Tony Doyle - University of Glasgow E-Science and LCG-2 PPAP Summary Results from GridPP1/LCG1 Value of the UK contribution to LCG? Aims of GridPP2/LCG2

Tony Doyle - University of Glasgow

E-Science and LCG-2E-Science and LCG-2PPAP SummaryPPAP Summary

Results from GridPP1/LCG1 Value of the UK contribution to

LCG? Aims of GridPP2/LCG2

UK special contribution to LCG2?How much effort

will be needed to continue activities during the LHC era?

26 October 2004 PPAP Tony Doyle - University of Glasgow

Outline

1. What has been achieved in GridPP1? [7’]• GridPP I (09/01-08/04) Prototype complete

2. What is being attempted in GridPP2? [6’]• GridPP II (09/04-08/07) Production short timescale• What is the value of a UK LCG Phase-2 contribution?

3. Resources needed in medium-long term? [10’]• (09/07-08/10) Exploitationmedium• Focus on resources needed in 2008• (09/10-08/14) Exploitationlong-term


Executive Summary

• Introduction• Project Management

• Resources• CERN• Middleware • Applications • Tier-1/A• Tier-2 • Dissemination • Exploitation

Ref: http://www.gridpp.ac.uk/

• the Grid is a reality• A project was/is needed

(under control via Project Map)

• Deployed according to planning

• Phase 1.. Phase 2 • Prototype(s) made impact• Fully engaged (value added)• Tier-1 production mode• Resources now being utilised• UK flagship project• Preliminary planning


GridPP Deployment Status

Three Grids on Global scale in HEP (similar functionality)

sites CPUs• LCG (GridPP) 82 (14) 7300

(1500)• Grid3 [USA] 29 2800• NorduGrid 30 3200

GridPP deployment is part of LCG(Currently the largest Grid in the world)The future Grid in the UK is dependent upon LCG releases


Deployment Status (26/10/04)

• Incremental releases: significant improvements in reliability, performance and scalability

– within the limits of the current architecture– scalability is much better than expected a year ago

• Many more nodes and processors than anticipated– installation problems of last year overcome– many small sites have contributed to MC productions

• Full-scale testing as part of this year’s data challenges

• GridPP “The Grid becomes a reality” – widely reported British

Embassy(Russia)

TechnologySites

British Embassy

(USA)


Data Challenges

• Ongoing..• Grid and

non-Grid Production

• Grid now significant

• CMS - 75 M events and 150 TB: first of this year’s Grid data challenges

• ALICE - 35 CPU Years• Phase 1 done

• Phase 2 ongoing

LCG

Entering Grid Production Phase..


Data Challenge

ATLAS DC2 - LCG - September 71%

2%

0%

1%

2%

14%

3%

1%

3%

9%

8%

3%2%5%1%4%

1%

1%

3%

0%

1%

1%

4%1%

0%

12%

0%

1%

1%

2%

10%

1% 4%

at.uibk

ca.triumf

ca.ualberta

ca.umontreal

ca.utoronto

ch.cern

cz.golias

cz.skurut

de.fzk

es.ifae

es.ific

es.uam

fr.in2p3

it.infn.cnaf

it.infn.lnl

it.infn.mi

it.infn.na

it.infn.na

it.infn.roma

it.infn.to

it.infn.lnf

jp.icepp

nl.nikhef

pl.zeus

ru.msu

tw.sinica

uk.bham

uk.ic

uk.lancs

uk.man

uk.rl

ATLAS DC2 - CPU usage

LCG41%

NorduGrid30%

Grid329%

LCG

NorduGrid

Grid3

Total:

~ 1350 kSI2k.months~ 95000 jobs~ 7.7 Million events fully simulated (Geant4)~ 22 TB

• 7.7 M GEANT4 events and 22 TB• UK ~20% of LCG• Ongoing..

• (3) Grid Production

• ~150 CPU years so far

• Largest total computing requirement

• Small fraction of what ATLAS need..



LHCb Data Challenge

424 CPU years (4,000 kSI2k months), 186M events • UK’s input significant (>1/4 total) • LCG(UK) resource:

– Tier-1 7.7%– Tier-2 sites:– London 3.9%– South 2.3%– North 1.4%

• DIRAC:– Imperial 2.0%– L'pool 3.1%– Oxford 0.1%– ScotGrid 5.1%

DIRAC alone

LCG inaction

1.8 106/day

LCG paused

Phase 1 Completed

3-5 106/dayLCG

restarted

186 M Produced Events



Paradigm ShiftTransition to Grid…

Jun: 80%:20%

25% of DC’04

Aug: 27%:73%

42% of DC’04

May: 89%:11%

11% of DC’04

Jul: 77%:23%

22% of DC’04

424 CPU · Years


What was GridPP1?

