Software Project Status

Software Project StatusTorre WenausBNL

U.S. ATLAS Physics and Computing Advisory Panel ReviewArgonne National LaboratoryOct 30, 2001

Torre Wenaus, BNL PCAP Review

OutlineProject overviewScope, organization, planning, relation to Intl ATLASTechnical progressScheduleBudget and personnelComments and conclusions


U.S. ATLAS Software Project OverviewMajor roles in key core software domains which leverage U.S. capability and are central to U.S. physics analysisControl framework and architectureChief Architect, Athena framework development, event modelDatabases and data managementDatabase co-Leader, major development rolesSoftware support: for developers, users and physics analysisSoftware librarian, quality control, software development tools, trainingSubsystem software roles complementing hardware responsibilitiesClosely coupled to core development: tight feedback loopLeadership roles commensurate with our activitiesScope commensurate with U.S. in ATLAS: ~20% of overall effort


U.S. ATLAS Software Organization


Project Planning StatusU.S. ATLAS WBS based on XProject essentially completeXProject extended to support International ATLAS; integration in International ATLAS by Helge Meinhard completeDetailed U.S. WBS integrated into ATLAS PBSU.S. and ATLAS versions mostly coincide (wherever possible)ATLAS and U.S. ATLAS schedules fully integratedU.S. and ATLAS project management cooperating and in synchCommon WBS and schedule sources in ATLAS CVSProjections from common sources differentiate the projectsProjections also used for grid planning: US Grid Computing WBSCMS, PPDG also using/evaluating XProject


U.S. ATLAS - ATLAS Coordination


NameTitle

NameTitle

NameTitle

NameTitle

Company Name

William WillisU.S. ATLAS Project Manager

Peter JenniATLAS Spokesperson

John HuthAssociate PM

Norman McCubbinSoftware Coordiinator

I. HinchliffePhysics SM

F. GianottiPhysics Coordinator

T. WenausSoftware SM

B. GibbardFacilities SM

C. TullFramework

D. MalonDatabase

SubsystemSoftware

H. Meinhard?Software Planning

D. QuarrieChief Archectect

D.MalonDatabase

A. PutzerNCB

L. PeriniATLAS GRID

R. GardnerDistributed Computing

SubsystemSoftware

ATLAS Subsystem/Task MatrixOther US roles: D. Quarrie (LBNL), Chief Architect; P. Nevski (BNL), Geant3 simu coord; H. Ma (BNL), Raw data coord; C.Tull (LBNL), Eurogrid WP8 liaison

Offline CoordinatorReconstructionSimulationDatabaseChairN. McCubbinD. RousseauK. AmakoD. MalonInner DetectorD. BarberisD. RousseauF. LuehringS. Bentvelsen /D. CalvetLiquid ArgonJ. CollotS. RajagopalanM. LeltchoukR. SobieTile CalorimeterA. SolodkovF. MerrittA. SolodkovT. LeCompteMuonTo be namedJ.F. LaporteA. RimoldiS. GoldfarbLVL 2 Trigger/ Trigger DAQS. GeorgeS. TapproggeM. WeilersA. Amorim /F. TouchardEvent FilterV. VercesiF. Touchard


Progress Overview Since MayControl Framework and ArchitectureDatabasesSoftware Support and QA/QCGrid Software


Control Framework and ArchitectureARC is concluded and dissolved, Athena is endorsedATLAS migration from SRT to CMT a tremendous drain on developers generally and D.Quarrie in particularBut DRQ et al are sustaining their development program as well as CMTSenior developer Chris Day moved out of ATLAS, to be replaced by a postdoc, to save moneyFTE count stays constant at 5.5 (4.5 funded by project), modulo the hiring delay, but Athena scripting development is delayedStoreGate transient event model evolution and adoption has moved rapidly, with almost all reco software now using itData Dictionary prototype in place and being exercised to implement event object descriptions and persistency mechanisms


Geant4 Integration Into AthenaSimu group developed FADS/Goofy framework, which uses the Geant4 framework rather than AthenaClaiming that Athena integration would delay them; migration to Athena at some unspecified later timeSo we undertook a proof of principle integration which quickly became a highly functional G4 in Athena capability -- it was not difficultOne developer part time; core of the integration work took 2 weeksInterest from several subsystemsWhile Comp Coord response was initially positive, we have recently received orders to stop all development on this and keep it quietWe will NOT retreat from this development which is in accord (unlike FADS/Goofy) with the ATLAS plan.


