Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 1
US CMS Software and Computing
Milestones and Funding Profiles
Matthias KasemannFermilab
FNAL Oversight Panel October 24, 2000
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 2
CMS planning at LHCC review October 2000
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 3
US CMS S&C schedule adapted to LHCUS CMS S&C schedule adapted to LHCConstraints for updated S&C schedule:
Working CMS detector by mid-2005LHC pilot run in Fall 2005, few weeks of luminosity runningComplete detector and start LHC running in Spring 2006
Lessons learned from other experiments:Pilot running: for detector as well as for
computing and analysisFall 2005
Finish facilities before physics dataearly FY06
CMS Software schedule not changed
Adapt schedule: delay start of implementation of facilitiesby 12 months (03->04)
9 month delay in startup of LHC luminosity running 3 month: US FY05 ends in 9/2005
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 4
Received draft funding profile from DOE: 5/30/2000 Assume NSF funding profile after discussion
This is a BIG step for S&C projects: guidance to allow detailed and solid planning
We want to continue to work with funding agencies to make S&C for CMS a success
profit for science from investment into LHC program
US CMS S&C funding profileUS CMS S&C funding profile
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 5
FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 Total FY06CAS FTE request 7 9 10 11 12 13 13 13CAS FTE Contingency 0 0 1 1 3 3 3 3Management reserve 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25DOE Escalation Index 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03CAS [$M] 1.00 1.38 1.57 1.77 1.99 2.22 2.28 12.22 2.35CAS Mgmt res.[$M] 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.50 0.52 0.53 1.87 0.55CAS Total [$M] 1.00 1.38 1.73 1.94 2.49 2.74 2.82 14.09 2.90
US CMS Softw are and Com puting Project
CAS: People
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05
FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 Total FY06CAS FTE request 7 9 10 11 12 13 13 13CAS FTE Contingency 0 0 1 1 3 3 3 3Management reserve 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25DOE Escalation Index 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03CAS [$M] 1.00 1.38 1.57 1.77 1.99 2.22 2.28 12.22 2.35CAS Mgmt res.[$M] 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.50 0.52 0.53 1.87 0.55CAS Total [$M] 1.00 1.38 1.73 1.94 2.49 2.74 2.82 14.09 2.90
US CMS Softw are and Com puting Project
CAS: People
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05
CAS Project: Scope + FundingCAS Project: Scope + FundingUS CMS CAS personnel contributions to CMS Core software:
determined by canonical scaling from CMS top-level resource-loaded WBS for Software
Add ~25% for additional US-specific software supportProposal for CAS personnel contingency:
add a fixed percentage to base cost as management reserve e.g. 10% for FY 2001 and 2002 25% for FY 2003 and beyond
All this is unchanged due to the updated schedule.
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 6
US CMS S&C profile: January 00 versionUS CMS S&C profile: January 00 version
now
US CMS Software and Computing Project
UF: Hardware
UF: People
CAS: People
Tier2: People
Tier2: Hardware
1.152.075
2 2.5
12.5
9.5
5.5
3.53
4
5.5
8.5
13.5
17.5
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005Fiscal Year
$[M]
Operations / Year
DRAFT: DOE
DOE + NSF profile
DRAFT: DOE+NSF
04: 19 month
03: 18 month
05: 19 month
USCMS S&C expected: 40%-25% of UF people contribution from FNAL, not shown here
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 7
Schedule for US-CMS S&C ProjectSchedule for US-CMS S&C Project
In order to match the proposed funding profile from DOE/NSF more closely as well as the LHC schedule, we have stretched out the CMS Software and Computing Project Schedule.
User facilities: Now – end FY2003: R&D phase FY2004-FY2006: Implementation Phase FY2007 and onwards: Operations Phase
This required a new hardware cost estimate and resource loaded WBS.
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 8
UF: Updated scheduleUF: Updated scheduleModified:
Stretch hardware installation on UF and Tier2 Reevaluate UF facility manpower needs
Very similar results
Tier 1 and Tier 2 center scope are: proposed by MONARC, defined by CMS Computing Model Reviewed by CERN Hoffmann Review
Hardware requirements need to remain flexible to respond to advances in technology
in storage: capacity, cost, => disk vs. tape, store vs. recalculate
in networking: bandwidth, latency, => local vs. remote data storage and access, replication
in computing: speed, cost, => servers vs. commodity type computing
results of review and planning process at CERN results of Grid R&D, availability of integrated ‘middleware’ software
=> Serious planning requires contingency here!