• A team that built a working prototype grid of significant scale

> 1,500 (7,300) CPUs> 500 (6,500) TB of storage> 1000 (6,000) simultaneous jobs

• A complex project where 82% of the 190 tasks for the first three years were completed

1 . 1 2 . 1 3 . 1 4 . 1 5 . 1 6 . 1 7 . 1

1 . 1 . 1 1 . 1 . 2 1 . 1 . 3 1 . 1 . 4 2 . 1 . 1 2 . 1 . 2 2 . 1 . 3 2 . 1 . 4 3 . 1 . 1 3 . 1 . 2 3 . 1 . 3 3 . 1 . 4 4 . 1 . 1 4 . 1 . 2 4 . 1 . 3 4 . 1 . 4 5 . 1 . 1 5 . 1 . 2 5 . 1 . 3 6 . 1 . 1 6 . 1 . 2 6 . 1 . 3 6 . 1 . 4 7 . 1 . 1 7 . 1 . 2 7 . 1 . 3 7 . 1 . 41 . 1 . 5 2 . 1 . 5 2 . 1 . 6 2 . 1 . 7 2 . 1 . 8 3 . 1 . 5 3 . 1 . 6 3 . 1 . 7 3 . 1 . 8 4 . 1 . 5 4 . 1 . 6 4 . 1 . 7 4 . 1 . 8 6 . 1 . 5

2 . 1 . 9 3 . 1 . 9 3 . 1 . 1 0 4 . 1 . 9

1 . 2 2 . 2 3 . 2 4 . 2 5 . 2 6 . 2 7 . 2 1 . 2 . 1 1 . 2 . 2 1 . 2 . 3 1 . 2 . 4 2 . 2 . 1 2 . 2 . 2 2 . 2 . 3 2 . 2 . 4 3 . 2 . 1 3 . 2 . 2 3 . 2 . 3 3 . 2 . 4 4 . 2 . 1 4 . 2 . 2 4 . 2 . 3 4 . 2 . 4 5 . 2 . 1 5 . 2 . 2 5 . 2 . 3 6 . 2 . 1 6 . 2 . 2 6 . 2 . 3 7 . 2 . 1 7 . 2 . 2 7 . 2 . 31 . 2 . 5 1 . 2 . 6 1 . 2 . 7 1 . 2 . 8 2 . 2 . 5 2 . 2 . 6 2 . 2 . 7 3 . 2 . 5 3 . 2 . 6 3 . 2 . 7 3 . 2 . 8 4 . 2 . 5 4 . 2 . 6 4 . 2 . 71 . 2 . 9 1 . 2 . 1 0 3 . 2 . 9

1 . 3 2 . 3 3 . 3 4 . 3 5 . 3 6 . 3 7 . 3

1 . 3 . 1 1 . 3 . 2 1 . 3 . 3 1 . 3 . 4 2 . 3 . 1 2 . 3 . 2 2 . 3 . 3 2 . 3 . 4 3 . 3 . 1 3 . 3 . 2 3 . 3 . 3 3 . 3 . 4 4 . 3 . 1 4 . 3 . 2 4 . 3 . 3 4 . 3 . 4 5 . 3 . 1 5 . 3 . 2 5 . 3 . 3 6 . 3 . 1 6 . 3 . 2 6 . 3 . 3 6 . 3 . 4 7 . 3 . 1 7 . 3 . 2 7 . 3 . 3 7 . 3 . 41 . 3 . 5 1 . 3 . 6 1 . 3 . 7 1 . 3 . 8 2 . 3 . 5 2 . 3 . 6 2 . 3 . 7 3 . 3 . 5 3 . 3 . 6 4 . 3 . 51 . 3 . 9 1 . 3 . 1 0 1 . 3 . 1 1