DatabasesD.Malon now sole ATLAS DB coordinator (congrats!)Event store architecture design document released in SeptemberExcellent basis to proceed. Fully consistent with both Objy and hybrid ROOT/RDBMS technologies which are to be evaluated in DC1One of its principal authors, Ed Frank (UC), is unfortunately leaving HEPReduces ANL-area DB effort by 0.5 FTE to 3.5 (3.0 supported by project)With a 1FTE increment in total developer support at BNL (to 2, 1.3 of which is DB) in FY02, event store work on the hybrid solution is beginning to rampObjective is prototype deployment in time for DC1s technology evaluationGoing further will require the planned FY03 1FTE increment to continue the transfer of expertise from STARBaseline event store deployed to Lund users and will be used in DC0Major challenge to achieve technology decision objectives in 02Simultaneous dev and support of two technologies


Software Support, QA/QCNew releases are available in the US ~1 day after CERNProvided in AFS for use throughout the USNightly build facility now used throughout ATLASFull software build based on most recent tags; email to developersBeing adapted to serve as an integral part of the release processBeing moved to CERN to better support the whole communityCMT migration is unsurprisingly a major drain on the US librarianBut, he generally likes CMT and sees most of the deficiencies in the incomplete, unstable and underdocumented ATLAS extensionsWhen CMT stabilizes, nightlies will be extended to incorporate more QCcode compliance, test jobs, regression testsQA/QC expert hired; will leverage his experienceDeploying pacman (Boston U) for remote software installation


Grid SoftwareMajor new US grid projects approved (PPDG SciDAC, iVDGL) and must be leveraged to contribute as much as possible to ATLAS while respecting the programs and deliverables of the grid projectsSoftware development aspects of the ATLAS complements of the grid projects are being managed as an integral part of the overall software effortObjective is to integrate grid software activities tightly into ongoing core software program, for maximal relevance and returnGrid project programs consistent with this have been developedThis does not mean that eg. PPDG FTEs can be subtracted from our project needs; grid projects lead to scope extensions and priority redirections that are a challenge for us to accommodate as is


ScheduleIntegrated (U.S. software + U.S. grid + ATLAS), comprehensive scheduleLinked to U.S.ATLAS, ATLAS, U.S. Grid WBSs throughoutSupports, but does not yet show most linkages between tasks/milestonesReasonable detail for near term; sketchier beyond thatCurrently developing and adding detail for 2002-2003, particularly Data Challenge relatedLittle recent schedule development in International ATLASWBS and schedule are input to the U.S. ATLAS project management accounting and tracking system


Summary Software MilestonesThe Data Challenges will frame our objectives and milestones in 02, 03Slippage is apparent; LHC startup delay is likely to be swallowed by thelengthening schedule


Sheet1

0123456

1 Tbyte database prototype(Done)

Release of Athena pre-alpha version(Done)

Athena alpha release(Done)

Geant3 digi data available(Done)

Athena beta release(Done)

Athena accepted (ARC concluded)(Done)

Athena Lund release(Done)

Event store architecture design document(Done)

Athena production release V1

Decide on database productDelay

DC0 - 100k events

Full validation of G4 physicsDelay

DC1 Completed - 10M events

Computing TDR FinishedDelay

DC2 Completed - 10% of nominal data

Physics readiness report completed

Full software chain in real environment

Full DB infrastructure available

Sheet2

Sheet3

Agency Budget GuidelinesOriginal agency profile of monies in software FY01-06 was an impossible one for softwareSharp, late peak like the profile of a failed projectFitting the profile makes critical mass at any US site impossibleDismissals of valuable HEP experts would have been necessaryWe developed a compromise profile well below our Jan 2000 proposal which provides the needed flatter profileThe current agency profile is better but still too back-loaded, falling short until FY04As a result, HEP expertise is again at risk, in a high priority area: event DB development, in particular the hybrid solution that may replace ObjectivityNo funds to increase CERN presence


SW Funding Profile Comparisons2000 agency guidelineJanuary 2000 PMPCurrent agency guidelineCompromise profilerequested last year


Chart1

1.452.1432.981.95

1.762.53.932.25

1.722.7074.322.4

2.282.8824.123.04

3.22.8823.923.45

4.782.883.923.54

2001 agency guideline

Compromise profile requested

Original PMP profile

Current agency guideline

M$

Budget profile

Funding, FY00 M$FTEs

All numbers in M$FY00FY01FY02FY03FY04FY05FY06TotalFY00FY01FY02FY03FY04FY05FY06Total

Jan '00 PMP (preferred profile)1.712.983.934.324.123.923.9224.90

[Funded software effort (original numbers; ignore)]0.891.261.381.722.283.204.4515.184.56.36.98.611.416.022.375.9

