us-atlas management overview john huth harvard university agency review of lhc computing lawrence...

US-ATLAS Management Overview

John HuthJohn Huth

Harvard UniversityHarvard University

Agency Review of LHC ComputingAgency Review of LHC Computing

Lawrence Berkeley LaboratoryLawrence Berkeley LaboratoryJanuary 14-17, 2003January 14-17, 2003

15 Jan 0315 Jan 03J. Huth LHC Computing Agency ReviewJ. Huth LHC Computing Agency Review 2

Outline

Overview Overview Changes from Last year LCG inception U.S. ATLAS and International ATLAS

HighlightsHighlights

IssuesIssues Funding, base program funding

Review of actions on recommendationsReview of actions on recommendations

External groups (iVDGL/PPDG/EDG)External groups (iVDGL/PPDG/EDG)

Change controlChange control


Major Changes Since Last Review

Research Program Launched – M+O and Computing considered as Research Program Launched – M+O and Computing considered as one “program”one “program” Research program proposal submitted

Tier 2 funds Physics generator interface Some core support CERN infrastructure support Detector specific support

““Large” ITR workshop Large” ITR workshop Private grids – allowing small groups to work, but retain data “context” to

entire experiment Medium ITR’s in progress

LCG Project LaunchedLCG Project Launched Major US ATLAS participation

US ATLAS Data management scheme adopted


Luminosity Evolution of the LHC

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

3310L 3310L 3310L 3410L 3410L

DC30%

DC50%

14 fb 110 fb 120 fb 1200 fb 1500 fb

1Pbyte 2.5 Pbyte 6 Pbyte 10 Pbyte4 Pbyte

,q g

H H ZZ

H W W T TH W W


The Importance of LHC Computing to the US

The first run will be a major discovery run. The first run will be a major discovery run. Even if the accelerator delivers only 1/40th of the projected, SUSY

will be discovered if it exists.

One must be prepared well in advance of the run if one is to exploit

the physics.

These discoveries may likely be the most important to physics in the

course of two decades, including many projects with larger initial

investment for the U.S.

Computing investment is the key!


The Scale of Computing for the LHC

Comparison to Tevatron Experiments (closest benchmark)Comparison to Tevatron Experiments (closest benchmark)

Number of detector elements x1000Number of detector elements x1000

CPU time x 10-1000 (combinatorics in tracking)CPU time x 10-1000 (combinatorics in tracking)

Data volume x 10-100Data volume x 10-100

Geographical distribution x 10Geographical distribution x 10

Collaboration size x 5Collaboration size x 5


International/US ATLAS

Deliverables from US ATLASDeliverables from US ATLAS Control/framework, Data management effort, DC support, build

support

Facility support of data challenges

Incorporation and inception of grid tools for data challenges PACMAN, MAGDA, Interoperability tests

ManagementManagement Architecture team – now Software manager nominee

Data management leadership

Detector specific


ATLAS Computing organization (1999-2002)

simulation reconstruction database coordinator

QA group simulation reconstruction database Arch. team

Event filter

Technical Group

National Comp. Board

Comp. Steering Group Physics

Comp. Oversight Board

Detector system


ATLAS Subsystem/Task Matrix (present)

Offline Offline

CoordinatorCoordinator

ReconstructionReconstruction SimulationSimulation DatabaseDatabase

ChairChair N. McCubbinN. McCubbin D. RousseauD. Rousseau A. Dell’AcquaA. Dell’Acqua D. MalonD. Malon

Inner DetectorInner Detector D. BarberisD. Barberis D. RousseauD. Rousseau F. LuehringF. Luehring S. Bentvelsen /S. Bentvelsen /

D. CalvetD. Calvet

Liquid ArgonLiquid Argon J. CollotJ. Collot S. RajagopalanS. Rajagopalan M. LeltchoukM. Leltchouk H. MaH. Ma

Tile CalorimeterTile Calorimeter A. SolodkovA. Solodkov F. MerrittF. Merritt V.TsulayaV.Tsulaya T. LeCompteT. LeCompte

MuonMuon J.ShankJ.Shank J.F. LaporteJ.F. Laporte A. RimoldiA. Rimoldi S. GoldfarbS. Goldfarb