1 . 4 2 . 4 3 . 4 4 . 4 5 . 4 1 . 4 . 1 1 . 4 . 2 1 . 4 . 3 1 . 4 . 4 2 . 4 . 1 2 . 4 . 2 2 . 4 . 3 2 . 4 . 4 3 . 4 . 1 3 . 4 . 2 3 . 4 . 3 3 . 4 . 4 4 . 4 . 1 4 . 4 . 2 4 . 4 . 3 4 . 4 . 4 5 . 4 . 1 5 . 4 . 2 5 . 4 . 3 5 . 4 . 41 . 4 . 5 1 . 4 . 6 1 . 4 . 7 1 . 4 . 8 2 . 4 . 5 2 . 4 . 6 2 . 4 . 7 3 . 4 . 5 3 . 4 . 6 3 . 4 . 7 3 . 4 . 8 4 . 4 . 5 4 . 4 . 6 5 . 4 . 51 . 4 . 9 3 . 4 . 9 3 . 4 . 1 0 M e t r i c O K 1 . 1 . 1

M e t r i c n o t O K 1 . 1 . 1 1 . 5 2 . 5 3 . 5 4 . 5 T a s k c o m p le t e 1 . 1 . 1

1 . 5 . 1 1 . 5 . 2 1 . 5 . 3 1 . 5 . 4 2 . 5 . 1 2 . 5 . 2 2 . 5 . 3 2 . 5 . 4 3 . 5 . 1 3 . 5 . 2 3 . 5 . 3 3 . 5 . 4 4 . 5 . 1 4 . 5 . 2 4 . 5 . 3 4 . 5 . 4 T a s k o v e r d u e 1 . 1 . 11 . 5 . 5 1 . 5 . 6 1 . 5 . 7 1 . 5 . 8 2 . 5 . 5 2 . 5 . 6 2 . 5 . 7 3 . 5 . 5 3 . 5 . 6 3 . 5 . 7 6 0 d a y s 1 . 1 . 11 . 5 . 9 1 . 5 . 1 0 T a s k n o t d u e s o o n 1 . 1 . 1

N o t A c t i v e 1 . 1 . 1 2 . 6 3 . 6 4 . 6 N o T a s k o r m e t r i c

2 . 6 . 1 2 . 6 . 2 2 . 6 . 3 2 . 6 . 4 3 . 6 . 1 3 . 6 . 2 3 . 6 . 3 3 . 6 . 4 4 . 6 . 1 4 . 6 . 2 4 . 6 . 32 . 6 . 5 2 . 6 . 6 2 . 6 . 7 2 . 6 . 8 3 . 6 . 5 3 . 6 . 6 3 . 6 . 7 3 . 6 . 8 N a v ig a t e u p 2 . 6 . 9 3 . 6 . 9 3 . 6 . 1 0 3 . 6 . 1 1 3 . 6 . 1 2 N a v ig a t e d o w n

E x t e r n a l l i n k 2 . 7 3 . 7 L in k t o g o a l s

2 . 7 . 1 2 . 7 . 2 2 . 7 . 3 2 . 7 . 4 3 . 7 . 1 3 . 7 . 2 3 . 7 . 3 3 . 7 . 42 . 7 . 5 2 . 7 . 6 2 . 7 . 7 2 . 7 . 8 3 . 7 . 5 3 . 7 . 6

2 . 8 3 . 8 2 . 8 . 1 2 . 8 . 2 2 . 8 . 3 2 . 8 . 4 3 . 8 . 1 3 . 8 . 2 3 . 8 . 32 . 8 . 5

W P 8

1 2 3

D e p l o y m e n t

W P 4

W P 5

F a b r i c

T e c h n o l o g y

W P 6

D u e w i t h i n

A T L A S

G r i d P P G o a l

R e s o u r c e sI n t e r o p e r a b i l i t y D i s s e m i n a t i o n

T i e r - 1

T i e r - A

L H C b T i e r - 2

C E R N D a t a G r i d A p p l i c a t i o n s I n f r a s t r u c t u r e

W P 1

W P 2

W P 3

L C G C r e a t i o n

A p p l i c a t i o n s

W P 7

A T L A S / L H C b

C M S

B a B a r

C D F / D O

U K Q C D

O t h e r

D a t a C h a l l e n g e s

R o l l o u t

T e s t b e d

1 - J a n - 0 4S t a t u s D a t e

I n t . S t a n d a r d s

O p e n S o u r c e

W o r l d w i d e I n t e g r a t i o n

U K I n t e g r a t i o n

M o n i t o r i n g

D e v e l o p i n gE n g a g e m e n t

P a r t i c i p a t i o n

T o d e v e l o p a n d d e p l o y a l a r g e s c a l e s c i e n c e G r i di n t h e U K f o r t h e u s e o f t h e P a r t i c l e P h y s i c s c o m m u n i t y

P r e s e n t a t i o n D e p l o y m e n t

5 6 74

U p d a t e

C l e a r

A Success

“The achievement of

something desired, planned, or

attempted”