Revised funded effort (agency guideline)1.211.451.761.722.283.204.7816.40

Total core need (totals of below)0.912.142.502.712.882.882.8816.904.610.712.513.514.414.414.484.5

Core - Control/Architecture Jan '00 PMP:0.621.061.060.800.600.400.404.943.15.35.34.03.02.02.024.7

C. Tull (LBNL) - A Team0.240.240.240.240.240.240.241.01.01.01.01.01.01.0

D. Quarrie (LBNL) - Chief Architect0.120.190.240.240.240.240.240.50.81.01.01.01.01.0

C. Day (LBNL) - architecture0.120.120.120.120.120.120.120.50.50.50.50.50.50.5

P. Calafiura (LBNL) - A Team0.000.100.100.100.100.100.100.00.50.50.50.50.50.5

C. Leggett (LBNL) - framework0.000.080.080.100.100.100.100.00.50.50.50.50.50.5

M. Marino (LBNL) - framework0.000.200.200.200.200.200.200.01.01.01.01.01.01.0

S. Qian (BNL) - event model, framework integration0.000.200.200.200.200.200.200.01.01.01.01.01.01.0

Subsystem integration for framework0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00.00.00.00.00.00.0

Control/Architecture total0.481.131.181.201.201.201.207.582.05.35.55.55.55.55.534.8

Core - Data management Jan '00 PMP:0.601.001.201.401.401.401.408.403.05.06.07.07.07.07.042.0

D. Malon (ANL) - Database Co-Leader0.240.240.240.240.240.240.241.01.01.01.01.01.01.0

D. Blachowicz (ANL) - database development0.020.200.200.200.200.200.200.11.01.01.01.01.01.0

E. Frank (U Chicago) - database development/tilecal (*)0.000.150.150.150.150.150.150.00.50.50.50.50.50.5

ANL hire - database development0.000.200.200.200.200.200.200.01.01.01.01.01.01.0

S. Vanyashin (BNL) - data management, grid integration0.000.000.200.200.200.200.200.00.01.01.01.01.01.0

V. Perevoztchikov (BNL) - database0.000.000.000.200.200.200.200.00.00.01.01.01.01.0

BNL internal or hire - distributed data mgmt0.000.000.000.000.200.200.200.00.00.00.01.01.01.0

Subsystem integration for DB0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00.00.00.00.00.00.0

Subsystem integration for data mgmt, grid0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00.00.00.00.00.00.0

Data management total0.260.790.991.191.391.391.397.401.13.54.55.56.56.56.534.1

Support, management, training etc.

Librarian0.150.150.150.150.150.150.150.151.01.01.01.01.01.01.07.0

Training/tools0.020.040.030.030.030.030.030.03

Support etc. total0.170.190.180.180.180.180.180.181.01.01.01.01.01.01.07.0

Advanced IT professional burdened cost0.24

IT professional I burdened cost0.20

IT professional II burdened cost0.15

(*) Presently 100% project funded, 50% on core software (database), 50% on tile calorimeter

Profile consistent (almost) with revised total funded effort (agency guideline) for FY01

M$FTE

Revised total funded effort1.45

Total of below1.516.8

Core - Control/Architecture

C. Tull (LBNL) - A Team0.241.0

D. Quarrie (LBNL) - Chief Architect0.190.8

C. Day (LBNL) - architecture0.000.0

P. Calafiura (LBNL) - A Team0.100.5

C. Leggett (LBNL) - framework0.000.0

M. Marino (LBNL) hire - framework0.201.0

S. Qian (BNL) - event model, framework integration0.100.5

Control total0.833.8

Core - Data management

D. Malon (ANL) - Database Co-Leader0.241.0

D. Blachowicz (ANL) - database development0.100.5

E. Frank (U Chicago) - database development/tilecal (*)0.150.5

ANL hire - database development0.000.0

Data management total0.492.0

Support, management, training etc.

Librarian0.151.0

Training/tools0.04

Support etc. total0.191.0

(*) Presently 100% project funded, 50% on core software (database), 50% on tile calorimeter

Explanation

June 9 email text explaining the (June version of) profile

Doesn't really change the picture very much; the revised numbers are still below

my bare-bones numbers for FY01-FY04. I include a profile revised only slightly

from what I gave you yesterday. Here are some comments.