LVL 2 Trigger/ LVL 2 Trigger/

Trigger DAQTrigger DAQ

S. GeorgeS. George S. TapproggeS. Tapprogge M. WeilersM. Weilers A. Amorim /A. Amorim /

F. TouchardF. Touchard

Event FilterEvent Filter V. VercesiV. Vercesi F. TouchardF. Touchard

Computing Steering Group members/attendees: 4 of 19 Computing Steering Group members/attendees: 4 of 19 from US (Malon, Quarrie, Shank, Wenaus)from US (Malon, Quarrie, Shank, Wenaus)

Physics Coordinator: F.Gianotti

Chief Architect: D.Quarrie


Project Core SW FTE

10.5

10

643

8

6U.S.FranceU.K.CERNItalyOtherNeeded


FTE Fraction of Core SW

22%

21%

13%8%6%

17%

13% U.S.FranceU.K.CERNItalyOtherNeeded


News

Norman McCubbin steps down as Computing CoordinatorNorman McCubbin steps down as Computing Coordinator

New Management structure New Management structure Computing Coordinator nominee:Dario Barberis

New position – Software Coordinator, nominee: David Quarrie

LCG – Project Oversight BoardLCG – Project Oversight Board J. Huth US Representative

NB plan from last year was to split US ATLAS/US CMS

representation to the LCG. This has only come to pass.


Proposed new computing organization

DRAFT FOR DRAFT FOR DISCUSSIONDISCUSSION


Software Deliverables

Contol/framework:Contol/framework: Architcture, development of control/framework, including services

Simulation Reconstruction Services Interfaces (scripting etc) Collaboration with LHCb – using Gaudi kernel Described as level-of-effort, plus technical annex describing

requirements

Data managementData management Common LCG solution of hybrid solution (SQL+Root)

Fixed manpower contribution through intl. ATLAS


Other contributions

Nightly builds at BNLNightly builds at BNL

Event Generator interface (physics subproject)Event Generator interface (physics subproject)

Event data model Event data model

Detector description (non-project)Detector description (non-project)


Risks to SW deliverables

Erosion of base, plus lowered project fundingErosion of base, plus lowered project funding Reduction of effort on control/framework – 1 FTE at risk (/5)

Impact of support on some deliverables

Data management - 1 FTE at risk

NB – even with delays of LHC startup, risksNB – even with delays of LHC startup, risks Scope of data challenges

Incorporation of trigger information

Calibration

Analysis support – detector simulation


Detector Specific

Major roles in all detector subsystems – particularlyMajor roles in all detector subsystems – particularly Muon reconstruction – Jim Shank (MOORE)

L Ar – simulation and reconstruction Srini Rajagopolan

Tilecal – reconstruction, missing Et (Merritt, LeCompte)

TRT – Simulation (F. Leuhring)

NB All subsystem effort comes from the baseNB All subsystem effort comes from the base NSF Research Program Proposal includes detector specific support

of limited scope (level yet to be fixed)


Facilities

Two forms of “deliverables” Two forms of “deliverables” International ATLAS: provide cache of ESD, and CPU cycles, access to

users and for specific production tasks Resources Production This is spelled out in ATLAS resources document, approved by Collaboration

Board. (NB. Contributions can be in the form of Tier 1’s)

Support of US ATLAS physicists in doing analysis Resources – storage, CPU, networking Support – help desk, librarians, builds

Tier 1 facility (BNL)Tier 1 facility (BNL)

Tier 2’s – general distributed infrastructureTier 2’s – general distributed infrastructure


ATLAS DC1 Phase 1 : July-August 2002 (A. Putzer)

1. Australia2. Austria3. Canada4. CERN5. Czech Republic6. France7. Germany8. Israel9. Italy10. Japan11. Nordic12. Russia13. Spain14. Taiwan15. UK16. USA


Facilities Risks

Software development cycles required a substantial early Software development cycles required a substantial early ramp to get user involvement, develop reconstruction ramp to get user involvement, develop reconstruction algorithms etc. algorithms etc.

With reduced funding, this required delaying the facilities With reduced funding, this required delaying the facilities ramp.ramp.