Aims for GridPP2? From Prototype to

ProductionBaBar

D0CDF

ATLAS

CMS

LHCb

ALICE

19 UK Institutes

RAL Computer Centre

CERN ComputerCentre

SAMGrid

BaBarGrid

LCG

EDGGANGA

EGEE

UK PrototypeTier-1/A Centre

CERN PrototypeTier-0 Centre

4 UK Tier-2 Centres

LCG

UK Tier-1/ACentre

CERN Tier-0Centre

200720042001

4 UK Prototype Tier-2 Centres

ARDA

Separate Experiments, Resources, Multiple

Accounts 'One' Production GridPrototype Grids


Planning: GridPP2

ProjectMap 0. Production Grid

1. 1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1

1. 2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2

1. 3 2.3 3.3 4.3 6.3

1. 4 2.4 3.4 4.4 6.4

2.5 3.5 4.5

Navigate down External link Link to goals

2.6 3.6 4.6

Network

Management

& MonitoringInformation PhenoGrid

KnowledgeTransfer

32

Management

Grid Deployment Security CMS UKQCD

Engagement

Grid Technology Workload LHCb D0

Computing Fabric Data & Storage Ganga CDF Deployment

Grid Operations

1 6M/S/N LHC Apps

54

GridPP2 GoalTo develop and deploy a large scale production quality grid in the UK for the use of the Particle Physics community

Tier-A Tier-1 Tier-2 Deployment Middleware Support Experiment Support

Interoperability

ATLAS Dissemination

Management ExternalLCG

Planning

Applications Metadata

Non-LHC Apps

BaBar

SAMGrid

LHC Deployment Portal

Need to recognise future requirements in each area…


Tier 0 and LCG: Foundation

Programme

• Aim: build upon Phase 1

• Ensure development programmes are linked

• Project management:GridPP LCG

• Shared expertise:

• LCG establishes the global computing infrastructure

• Allows all participating physicists to exploit LHC data

• Earmarked UK funding being reviewed

Required Foundation: LCG Deployment

F. LHC Computing Grid Project (LCG Phase 2) [review]


Tier 0 and LCG: RRB meeting

today

• Jos Engelen proposal to RRB members (Richard Wade [UK]) on how a 20MCHF shortfall for LCG phase II can be funded

• Funding from UK (£1m), France, Germany and Italy for 5 staff. Others?

• Spain to fund ~2 staff. Others at this level? • Now vitally important that the LCG effort

established predominantly via UK funding (40%) is sustained at this level (~10%)

• URGENT

Value to the UK? Required Foundation: LCG Deployment


Annual data storage:12-14 PetaBytesper year

100 Million SPECint2000

100,000 PCs (3 GHz Pentium 4)

Concorde(15 km)

CD stack with1 year LHC data(~ 20 km)

What lies ahead? Some mountain

climbing..

Quantitatively, we’re ~7% of the way there in terms of CPU (7,000 ex 100,000) and disk (4 ex 12-14*3-4 years)…

In production

terms, we’ve made base camp We are here

(1 km)

Importance of step-by-step planning… Pre-plan your trip, carry an ice axe and crampons and arrange for a guide…


Grid and e-Science Support

in 2008What areas require support?IV Running the Tier-1 Data CentreIV Hardware annual upgrade

IV Contribution to Tier-2 Sysman effort (non-PPARC) hardware IV Frontend Tier-2 hardware

IV Contribution to Tier-0 support

III One M/S/N expert in each of 6 areasIII Production manager and four Tier-2 coordinators

II Application/Grid experts (UK support)

I ATLAS Computing MoU commitments and supportI CMS Computing MoU commitments and supportI LHCb Core Tasks and Computing SupportI ALICE Computing supportI Future experiments adopt e-Infrastructure methods

• No GridPP management: (assume production mode established + devolved management to Institutes)

III. Grid Middleware

I. Experiment Layer

II. Application Middleware

IV. Facilities and Fabrics


PPARC Financial Input:

GridPP1 Components

6/Feb/2004

£3.57m

£5.67m

£3.74m

£2.08m£1.84m

CERN

DataGrid

Tier - 1/A

ApplicationsOperations

LHC Computing Grid Project (LCG)Applications, Fabrics, Technology and Deployment

European DataGrid (EDG)Middleware Development

UK Tier-1/A Regional CentreHardware and Manpower

Grid Application DevelopmentLHC and US Experiments + Lattice QCD

Management Travel etc


May 2004

£0.75m

£2.62m

£3.02m

£0.88m

£0.69m

£2.75m

£2.79m

£1.00m

£2.40m

Tier-1/AHardware

Tier-2Operations

Applications

M/S/N

LCG-2

MgrTravel

Ops

Tier-1/AOperations

C. Grid Application DevelopmentLHC and US Experiments + Lattice QCD + Phenomenology

B. Middleware Security NetworkDevelopment

F. LHC Computing Grid Project (LCG Phase 2) [review]

E. Tier-1/A Deployment:Hardware, System Management, Experiment Support

A. Management, Travel, Operations

D. Tier-2 Deployment: 4 Regional Centres - M/S/N support and System Management

PPARC Financial Input:

GridPP2 Components


IV. Hardware Support

UK Tier-1 2008

CPU Total (MSI2k)

4.2

Disk Total (PB) 3.8

Total Tape (PB) 2.3

UK Tier-2 2008

CPU Total (MSI2k)

8.0

Disk Total (PB) 1.0

ALICE ATLAS CMS LHCb Total

CPU (MSI2K) 9.1 16.6 12.6 9.5 47.8 41.4 -13%

Disk (PBytes) 3.0 9.2 8.7 1.3 22.2 10.1 -55%

Tape (PBytes) 3.6 6 6.6 0.4 16.6 17.8 7%

Notes 1. 2.

Total resources required and planned in all Tier-1 Centres (except CERN)

Requirements will be reviewed by LHCC in January 2005Current planning includes estimates of resources for which funding has not yet been secured

Total resources planned at Tier-1 centres (note 2)

BalanceResource type

First full year of data taking (2008)

All data is preliminary

Estimated requirements (note 1)

1. Global shortfall of Tier-1 CPU (-13%) and Disk (-55%)

2. UK Tier-1 input corresponds to ~40% (~10%) of global disk (CPU)

3. UK Tier-2 CPU and disk resources significant

4. Rapid physics analysis turnaround is a necessity

5. Priority is to ensure that ALL required software (experiment, middleware, OS) is routinely deployed on this hardware well before 2008


III. Middleware, Security and

Network

M/S/N builds upon UK strengths as part of International development

Configuration Management

Storage Interfaces

Network Monitoring

Security

Information Services

Grid Data Management

SecurityMiddleware

Networking

Require some support expertise in each of these areas in order to maintain the Grid


II. Application Middleware

Fabric

TapeStorage

Elements

RequestFormulator and

Planner

Client Applications

ComputeElements

Indicates component that w ill be replaced

DiskStorage

Elements

LANs andWANs

Resource andServices Catalog

Rep licaCatalog

Meta-dataCatalog

Authentication and SecurityGSISAM-specific user, group , node, st at ion regis tration B bftp ‘cookie’

Connectivity and Resource

CORBA UDP File transfer protocol s - ftp, b bftp, rcp GridFTP

Mass Storage s ystems protocol se.g. encp, hp ss

Collective Services

C atalogproto co ls

S igni fi cant Event Log ger Naming Servi ce Database ManagerC at alog Manager

SAM R es ource M an ag em entB at ch Sys tems - LSF, FB S, PB S,

C ondorData Mov erJob Services

Storage ManagerJob ManagerCache ManagerRequest Manager

“Dataset Editor” “File Storage Server”“Project Master” “Station Master” “Station Master”

Web Python codes, Java codesCommand line D0 Framework C++ codes

“Stager”“Optimiser”

CodeRepostory

Name in “quotes” is SAM-given software component name

or addedenhanced using PPDG and Grid tools

GANGA

SAMGridLattice QCD

AliEn

CMS

BaBar

Require some support expertise in each of these areas in order to maintain the Grid applications. Need to develop e-Infrastructure portals for new experiments starting up in exploitation era.

Pheomenology

ATLAS UK e-science forward look (Roger Jones)

Both will move from development to optimisation & maintenance

Current core and infrastructure activities:

Run Time Testing and Validation Framework, tracking and trigger instantiations

Provision of ATLAS Distributed Analysis & production tools

Production management GANGA development Metadata development ATLFast simulation ATLANTIS Event Display Physics Software Tools

~11 FTEs mainly ATLAS e-science with some GridPP & HEFCE

Current Tracking

and Trigger e-science:

Alignment effort ~6FTEs

Core software ~2.5FTEs

Tracking tools ~6FTEs

Trigger ~2FTEs

The current eScience funding will only take us (at best) to first data

Expertise required for the real-world problems and maintenance

Note for the HLT, the installation and commissioning will continue into the running period because of staging