In the profile I show, I address core software needs first, and within core I

focus on the already agreed program of control/framework and data

management/event model including distributed data management and grid

integration. The control/framework team is in place at LBNL. Malon at ANL must

be augmented with a critical mass of developer effort; I have included the 1FTE

of reassigned effort ('Pandola/Christiansen') and the new hire already planned,

plus a further hire (whether at ANL, UM, ... TBD). At BNL I include Qian on

event model and framework integration (already in place), Vanyashin on data

management and grid integration (at BNL working on Grand Challenge integration

in STAR, and ready to start on ATLAS work early in calendar '01; my new LDRD

proposal is directed at supporting him until the project can), Perevoztchikov

who is STAR's best infrastructure/database developer, and one new hire in

distributed data management. The start dates of many of the new people are

delayed by 1-2 years in order to try to accommodate the profile, which will both

impact our deliverables (see comments below) and presumes other funding sources

will be able to carry key people we want to keep in the meantime (eg. Vanyashin,

Perevoztchikov). This is all I include in core. It trims the LBNL core group

request slightly (Day at 50% and no 'Milford'). It makes what I would call

minimal augmentation of the database effort at Argonne to give Malon enough

critical mass to back up his management role with a productive development

effort under his supervision and control. It provides for (sub!)minimal transfer

of existing BNL expertise to ATLAS in core areas complementing our Tier 1 role;

really I think the four people included at BNL is subminimal for the Tier 1

software complement, but the provided profile doesn't allow for more.

This very minimal and stretched out core-only (and hence lab-only) profile

already exhausts the provided profile from DOE/NSF. No subdetector software

positions have been included. The absence of university positions -- even though

this profile does not include the 100% university based T2 project -- is sure to

raise objections, but this core profile barely supplies critical mass to the lab

efforts as it is.

The profile I present is compatible with the DOE/NSF profile in its integral,

but not year by year. The agency profile has an alarming and entirely

inappropriate weighting of the funding to the very late years of FY05-FY06. It

falls short relative to my profile in FY01-FY04. A profile peaked so late may be

(is) appropriate for hardware, but not for software. Such a profile for a

software project would be a signature of relative neglect followed by panicked

hurling of resources at software to catch up. This would handicap computing

activities for years, produce greatly inferior end results, and greatly imperil

ultimate success [if applied experiment-wide; in our case in U.S. ATLAS it would

mean forfeiture of responsibilities to others, but ATLAS experience outside the

U.S. in our focus areas is weak, so the end result may be the same]. This is

_particularly_ true for the software development program the U.S. is taking on.

Our strong emphasis on core software -- and within core on those components

which lie at the foundation of everything else, framework and database/data

managment -- means that our work plan must consist of a sustained effort growing

to critical mass early and persisting to startup. It is widely recognized within

ATLAS that the collaboration is already late in the development of framework and

database. Our work will be at the foundation of the mock data challenges

commencing in FY01; our deliverables will be correspondingly early. We will be

unable to meet the responsibilities we have won with the current DOE/NSF

profile.

With the larger integral of today's version of the profile, in lieu of the

subsystem software positions I have added three positions in '05 (late, but

that's what the profile will bear) specifically directed at working with the

subsystems on integration into core, in the areas of framework, database, and

data mgmt/grid. Most sensibly the positions would exist at the labs; maybe

politics would dictate otherwise. This brings my integral into compatibility

with the agency integral, but $1.5M in '06 needs to be redistributed to earlier

years.

- Torre

Graph

2252

Graph

1.452.1432.981.95

1.762.53.932.25

1.722.7074.322.4

2.282.8824.123.04

3.22.8823.923.45

4.782.883.923.55

Agency guideline

Compromise profile

Preferred profile

Current agency profile

M$

Budget (= Personnel) Priorities for FY01FY01 priorities suffered due to funding shortfallsSustain LBNL and ANL effortsHighly experienced LBNL developer released, to be replaced by young programmer, to reduce cost while preserving FTE countHighly experienced U Chicago developer working with ANL DB team (50% level) is leaving. No resources at present to replace himBegin the delayed BNL ramp: Add first sw pro developerFirst sw pro was added, but 1FTE of base support was lost. Temporarily compensated with lab resources.Establish sustained presence at CERNUnfunded. 1 person is at CERN via existing funds (LBNL relocation)


FY02 Software FTEs by Category


Chart5

5.4

1.25

4.9

0.8

3

1.2

Breakdown

FY02 software personnel, funding and activity

Funding (FTEs)Software Activity (FTEs)

NameInstituteProjectInstitutePPDGGriVDGLTotalArch/FrameEventDBOffl InfrDist SWSupport/QAOtherTotal