Major issue: the facilities funding is now getting “hemmed Major issue: the facilities funding is now getting “hemmed in” – expected early funding is not materializing – late in” – expected early funding is not materializing – late funding is insufficient for turn on of LHCfunding is insufficient for turn on of LHC Will not meet data challenge needs Will not meet facilities pledge (let alone contribute to CERN) Support of US physicists at turn on seriously degraded


Highlights of last year

Fads/goofy (alternative framework) issue solvedFads/goofy (alternative framework) issue solved G4 now incorporated into Athena

Increased usage of Athena by collaboration, supportIncreased usage of Athena by collaboration, support

Adoption of (US ATLAS) hybrid database solution by LCGAdoption of (US ATLAS) hybrid database solution by LCG

Major success in grid production for data challenges Major success in grid production for data challenges

Atlas Definition Language dropped as a deliverableAtlas Definition Language dropped as a deliverable Decision by CSG on technical grounds

Use of BNL Regional Center proposed to mine high level trigger dataUse of BNL Regional Center proposed to mine high level trigger data Support of approx. 20 users Good stress test


Issues

After baselining exercise, funding profile is perpetually After baselining exercise, funding profile is perpetually lower than agency guidance.lower than agency guidance. Funding information late relative to expectations/allocation time Budget shortfall Evaluation of new funding scenarios every 2 months

Base programs at the supporting national labs are erodingBase programs at the supporting national labs are eroding Time of SW Manager split – working on solutionTime of SW Manager split – working on solution


Work in progress

Growth of grid activities – spans facilities and software Growth of grid activities – spans facilities and software domainsdomains Management of deployment and use of grid tools

Coordination with CMS/LCGCoordination with CMS/LCG Infrastructure support improving (SIT)Infrastructure support improving (SIT) Adding Level 2 manager/structure for Grids/productionAdding Level 2 manager/structure for Grids/production


Funding Sources

NSFNSF Research Program Proposal

Tier 2 centers Core software support Infrastructure support Detector Specific support Networking teams Collaborative tools

Grid initiatives GriPhyN - middleware supplied iVDGL – prototype Tier 2 centers, manpower New large ITR initiative – private grids to support analysis

University base Detector specific software Grid activities

Small and medium ITR’s


Funding Sources II

DOEDOE Direct project funding

Core software support Regional center support

PPDG Incorporation of grid software

Base program support Core software Detector specific software Grid activities


Recommendations from Last ReviewNov. 01: Software

1.1. The committee recommends to the international collaboration that is The committee recommends to the international collaboration that is provide the chief architect with resources and authority to fulfill that role. provide the chief architect with resources and authority to fulfill that role. Until that issue is resolved we recommend to US-ATLAS to continue this Until that issue is resolved we recommend to US-ATLAS to continue this kind of fire-fighting for the common good of ATLAS.kind of fire-fighting for the common good of ATLAS.

Ans: The new management structure of international ATLAS Computing Ans: The new management structure of international ATLAS Computing addresses this with the position of the Software Project Leader. He/She addresses this with the position of the Software Project Leader. He/She will have direct responsibility for the organization of all work on software will have direct responsibility for the organization of all work on software development and at the same time will be a member of the ATLAS development and at the same time will be a member of the ATLAS Executive Board. In itself it doesn’t address the resource issue, but does Executive Board. In itself it doesn’t address the resource issue, but does give the position authority. give the position authority.

2.2. The committee recommends to intl. ATLAS management to enforce The committee recommends to intl. ATLAS management to enforce decisions about choices of software in the collaboration.decisions about choices of software in the collaboration.

Ans:The proposed new organization of ATLAS Computing foresees clearer Ans:The proposed new organization of ATLAS Computing foresees clearer management and reporting lines. Smaller committees, meeting more management and reporting lines. Smaller committees, meeting more frequently than in the past, will ensure a larger circulation of information frequently than in the past, will ensure a larger circulation of information and take the appropriate decisions at the right technical level. Recent and take the appropriate decisions at the right technical level. Recent decisions (old structure) were dropping fads/goofy and ADL.decisions (old structure) were dropping fads/goofy and ADL.


SW Recommendations con’t

3.3. The committee recommends to US ATLAS software group The committee recommends to US ATLAS software group to be less willing to take on additional workload.to be less willing to take on additional workload.

Ans: To some extent, they have resisted, but firefighting mode Ans: To some extent, they have resisted, but firefighting mode exists with Data Challenges. The increased spacing of exists with Data Challenges. The increased spacing of data challenges helps alleviate some of the firefighting data challenges helps alleviate some of the firefighting mode. mode.

4.4. International ATLAS is strongly encouraged to provide a International ATLAS is strongly encouraged to provide a concrete staffing plan for DC1.concrete staffing plan for DC1.

