Relazione 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,

Presentazione sul tema: "Relazione 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,"— Transcript della presentazione:

1 Relazione 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 WLCG INFNGRID Tier1 Tier2

2 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC2 LCG Comprehensive Review LHCC di Settembre 2006 Due giorni di review di LCG  LCG Phase 2 = WLCG Presentazioni dei referees:

3 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC3

4 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC4 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 per day (EGEE grid) Jobs per day (OSG grid) 10 k

5 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC5 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%

6 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC6 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-1s

7 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC7 Impact of Schedule Change Reminder: running scenarios assumed for TDR requirements: 50 days of physics in 2007 10 7 s pp + 10 6 s 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

8 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC8  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

9 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC9 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

10 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC10 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

11 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC11 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

12 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC12 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)

13 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC13 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.

14 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC14 AA Example - PROOF Relative speed-up

15 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC15 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

16 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC16 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

17 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC17 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

18 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC18 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)

19 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC19 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

20 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC20 TIER1

21 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC21 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

22 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC22 …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

23 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 times By building service level redundancy where possible For rare complex problems, „on duty“ coordinator may help getting the required experts together fast. 1 FTE 230 day x 8 hours 1840 h/year 24/7 expert service 8760 h/year 4.8 FTE What we haveWhat people suggest

24 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC24 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

25 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC25 Service Challenge Old data, new limit Come l’atrazina Old target – 1.6GB/s New target – 1.3GB/s

26 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC26 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 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC27 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

28 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC28 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

29 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC29 Coordination and communication

30 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC30 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

31 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC31 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 SUMMARY

32 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC32 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. SUMMARY

33 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC33 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. SUMMARY

34 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC34 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)

35 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC35 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

36 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC36 Risorse fornite vs. pledged

37 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC37 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

38 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC38 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

39 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC39 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

40 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC40 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

41 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC41 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

42 27 Novembre 2006F.Forti - Referee Calcolo LHC42 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