Need ~15 FTE (beyond existing rolling grant) in 2007/9 - continued e-science/GridPP support

CMS UK e-science forward look (Dave Newbold)

NB: ‘First look’ estimates; well inevitably change as we approach running

Need ~9 FTE (beyond existing rolling grant) in 2007/9 - continued e-science/GridPP support

Work area Current FTEs FTEs 2007-9 FTEs 2009 -

Cmp sys / support (e-science WP1)

2.0 3.0 - ramp UP for running phase

3.0 - steady state

Monitoring / DQM

(e-science WP3)

2.5 2.0 - initial running 1.5 - support / maintenance

Tracker software

(e-science WP4)

2.0 1.5 - initial deployment running

1.0 - support / maintenance

ECAL software

(e-science WP5)

2.0 1.5 - initial running 1.0 - support / maintenance

Data management(GridPP2)

1.5 1.5 - final dplymnt / support


Analysis system(GridPP2)

1.5 1.0 - final dplymnt / support


11.5 10.5 9.0

Computing system / supportDevelopment / tuning of computing model + system; managementUser support for T1 / T2 centres (globally); liaison with LCG ops

Monitoring / DQMOnline data gathering/‘expert systems’ for CMS tracker, trigger

Tracker /ECAL softwareInstallation / calibration support; low-level reconstruction codes

Data managementPhedex system for bulk offline data movement and trackingSystem-level metadata; movement of HLT farm data online (new area)

Analysis systemCMS-specific parts of distributed analysis system on LCG

LHCb UK e-science forward look (Nick Brook)Current core activities: GANGA development Provision of DIRAC & production

tools Development of conditions DB The production bookkeeping DB Data management & metadata Tracking Data Challenge Production

Manager

~10 FTEs mainly GridPP, e-science, studentships with some HEFCE support

Will move from development to maintenance phase - UK pro rata share of LHCb core computing activities ~5 FTEs

Current RICH & VELO e-science:

RICH: UK provide bulk of the RICH s/w team including s/w coordinator ~7 FTEs about 50:50 e-science funding+rolling grant/HEFCE

VELO: UK provide bulk of the VELO s/w team including s/w coordinator ~4 FTEs about 50:50 e-science funding+rolling grant/HEFCE

ALL essential alignment activities for both detectors through e-science funding

Will move from development to maintenance and operational alignment

~3FTEs for alignment in 2007-9Need ~9 FTE (core+alignment+UK support) in 2007/9 - continued e-science support


LCG 9%

Tier-118%

Tier-222%

Applications9%

M/S/N8%

Operations7%

Operations2%

Travel3%

Tier-1 20%

Tier-22%

• Priorities in context of a financial snapshot in 2008• Grid (£5.6m p.a.) and e-Science (£2.7m p.a.)

• Assumes no GridPP project management• Savings?

– EGEE Phase 2 (2006-08) may contribute– UK e-Science context is

1. NGS (National Grid Service)2. OMII (Open Middleware Infrastructure Institute)3. DCC (Digital Curation Centre)

• Timeline?

Grid and e-Sciencefunding

requirements

New Expts.19%

ATLAS37%

CMS19%

LHCb19%

ALICE2%

Travel4%

To be compared To be compared withwith

Road Map: Not a Road Map: Not a BidBid

- Preliminary Input- Preliminary Input


Grid and e-ScienceExploitation Timeline?

• PPAP initial input Oct 2004• Science Committee initial input• PPARC call assessment (2007-2010) 2005• Science Committee outcome Oct 2005• PPARC call Jan 2006• PPARC close of call May 2006• Assessment Jun-Dec 2006• PPARC outcome Dec 2006 • Institute Recruitment/Retention Jan-Aug 2007• Grid and e-Science Exploitation Sep 2007 -

….

• Note if the assessment from PPARC internal planning differs significantly from this preliminary advice from PPAP and SC, then earlier planning is required.


Summary

1. What has been achieved in GridPP1? • Widely recognised as successful at many levels

2. What is being attempted in GridPP2? • Prototype to Production – typically most difficult phase• UK should invest further in LCG Phase-2

3. Resources needed for Grid and e-Science in medium-long term? • Current Road Map ~£6m

p.a. • Resources needed in 2008 estimated at £8.3m• Timeline for decision-making outlined..

Documents

Tony Doyle - University of Glasgow E-Science and LCG-2 PPAP Summary Results from GridPP1/LCG1 Value of the UK contribution to LCG? Aims of GridPP2/LCG2