Ans: This has happened. Gilbert Poulard (in charge of DC1) Ans: This has happened. Gilbert Poulard (in charge of DC1) has organized a work package structure for DC1 with has organized a work package structure for DC1 with nominated people covering the key areas, and in addition nominated people covering the key areas, and in addition there were major contributions from outside institutions.there were major contributions from outside institutions.


Facilities Recommendations

1.1. To test the system under a higher level of complexity (number of boxes) To test the system under a higher level of complexity (number of boxes) closer to that of a final system and with more mature software, as DC3 closer to that of a final system and with more mature software, as DC3 should be attempted no later than early 2005. A 20% complexity test should be attempted no later than early 2005. A 20% complexity test should be considered…should be considered…

Ans: DC3 has been defined and scheduled for late 2004/early 2005. Ans: DC3 has been defined and scheduled for late 2004/early 2005. However, as regards the Tier 1 in particular, lack of funding is However, as regards the Tier 1 in particular, lack of funding is substantially limiting its ramp up in either capacity or complexity substantially limiting its ramp up in either capacity or complexity (number) of boxes.(number) of boxes.

2. The level of 25 FTE’s to support the Tier 1 facility during production 2. The level of 25 FTE’s to support the Tier 1 facility during production appears reasonable. Nevertheless, benchmarking against best-in-class appears reasonable. Nevertheless, benchmarking against best-in-class operations such as Celera Genomics is suggested.operations such as Celera Genomics is suggested.

Ans: Benchmarking against the RHIC Computing Facility (RCF), a project of Ans: Benchmarking against the RHIC Computing Facility (RCF), a project of comparable scale with very similar qualitative requirements, a similar comparable scale with very similar qualitative requirements, a similar user community, and similar funding constraints seems more user community, and similar funding constraints seems more appropriate and is capable of being done much more precisely. A recent appropriate and is capable of being done much more precisely. A recent re-estimation based on the RCF has yielded a somewhat lower long term re-estimation based on the RCF has yielded a somewhat lower long term staffing requirement.staffing requirement.


Facilities Recommendations (con’t)

3.3. ATLAS should coordinate with CMS (as they have done with the ATLAS should coordinate with CMS (as they have done with the disk technology studies) in technology evaluation of effective disk technology studies) in technology evaluation of effective disk caching strategies as an alternative to the proposed scope disk caching strategies as an alternative to the proposed scope change.change.

Ans: Facility coordination and technology evaluation are being Ans: Facility coordination and technology evaluation are being conducted by the iVDGL facilities group within the US and conducted by the iVDGL facilities group within the US and international coordination is under the auspices of LCG. international coordination is under the auspices of LCG. Regarding disk caching strategies, while efforts to optimize them Regarding disk caching strategies, while efforts to optimize them are in any case of significant value the decision to go to an all are in any case of significant value the decision to go to an all disk resident ESD model was made by ATLAS (not US ATLAS) disk resident ESD model was made by ATLAS (not US ATLAS) and has major advantages for caching performance. The major and has major advantages for caching performance. The major US Tier 1 issue has been whether to have a complete disk US Tier 1 issue has been whether to have a complete disk resident ESD set at BNL or to depend on at least two other Tier 1 resident ESD set at BNL or to depend on at least two other Tier 1 sites, the intervening transoceanic network and Grid middleware sites, the intervening transoceanic network and Grid middleware to complete any large scale access of data. to complete any large scale access of data.



4.4. With the base plan still including tape storage for the ESD, With the base plan still including tape storage for the ESD, as well ability to retrieve ESD from archival at the tier 0, as well ability to retrieve ESD from archival at the tier 0, balanced use of commodity components at both the tier 1 balanced use of commodity components at both the tier 1 and tier 2 sites should be seriously evaluated before and tier 2 sites should be seriously evaluated before procurement begins.procurement begins.

Ans: Commodity components are continuously evaluated as Ans: Commodity components are continuously evaluated as part of the ongoing RCF/ACF operations and this part of the ongoing RCF/ACF operations and this experience is essential in the design and planning for the experience is essential in the design and planning for the ATLAS Tier 1. The iVDGL facilities group is also very ATLAS Tier 1. The iVDGL facilities group is also very active in the evaluation and testing of commodity active in the evaluation and testing of commodity components. The use of lower cost commodity based disk components. The use of lower cost commodity based disk in analyses is an going activity of significant activity at BNL in analyses is an going activity of significant activity at BNL both for ATLAS and RHIC.both for ATLAS and RHIC.