ChisholmANL0.500.500.500.50

EckmannANL0.500.500.500.50

LainANL0.500.500.500.50

MalonANL1.001.001.001.00

VanyashinANL1.001.001.001.00

FrankUC0.100.100.100.10

FY02 hireANL0.800.800.800.80

ANL/UC Totals3.100.500.804.403.600.804.40

AdamsBNL0.651.000.450.200.65

0.350.050.300.35

DengBNL0.450.750.450.45

0.300.300.30

FY02 hireBNL0.400.750.400.40

0.350.350.35

FineBNL0.500.500.500.50

FisyakBNL0.400.400.200.200.40

MaBNL0.200.200.200.20

NevskiBNL0.600.800.600.60

0.200.200.20

PerevoztchikovBNL0.200.300.200.20

0.100.100.10

RajagopalanBNL0.300.300.300.30

UndrusBNL0.801.000.100.700.80

0.200.200.20

WenausBNL1.001.000.100.300.100.501.00

BNL Totals2.902.601.507.001.001.300.802.201.200.507.00

CalafiuraLBNL0.500.500.250.250.50

FY02 hireLBNL0.750.750.750.75

LeggettLBNL1.001.001.001.00

MarinoLBNL1.001.001.001.00

QuarrieLBNL1.001.001.001.00

ShapiroLBNL0.400.400.400.40

TullLBNL1.001.001.001.00

LBNL Totals4.501.155.655.400.255.65

YoussefBU??

?Indiana??

Overall totals10.504.252.3017.055.401.254.900.803.001.200.5017.05

4.250.254.300.800.90Project

1.150.950.600.750.300.50Inst

0.052.25PPDG

GriVDGL

Charts

Charts

5.4

1.25

4.9

0.8

3

1.2

Sheet3

4.251.15

0.250.950.05

4.30.6

0.8

Dist SW0.752.25

0.90.3

Project

Institute

PPDG

GriVDGL

3.12.94.5

0.52.61.15

0.81.5

GriVDGL

ANL

BNL

LBNL

5.4

1.25

4.9

0.8

3

1.2

Personnel Priorities for FY02, FY03FY02, FY03 priorities are also in jeopardySustain LBNL (4.5FTE) and ANL (3FTE) supportWe hope the FY01 cutback will be sufficient. Add FY02, FY03 1FTE increments at BNL to reach 3FTEsFY02 is in the budget, if we can trust the budget. FY03 is uncertain. FY03 involves no new hire; transfers ROOT expertise from STAR.Restore the .5FTE lost at UC to ANLNo resources at present. Establish sustained presence at CERN.No resources foreseen.Must rely on labs to continue base program support to keep full complement of developers


Software Activity in FY02FTE breakdown by category and funding source


Chart2

4.251.15

0.250.950.05

4.30.6

0.8

Dist SW0.752.250.25

0.90.3

Project

Institute

PPDG

GriVDGL

Breakdown





EckmannANL0.500.500.500.50

LainANL0.500.500.500.50

MalonANL1.001.001.001.00


FrankUC0.100.100.100.10

FY02 hireANL0.800.800.800.80

ANL/UC Totals3.100.500.804.403.600.804.40

AdamsBNL0.651.000.450.200.65

0.350.050.300.35

DengBNL0.450.750.450.45

0.300.300.30

FY02 hireBNL0.400.750.400.40

0.350.350.35

FineBNL0.500.500.500.50

FisyakBNL0.400.400.200.200.40

MaBNL0.200.200.200.20

NevskiBNL0.600.800.600.60

0.200.200.20


0.100.100.10


UndrusBNL0.801.000.100.700.80

0.200.200.20

WenausBNL1.001.000.100.300.100.501.00

BNL Totals2.902.601.507.001.001.300.802.201.200.507.00

CalafiuraLBNL0.500.500.250.250.50

FY02 hireLBNL0.750.750.750.75


MarinoLBNL1.001.001.001.00



TullLBNL1.001.001.001.00

LBNL Totals4.501.155.655.400.255.65

YoussefBU0.250.250.250.25

?Indiana??

