

3642796 787

Tape [TB]

191

239 331 824 1005 2042 3285 4322

2004 2005 20102006 2007 2008 2009

597 13321602

1875984 7035CPU [kSI2K]

02-Sep2321 2971Disk [TB]

2658 4474

Tier1Plan35

5646CPU [kSI2K]

02-Sep1797 2306Disk [TB]

2000 3455

2004 2005 20102006 2007 2008 2009

239 331 409 809 2275 3413 45501306 4734

Tape [TB]

191 560 925187 2743796 787

~25% reduction in Disk and CPU

16/Jan/06 Tier-1 Board David Britton – Imperial College

Output: TD’s LCG Pledge Table +

Errors

RAL, UK

Pledged Planned to be pledged

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

CPU (kSI2K)980942

149212341587

271239433081

2585-3853

4206 63214475

3661-6611

5857107345516

4478-9509

Disk (Tbytes)450436

841630790

148422321765

1371-2136

208733002352

1796-3490

302054752993

2197-5358

Tape (Tbytes)664622

1080555737

207421151817

393440073113

571064024139

+/- 10% +/- 20% +/- 30% +/- 40% +/- 50%

413

829

313

629

1233

555

1375

2431

2043

1815

3587

3242

2234

4471

4364

16/Jan/06 Tier-1 Board David Britton – Imperial College

Nominal “Fair-shares” as a

fraction of Request

For the LHC experiments and BaBar, the orange boxes are where we would fail to meet (80%) of International MOU commitments.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012ALICE 100% 100% 94% 97% 69% 77% 72% 0% 0%ATLAS 100% 96% 82% 100% 63% 56% 40% 0% 0%CMS 100% 51% 45% 100% 66% 59% 47% 0% 0%LHCb 100% 100% 90% 100% 89% 94% 88% 0% 0%BaBar 100% 29% 32% 50% 55% 55% 45% 0% 0%CDF #DIV/0! 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%D0 100% 46% 26% 45% 72% 100% 100% 0% 0%H1 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!LinearCollider #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%Mice #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%MINOS 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%Neutrino #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%SNO #DIV/0! 100% 84% 100% 100% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!UKDMC #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%ZEUS 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%ServiceChallenge #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%PhenoGrid #DIV/0! 7% 9% 16% 27% 43% 52% 0% 0%UKQCD #DIV/0! 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%OtherTheory #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!NonPP #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

16/Jan/06 Tier-1 Board David Britton – Imperial College

Disk/CPU/Tape

RequestTOTAL Disk CPU Tape Disk CPU Tape Disk CPU Tape Disk CPU Tape Disk CPU Tape Disk CPU Tape Disk CPU Tape

ALICE 5 20 4 1 1 1 10 24 10 29 49 28 74 123 69 96 160 90 124 243 117ATLAS 27 400 0 68 400 14 283 529 150 277 407 151 1443 2397 899 2245 4293 1799 4061 7203 3110CMS 40 200 50 80 200 250 125 400 300 105 380 190 350 760 835 525 1035 1475 785 2035 2115LHCb 15 90 15 25 50 30 110 200 93 219 398 187 365 663 311 435 833 643 504 1253 1060BaBar 75 285 70 115 435 70 190 627 84 306 916 101 442 1214 121 578 1457 145 716 1748 174CDF 0 0 0 6 26 0 17 68 0 25 36 0 18 26 0 14 21 0 11 17 0D0 10 100 0 10 150 0 112 150 46 164 100 65 83 50 33 66 40 26 53 32 21H1 1 20 0 1 20 16 5 50 20 4 42 20 4 38 10 1 12 5 0 0 0LinearCollider 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 5 10 0 10 20 0 20 40 1 40 80 10Mice 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 5 10 0 10 20 0 20 40 1 24 48 10MINOS 1 0 1 3 20 10 3 22 11 3 24 12 3 27 13 4 29 15 4 32 16Neutrino 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1SNO 0 0 0 1 12 12 2 24 24 2 24 24 1 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0UKDMC 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1ZEUS 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 11 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 9 0 0 7 0ServiceChallenge 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 33 10 23 50 20 45 86 57 1 1 1 1 1 1PhenoGrid 0 0 0 5 180 0 7 270 0 10 400 0 10 400 0 10 400 0 10 400 0UKQCD 0 0 0 2 0 0 8 0 0 20 0 0 35 0 0 60 0 0 60 0 0OtherTheory 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NonPP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL Request 174 1125 140 315 1504 403 889 2413 751 1199 2860 799 2894 5842 2356 4076 8372 4203 6397 13101 6636Total Available 191 796 239 187 787 331 560 1306 409 925 2000 809 1797 3455 2275 2306 4734 3413 2743 5646 4550Fraction available 110% 71% 171% 59% 52% 82% 63% 54% 54% 77% 70% 101% 62% 59% 97% 57% 57% 81% 43% 43% 69%Hardware shortfall -18 329 -99 128 717 71 329 1107 342 274 860 -10 1097 2388 80 1770 3638 790 3654 7455 2086

2010200920082004 2005 2006 2007

16/Jan/06 Tier-1 Board David Britton – Imperial College

BaBar

Argue for increase in resources from “fair-share” level:- to honour International MOU commitments.- to prevent Tier-A from being downgraded to a Tier-2.- to prevent UK physicists being disadvantaged.- to preserve/recover UK’s international reputation.- to enable common fund rebate (but $460k is hard to

understand).- Babar has real data.

Fair enough, but buying an extra 100TB of disk now means ~150-200 TB less disk can be bought for 2008:

- CMS/ATLAS already failing to meet MOU commitments from 2008.

- CMS Tier-1 will be downgraded to a Tier-2.- UK physicists will be disadvantaged.- UK’s international reputation will be damaged.- Unknown common fund implications.- LHC will have real data.

16/Jan/06 Tier-1 Board David Britton – Imperial College

BaBar

My opinion: The only argument is a pragmatic one: BaBar has a problem right now which could be solved. Bringing spend forward compounds a problem that already exists in 2008 so it would be better to squeeze the LHC this year and manage within the currently planned capacity.

Note that we have already mortgaged the “real-data takes precedence” argument because there is no significant allocation for the large Linear Collider or Neutrino communities in the present planning so in 2008 there is already no possibility of applying this argument.

If funding is bought forward, then I believe the minutes should record the principle on which the decision was made. We are going to be in the identical situation next year (BaBar request is >300TB) and the year after with the LHC experiments.

16/Jan/06 Tier-1 Board David Britton – Imperial College

Issues

• The latest purchase prices for Disk and CPU both cause a considerable shock to the planning and jeopardise the LCG MOUs.

• Uncertainty in demand for Tape and risk of delays commissioning Castor2 suggest that we move cautiously to the new Robot. Would like an affordable plan that maintains 9940 infrastructure until milestones can be met with the TK10/Castor2 installation.

• The BaBar issue is a close analogy to the situation foreseen with the LHC experiments, particularly CMS, in 2008. The issues are coupled.

• The next purchase.