5. Attention must be paid to the need for increased network 5. Attention must be paid to the need for increased network bandwidth and an appropriate support team.bandwidth and an appropriate support team.

Ans: The NSF Research Program Proposal includes a support Ans: The NSF Research Program Proposal includes a support line of for networking infrastructure. Backbone capabilities line of for networking infrastructure. Backbone capabilities and last-mile issues are actively being addressed by Shawn and last-mile issues are actively being addressed by Shawn McKee who is delegated to work in this area. BNL was McKee who is delegated to work in this area. BNL was upgraded by ESNET to OC12 in the summer of 2002. This upgraded by ESNET to OC12 in the summer of 2002. This will be sufficient for the near term needs of ATLAS data will be sufficient for the near term needs of ATLAS data challenges. The longer term upgrade for the Tier 1 facility challenges. The longer term upgrade for the Tier 1 facility is being actively pursued, both by the Tier 1 facility group is being actively pursued, both by the Tier 1 facility group and the BNL network support group. and the BNL network support group.


Management Recommendations

1. US ATLAS PCP should move to define its projects as well as possible 1. US ATLAS PCP should move to define its projects as well as possible so that mission creep can be avoided.so that mission creep can be avoided.

Ans: Three areas of concern from the last review have been addressed: a) Ans: Three areas of concern from the last review have been addressed: a) consolidation of one baseline for data management in the LCG (hybrid-consolidation of one baseline for data management in the LCG (hybrid-root), b) software infrastructure team for Intl. ATLAS and c) creation of root), b) software infrastructure team for Intl. ATLAS and c) creation of the new Software manager position (US ATLAS person nominated).the new Software manager position (US ATLAS person nominated).

2.) US ATLAS PCP should watch for and prevent or mitigate overload on 2.) US ATLAS PCP should watch for and prevent or mitigate overload on its personnel from accepting too many responsibilities at the its personnel from accepting too many responsibilities at the international level if this could compromise its ability to deliver its international level if this could compromise its ability to deliver its commitments. commitments.

Ans: We are keeping an eye on this. The situation has improved since the Ans: We are keeping an eye on this. The situation has improved since the last time, and some of the commitments in deliverables has shrunk due last time, and some of the commitments in deliverables has shrunk due to the LCG Applications projects.to the LCG Applications projects.


Management Recommendations (con’t)

3. The US project should push the International Organization for clear 3. The US project should push the International Organization for clear decisions on technical issues and ATLAS standards so as to avoid decisions on technical issues and ATLAS standards so as to avoid duplication and wasted efforts and must work to do the same within duplication and wasted efforts and must work to do the same within the US part of the project.the US part of the project.

Ans: We have been doing this with success. The choice of the common Ans: We have been doing this with success. The choice of the common data management solution, elimination of the fads/goofy framework, data management solution, elimination of the fads/goofy framework, and issue of ADL have all been decisions that move in the direction of and issue of ADL have all been decisions that move in the direction of clear technical decisions which reduce duplication.clear technical decisions which reduce duplication.

4. US ATLAS should monitor the productivity of its staff and make sure 4. US ATLAS should monitor the productivity of its staff and make sure that it is commensurate to its costs.that it is commensurate to its costs.

Ans: We are doing this constantly. Personnel changes occur as a result of Ans: We are doing this constantly. Personnel changes occur as a result of addressing these issues. Examples include shifting funding to more addressing these issues. Examples include shifting funding to more productive and less expensive individuals, and a consolidation of productive and less expensive individuals, and a consolidation of effort. This is an ongoing process.effort. This is an ongoing process.


Management Rec’s (con’t)

5. It is important to make sure that the scope and deliverables of the 5. It is important to make sure that the scope and deliverables of the project are not severely impacted by decisions made at the CERN/LHC project are not severely impacted by decisions made at the CERN/LHC level. US ATLAS must make sure that it is properly represented in the level. US ATLAS must make sure that it is properly represented in the decision-making process and must be prepared to clearly and decision-making process and must be prepared to clearly and accurately state the impact of any major changed to its ability to deliver.accurately state the impact of any major changed to its ability to deliver.