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 9
Hardware Costing For UF w/o T2Hardware Costing For UF w/o T2
Cost of User Facility Hardware by SubCategory
0
200400
600
8001000
1200
14001600
1800
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Co
st
in T
ho
us
and
of
$
FNAL based computing
Const. Phase Computing
S&C R&D
Networking for Tier 1
Ops and Infrastructure
System and User Support
Tier 1 Regional Center
Hardware costing for User Facilities, excluding Tier 2
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 10
Hardware Costing For UFHardware Costing For UF
Cost of User Facility Hardware by SubCategory
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Co
st
in T
ho
us
an
d o
f $
Networking for Tier 2
Tier 2 Regional Centers
FNAL based computing
Const. Phase Computing
S&C R&D
Networking for Tier 1
Ops and Infrastructure
System and User Support
Tier 1 Regional Center
Hardware costing for User Facilities, INCLUDING Tier 2 from GriPhyN
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 11
User Facility Personnel CostsUser Facility Personnel Costs
User Facility Personnel Costs
0100020003000400050006000700080009000
10000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Management Reserve
UF Personnel Costs
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 12
Total User Facility CostsTotal User Facility Costs
Total User Facility Costs
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Co
st i
n T
ho
usa
nd
s o
f $
Personnel Costs
Hardware Costs
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 13
Total S&C Costs
2 2.53.5
5.5
9.5
34
5.5
12.512.5
8.5
13.5
17.517.5
0
5
10
15
20
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Year
Co
st i
n $
M
UF Hardware
UF personnel
Management reserve CAS Personnel
DOE funding
DOE + NSF
Total S&C Project costTotal S&C Project cost
Management reserve: 10% on manpower
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 14
DOE funding vs. UF(Tier 1) + 2/3 CASDOE funding vs. UF(Tier 1) + 2/3 CASUF (Tier 1) cost + 2/3 CAS
2 2.53.5
5.5
12.5 12.5
9.5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Year
Co
st
in $
M
Tier1 Hardware
Tier1 personnel
Management reserve2/3 CAS Personnel
DOE funding
Management reserve: 10% on manpower
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 15
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
1.1 Tier 1 Regional Center 13 17 20 18 1.2 System and User Support 1.3 2.25 3 3 5 4.5 4.5 1.3 Operations and Infrastructure 1 1.25 1.25 3 5 4.5 4.5 1.4 Tier 2 RCs 2.5 3.5 4 5 6.5 7.5 7.5 1.5 Networking 0.5 1 2 2.5 3 3 3 1.6 Computing and
Software R&D 3 4 4.5 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.7 Construction Phase 2 2 2 0.25
Computing 1.8 Support of FNAL 0.4 1.4 1 2.6 2.25 2 2
based Computing
User Facilities (total) 10 15 18 30 37 43 41 (Without T2 Personnel) 7.5 11.5 14 25 30 36 34
Full time staff working on User Facilities tasks: (technicians, support staff, computing professionals)
From “Bottoms Up” ApproachFrom “Bottoms Up” Approach
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 16
NSF funding vs. UF(Tier 2) + 1/3 CASNSF funding vs. UF(Tier 2) + 1/3 CASUF (Tier 2) + 1/3 CAS cost
2
3
11.5
4
55
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Year
Co
st i
n $
M
Tier2 Hardware
Tier2 Personnel1/3 CAS Personnel
NSF funding
Tier2 Networking
•Tier 2 center cost:• start of Prototype centers spread over FY01-04• final implementation stretched over 2-3 years (FY04-06)• dominated by potential networking cost
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 17
Funding - RequestFunding - Request
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Th
ou
san
ds
Total DOE part NSF part
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 18
Evaluation of ProfilesEvaluation of Profiles The US CMS S&C project is managed and coordinated by the L1 PM,
who carries budget authority Funding shared differently for the two subprojects:
Tier1 center funded by DOE Tier2 centers expected to be funded by NSF CAS traditionally funded 2/3 DOE + 1/3 NSF
NSF part: under-funded by ~$1M/year Tier 2 center cost dominated by networking cost Uncertainty in networking cost for Tier 2 sites
Site Networking connectivity must be argument in selection process Leveraging from University sites must contribute to cost of Tier2
centers DOE part:
Dominated by Tier 1 personnel cost Leveraging from FNAL infrastructure?
Part of WBS 1.3: Operations & Infrastructure Part of WBS 1.5: Networking: LAN, WAN, monitoring, security Part of WBS 1.8: Desktop systems, Support, Remote Control Room
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 19
Conclusion (1)Conclusion (1)The project needs to have a project office with:
Two project engineers supporting the L1 PM coordinating the activities at all levels Overseeing purchases Establishing MoU’s, SOW’s Preparing for Reviews Tracking budget Tracking the project progress
Not yet added to the previous numbers
Need to have management reserve / contingency for manpower (10% proposed, shown in the graphs)
The back loaded funding profile creates big problems now, additional help needed.
It is essential that we keep flexibility to use funds where needed most; only in this way are we able to take advantage of matching funds.
October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann 20
Profile recognizes needs for operating S&C Profiles heavily back-loaded towards 2005 Result:
Funding does not allow to finish R&D and implementation for 2006 Very hard to reach milestones:
Deliverables for Core Application Software Contributions of US share to
Mock Data Challenges, production exercises for trigger and physics studies Test beam analyses for detector optimization
Preliminary analysis: implementation ready by 2007
Severe impact for US based CMS data analysis: Will not be able to fully contribute to CMS analysis Will compromise readiness of CMS and US CMS for Physics Disadvantage can only slowly be corrected because of operational
needs
SummarySummary