Univ Totals0.250.250.250.25

Overall totals10.504.252.300.2517.305.401.254.900.803.251.200.5017.30

4.250.254.300.800.90Project

1.150.950.600.750.300.50Inst

0.052.25PPDG

0.25GriVDGL

Charts

Charts

4.251.15

0.250.950.05

4.30.6

0.8

Dist SW0.752.250.25

0.90.3

Project

Institute

PPDG

GriVDGL

Sheet3

5.4

1.25

4.9

0.8

3.5

1.2

MBD0068475E.xls

Chart1

3.12.94.5

0.52.61.15

0.81.5

GriVDGL0.25

ANL

BNL

LBNL

Univ

Breakdown





EckmannANL0.500.500.500.50

LainANL0.500.500.500.50

MalonANL1.001.001.001.00


FrankUC0.100.100.100.10

FY02 hireANL0.800.800.800.80

ANL/UC Totals3.100.500.804.403.600.804.40

AdamsBNL0.651.000.450.200.65

0.350.050.300.35

DengBNL0.450.750.450.45

0.300.300.30

FY02 hireBNL0.400.750.400.40

0.350.350.35

FineBNL0.500.500.500.50

FisyakBNL0.400.400.200.200.40

MaBNL0.200.200.200.20

NevskiBNL0.600.800.600.60

0.200.200.20


0.100.100.10


UndrusBNL0.801.000.100.700.80

0.200.200.20

WenausBNL1.001.000.100.300.100.501.00

BNL Totals2.902.601.507.001.001.300.802.201.200.507.00

CalafiuraLBNL0.500.500.250.250.50

FY02 hireLBNL0.750.750.750.75


MarinoLBNL1.001.001.001.00



TullLBNL1.001.001.001.00

LBNL Totals4.501.155.655.400.255.65

YoussefBU0.250.250.250.25

?Indiana??

Univ Totals0.250.250.250.25

Overall totals10.504.252.300.5017.305.401.254.900.803.501.200.5017.30

4.250.254.300.800.90Project

1.150.950.600.750.300.50Inst

0.052.75PPDG

GriVDGL

Charts

Charts

4.251.15

0.250.950.05

4.30.6

0.8

Dist SW0.752.75

0.90.3

Project

Institute

PPDG

GriVDGL

Sheet3

3.12.94.5

0.52.61.15

0.81.5

GriVDGL0.25

ANL

BNL

LBNL

Univ

5.4

1.25

4.9

0.8

3.5

1.2

Software Funding in FY02FTE breakdown by funding source and institute


Chart1

3.12.94.5

0.52.61.15

0.81.5

GriVDGL0.25

ANL

BNL

LBNL

Univ

Breakdown





EckmannANL0.500.500.500.50

LainANL0.500.500.500.50

MalonANL1.001.001.001.00


FrankUC0.100.100.100.10

FY02 hireANL0.800.800.800.80

ANL/UC Totals3.100.500.804.403.600.804.40

AdamsBNL0.651.000.450.200.65

0.350.050.300.35

DengBNL0.450.750.450.45

0.300.300.30

FY02 hireBNL0.400.750.400.40

0.350.350.35

FineBNL0.500.500.500.50

FisyakBNL0.400.400.200.200.40

MaBNL0.200.200.200.20

NevskiBNL0.600.800.600.60

0.200.200.20


0.100.100.10


UndrusBNL0.801.000.100.700.80

0.200.200.20

WenausBNL1.001.000.100.300.100.501.00

BNL Totals2.902.601.507.001.001.300.802.201.200.507.00

CalafiuraLBNL0.500.500.250.250.50

FY02 hireLBNL0.750.750.750.75


MarinoLBNL1.001.001.001.00



TullLBNL1.001.001.001.00

LBNL Totals4.501.155.655.400.255.65

YoussefBU0.250.250.250.25

?Indiana??

Univ Totals0.250.250.250.25

Overall totals10.504.252.300.5017.305.401.254.900.803.501.200.5017.30

4.250.254.300.800.90Project

1.150.950.600.750.300.50Inst

0.052.75PPDG

GriVDGL

Charts

Charts

4.251.15

0.250.950.05

4.30.6

0.8

Dist SW0.752.75

0.90.3

Project

Institute

PPDG

GriVDGL

Sheet3

3.12.94.5

0.52.61.15

0.81.5

GriVDGL0.25

ANL

BNL

LBNL

Univ

5.4

1.25

4.9

0.8

3.5

1.2

FY03 Software Project CostsDollars are approximate. Review by project office required.Tentative guidance for FY03 is $2.4M