Ans: US ATLAS has major representation in the applications area of the Ans: US ATLAS has major representation in the applications area of the LCG (Wenaus, PEB applications leader). Vicky White has been the US LCG (Wenaus, PEB applications leader). Vicky White has been the US representative to the Grid Deployment Board and has been very active representative to the Grid Deployment Board and has been very active in representing our viewpoints. We do feel that having more US in representing our viewpoints. We do feel that having more US representation or dialog with the GDB would be desirable, particularly in representation or dialog with the GDB would be desirable, particularly in the formulation of facilities planning. the formulation of facilities planning.



6. As the LHC schedule becomes better defined over the next 6. As the LHC schedule becomes better defined over the next 6 months, US ATLAS, working with International ATLAS 6 months, US ATLAS, working with International ATLAS and US Funding agencies must be prepared to revise its and US Funding agencies must be prepared to revise its schedule, milestones and budget profiles accordingly.schedule, milestones and budget profiles accordingly.

Ans: We have done this. With the stretch out, this makes the Ans: We have done this. With the stretch out, this makes the all-disk option for the facilities more attractive, due to all-disk option for the facilities more attractive, due to moore’s law. On the other hand, the current funding moore’s law. On the other hand, the current funding guidance is hemming in the project both from the near term guidance is hemming in the project both from the near term (’03 and 04) and in the long term (before the start of data (’03 and 04) and in the long term (before the start of data taking). Already, the project is at serious risk to support US taking). Already, the project is at serious risk to support US physicists at the turn on of the LHC. Funding levels risk physicists at the turn on of the LHC. Funding levels risk consigning us to a second rate status. Budgeting exercises consigning us to a second rate status. Budgeting exercises occur roughly 6 times a year for 5-6 year profiles.occur roughly 6 times a year for 5-6 year profiles.



7. US ATLAS should present at the next meeting a detailed 7. US ATLAS should present at the next meeting a detailed cost estimate, schedule and milestones for its proposed cost estimate, schedule and milestones for its proposed modification of the architecture of the Tier 1 center to use a modification of the architecture of the Tier 1 center to use a disk based system for ESD storage. disk based system for ESD storage.

Ans: Cost details for the full disk configuration have been Ans: Cost details for the full disk configuration have been done with the same level of detail as the previous disk/tape done with the same level of detail as the previous disk/tape model. Increased CPU and WAN capacities have been model. Increased CPU and WAN capacities have been estimated, corresponding to the increased availability of estimated, corresponding to the increased availability of data at the Tier 1. Experience with disk-centric analyses data at the Tier 1. Experience with disk-centric analyses during DC1 Phase II will contribute to a better during DC1 Phase II will contribute to a better understanding of how ATLAS users will respond to this understanding of how ATLAS users will respond to this analysis model. analysis model.


An Instance of Change Control

Our Proj. Management Plan describes a change control Our Proj. Management Plan describes a change control procedure, which invokes the CCB (Computing procedure, which invokes the CCB (Computing Coordination Board), in a process to grant change control. Coordination Board), in a process to grant change control.

R. Gardner departed from Indiana University to Univ. of R. Gardner departed from Indiana University to Univ. of Chicago to become iVDGL coordinator. His funding is via Chicago to become iVDGL coordinator. His funding is via iVDGL was for a prototype Tier 2 site at Indiana.iVDGL was for a prototype Tier 2 site at Indiana. Request was for prototype effort to remain at Indiana (substantial

infrastructure), but have personnel funded at U.Chicago Additional manpower, in effect, comes from this change All parties agreed CCB agreed with this, but didn’t see this change as an entitlement

for a final Tier 2 at either Indiana or U. Chicago (to be revisited in 2 years).

Change control memo written to file.


Summary

Consolidation of US ATLAS deliverablesConsolidation of US ATLAS deliverables Usage of Athena, hybrid – DB solution adopted by LCG

Extensive use of US ATLAS grids in data challengesExtensive use of US ATLAS grids in data challenges

Usage of BNL Tier 1 to mine HLT dataUsage of BNL Tier 1 to mine HLT data

Coherency of grid activities Coherency of grid activities

Large ITR proposal in progressLarge ITR proposal in progress

Funding is THE ISSUEFunding is THE ISSUE Stability and level of profile insufficient Lead time in planning

us-atlas management overview john huth harvard university agency review of lhc computing lawrence...

Documents

lhcname title

touchardname title

computing investment

data management effort

talkthe scale of computing

data challengespacman

data context

us atlascontrolframework