Sheet1

FY01 FTEFY02 FTEFY02 rateFY02 costFY03 FTEFY03 rateFY03 cost

VanyashinANL0.7511900001900001.00192150192150

ChisholmANL0.40.5190000950000.5019215096075

EckmannANL0.40.5190000950000.5019215096075FY03 Software Project Costs

MalonANL111900001900001.00192150192150

FrankChicago10000.001700000FTEs$

ANL/UC total35700003.00938600576450ANL36214503 developers

ANL rate/FTE190000192150BNL47204503 developers, 1 librarian

UC rate/FTE170000LBNL4.511040004.5 developers

ANL/UC travel, materials based on LBNL4500061500045000Total11.52445900

UndrusBNL111330001330001.00143850143850UC -> ANL0.5103575

NevskiBNL111596001596001.00172200172200Total122549475

AdamsBNL011596001596001.00172200172200

Fall01HireBNL1.001722001722003 CERN dev3500000

BNL total34522004.00660450Total153049475

BNL ITP1 rate/FTE137000143850

BNL ITP2 rate/FTE164000172200

BNL multiplier1.7733333333

BNL travel, materials based on LBNL4500049720060000

SeligmanColumbia1175000750000.00

CalafiuraLBNL0.50.5180928904640.5019300096500

DayLBNL0.50.52332711166360.00

LeggettLBNL0.50.597471487361.00193000193000

MarinoLBNL111833791833791.00193000193000

QuarrieLBNL0.812835132835131.00277000277000

TullLBNL112390062390061.00277000277000

LBNL total4.59617324.501036500

LBNL cost/FTE213718

LBNL AITP277000

LBNL ITP1245000

LBNL ITP2193000

travel, materials included at $15k/FTE.67500

LBNL multiplier1.6054218268

Inflation multiplier1.05

Travel+materials/person15000

Overall total20589322445900

3 developers at CERN' proposal550000

Grand total2608932compare to budget number 2450000

Sheet2

Sheet3

Architect/Framework Needs Estimate


Estimate of Architecture (WBS 2.2.1.1) and

Framework (2.2.1.2) effort needs for ATLAS

Estimated FTE totals by fiscal year required by the indicated

WBS item for International ATLAS.

FY WBS item

01 02 03 04 05

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 /sw/core/arch/chief

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 /sw/core/arch/proto

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 /sw/core/arch/usdp

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 /sw/core/frame/frame

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 /sw/core/frame/module

0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 /sw/core/frame/jobopts

0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 /sw/core/frame/intfc

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 /sw/core/frame/persistent

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 /sw/core/frame/transient

0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 /sw/core/frame/conddb

0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 /sw/core/frame/desc

0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 /sw/core/frame/message

0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 /sw/core/frame/stat

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 /sw/core/frame/analysis

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 /sw/core/frame/graphics

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 /sw/core/frame/config

0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 /sw/core/frame/particle

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 /sw/core/frame/tools

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 /sw/core/frame/tbeam

0.2 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 /sw/core/frame/dist

0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 /sw/core/frame/prod

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 /sw/core/frame/collab

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 /sw/core/frame/test

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 /sw/core/frame/doc

7 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.4 Arch/Framework Totals FY01-05

Database Needs Estimate


Estimate of Database (WBS 2.2.1.3)

effort needs for ATLAS

Estimated FTE totals by fiscal year required by the

indicated WBS item for International ATLAS.

FY WBS item

01 02 03 04 05

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 /sw/core/db/design

1.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 /sw/core/db/eval

2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 /sw/core/db/eventdb

0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 /sw/core/db/metadata

1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 /sw/core/db/simu

1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 /sw/core/db/reco

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 /sw/core/db/tbeam

0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 /sw/core/db/analysis

0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 /sw/core/db/tdaq

0.8 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 /sw/core/db/conddb

0.7 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 /sw/core/db/frame

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 /sw/core/db/db

0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 /sw/core/db/security

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 /sw/core/db/support

0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 /sw/core/db/help

0.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 /sw/core/db/dist

0.7 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 /sw/core/db/grid

0.3 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 /sw/core/db/scale

0.2 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 /sw/core/db/admin

0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 /sw/core/db/prod

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 /sw/core/db/collab

0.2 0.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 /sw/core/db/access

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 /sw/core/db/test

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 /sw/core/db/doc

14.6 15.8 18.3 16.5 18.5 DB Totals FY01-05

Planned & Required Effort LevelsNeeds based on bottom-up estimate of Intl ATLAS needs from WBS level 5. Developed by U.S. software managers based on experience (developed by one of us, reviewed by other two; revisions were small). Broadly consistent with International ATLAS estimates.

FTEs by FYFY01FY02FY03FY04FY05Arch/Frame7.06.36.26.16.4Needed5.65.66.46.76.9U.S. provided (LBNL + BNL)DB/Data mgmt14.615.818.316.518.5Needed3.64.75.05.15.5U.S. provided (ANL + BNL)


US Software Project EffortProject funded FTEs by fiscal year and category.


Chart2

5.53.061.41

54.31.10

5.44.61.20

5.44.61.20

5.351.40

5.25.11.40

Frame/Arch/Event FTEs

DB/Data mgmt FTEs

SW Support FTEs

Simu/Reco FTEs

Sheet1

CategoryFY01FY02FY03FY04FY05FY06Total

/us/sw/core/arch10.50.50.50.50.53.9

/us/sw/core/frame4.555.15.856.156.356.3537.45

/us/sw/core/event1.051.251.151.151.050.957.55

/us/sw/core/db3.564.95.25.35.75.831.26

/us/sw/core/analysis000.61.41.81.95.7

/us/sw/core/distsw0.453.73.552.50010.2

/us/sw/simrec/general0.30.810.90.80.84.9

/us/sw/support/librarian0.90.70.70.70.80.84.8

/us/sw/support/help0.10.10.10.10.10.10.6

/us/sw/support/qa0.40.30.40.50.60.62.8

FY01FY02`FY03FY04FY05FY06

Frame/Arch/Event FTEs5.555.45.45.35.2

DB/Data mgmt FTEs3.064.34.64.655.1

SW Support FTEs1.41.11.21.21.41.4

Simu/Reco FTEs100000

Sheet1

/us/sw/core/arch

/us/sw/core/frame

/us/sw/core/event

/us/sw/core/db

/us/sw/core/analysis

/us/sw/core/distsw

/us/sw/simrec/general

/us/sw/support/librarian

/us/sw/support/help

/us/sw/support/qa

Sheet2

Frame/Arch/Event FTEs

DB/Data mgmt FTEs

SW Support FTEs

Simu/Reco FTEs

Sheet3

Total US Core Software EffortFTEs by fiscal year and WBS category. Total effort from all sources.


Chart1

14.551.053.5600.450.30.90.10.4

0.55.11.254.903.70.80.70.10.3

0.55.851.155.20.63.5510.70.10.4

0.56.151.155.31.42.50.90.70.10.5

0.56.351.055.71.800.80.80.10.6

0.56.350.955.81.900.80.80.10.6

/us/sw/core/arch

/us/sw/core/frame

/us/sw/core/event

/us/sw/core/db


/us/sw/core/distsw



/us/sw/support/help

/us/sw/support/qa

Sheet1

CategoryFY01FY02FY03FY04FY05FY06Total

/us/sw/core/arch10.50.50.50.50.53.9

/us/sw/core/frame4.555.15.856.156.356.3537.45

/us/sw/core/event1.051.251.151.151.050.957.55

/us/sw/core/db3.564.95.25.35.75.831.26

/us/sw/core/analysis000.61.41.81.95.7

/us/sw/core/distsw0.453.73.552.50010.2

/us/sw/simrec/general0.30.810.90.80.84.9

/us/sw/support/librarian0.90.70.70.70.80.84.8

/us/sw/support/help0.10.10.10.10.10.10.6

/us/sw/support/qa0.40.30.40.50.60.62.8

Sheet1

/us/sw/core/arch

/us/sw/core/frame

/us/sw/core/event

/us/sw/core/db


/us/sw/core/distsw



/us/sw/support/help

/us/sw/support/qa

Sheet2

Sheet3

Nov 00, May 01 PCAPs -Select Comments ArisingCollaborative data mgmt reassessment is encouraged. US CMS may be involved in evaluating a hybrid event store solution for CMS. If so, we will seek to collaborate with them.QA/QC should be strengthened. Manpower increased at BNL. SW test/validation improved with new nightly build scheme. More will be done after migration to CMT code management tool stabilizes.Alternative framework should be reconsidered. We agree. We will not back down from our incorporation of Geant4 in Athena, which removes the justification (pretense?) for an alternative framework.


Grid CommentsWe are following the funding mandatesWhile the critical path task of event store development is resource starved 3 months before DC1, which is to include a full evaluation of implemented event store technologies to come to an already delayed decision,we have a substantial and growing grid effort 15 months before the start of the first DC with grid objectivesPoint 2 is as it should be -- except in the presence of point 1We try hard to use grid resources in a way that furthers our prioritieseg. to develop metadata management of the sort needed for both distributed data management and a hybrid event storebut we are constrained: we must respect grid objectives and deliverables, and accept the substantial scope broadening required by working in the grid projects. Worthwhile in the long run, but not consistent with our needs in the short run when resources for the project proper are deficient.


ConclusionsThe project has matured, with successful programs at the three labs working closely with one another and with International ATLASScope of the program has been kept within the bounds of our planThe US continues to secure important positions in Intl ATLAS softwareUS work is mainstream, accepted, and often of central importanceWe are seeing the benefits of our major program elements (DB, framework, event) being closely interrelated: US developments leverage one another making the whole greater than the parts -- e.g. StoreGate leverages all threeWe have done this by scraping together enough resources -- by necessity including resources outside the project -- to cover the essentials. We must be able to continue to attain our minimum needs -- within the project allocated resources, if we are to be baselined.


Documents

Software Project Status