Post on 12-Feb-2016
description
Harvey B NewmanHarvey B Newman
FAST Meeting, CaltechFAST Meeting, CaltechJuly 1, 2002July 1, 2002
http://l3www.cern.ch/~newman/HENPGridsNets_FAST070202.ppthttp://l3www.cern.ch/~newman/HENPGridsNets_FAST070202.ppt
HENP HENP Grids and NetworksGrids and Networks Global Virtual Organizations Global Virtual Organizations
Computing Challenges: Computing Challenges: Petabyes, Petaflops, Global VOsPetabyes, Petaflops, Global VOs
Geographical dispersion:Geographical dispersion: of people and resources of people and resources Complexity:Complexity: the detector and the LHC environment the detector and the LHC environment Scale: Scale: Tens of Petabytes per year of dataTens of Petabytes per year of data
5000+ Physicists 250+ Institutes 60+ Countries
Major challenges associated with:Major challenges associated with:Communication and collaboration at a distanceCommunication and collaboration at a distance
Managing globally distributed computing & data resources Managing globally distributed computing & data resources Cooperative software development and physics analysisCooperative software development and physics analysis
New Forms of Distributed Systems: Data GridsNew Forms of Distributed Systems: Data Grids
Four LHC Experiments: The Four LHC Experiments: The Petabyte to Exabyte Petabyte to Exabyte
ChallengeChallengeATLAS, CMS, ALICE, LHCBATLAS, CMS, ALICE, LHCB
Higgs + New particles; Quark-Gluon Plasma; CP ViolationHiggs + New particles; Quark-Gluon Plasma; CP Violation
Data storedData stored ~40 Petabytes/Year and UP; ~40 Petabytes/Year and UP; CPU CPU 0.30 Petaflops and UP 0.30 Petaflops and UP
0.1 to 1 Exabyte (1 EB = 100.1 to 1 Exabyte (1 EB = 101818 Bytes) Bytes) (2007) (~2012 ?) for the LHC Experiments(2007) (~2012 ?) for the LHC Experiments
All charged tracks with pt > 2 GeV
Reconstructed tracks with pt > 25 GeV
(+30 minimum bias events)
109 events/sec, selectivity: 1 in 1013 (1 person in a thousand world populations)
LHC: Higgs Decay into 4 muons LHC: Higgs Decay into 4 muons (Tracker only); 1000X LEP Data Rate(Tracker only); 1000X LEP Data Rate
LHC Data Grid HierarchyLHC Data Grid Hierarchy
Tier 1
Tier2 Center
Online System
CERN 700k SI95 ~1 PB Disk; Tape Robot
FNAL: 200k SI95; 600 TBIN2P3 Center INFN Center RAL Center
InstituteInstituteInstituteInstitute ~0.25TIPS
Workstations
~100-400 MBytes/sec
2.5-10 Gbps
0.1–10 Gbps Physicists work on analysis “channels”Each institute has ~10 physicists working on one or more channels
Physics data cache
~PByte/sec
~2.5-10 Gbps
Tier2 CenterTier2 CenterTier2 Center
~2.5-10 Gbps
Tier 0 +1
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier2 Center Tier 2
Experiment
CERN/Outside Resource Ratio ~1:2Tier0/( Tier1)/( Tier2) ~1:1:1
Emerging Emerging Data GridData Grid User Communities User Communities
Grid Physics Network (GriPhyN)Grid Physics Network (GriPhyN) ATLAS, CMS, LIGO, SDSSATLAS, CMS, LIGO, SDSS
Particle Physics Data Grid (PPDG)Particle Physics Data Grid (PPDG)Int’l Virtual Data Grid Lab (iVDGL)Int’l Virtual Data Grid Lab (iVDGL)
NSF Network for Earthquake Engineering NSF Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)Simulation (NEES) Integrated instrumentation, collaboration, Integrated instrumentation, collaboration,
simulationsimulation Access Grid; VRVS: supporting Access Grid; VRVS: supporting
group-based collaborationgroup-based collaborationAndAnd
Genomics, Proteomics, ...Genomics, Proteomics, ... The Earth System Grid and EOSDISThe Earth System Grid and EOSDIS Federating Brain DataFederating Brain Data Computed MicroTomography …Computed MicroTomography … Virtual Observatories Virtual Observatories
HENP Related Data Grid HENP Related Data Grid ProjectsProjects
ProjectsProjects PPDG IPPDG I USAUSA DOEDOE $2M$2M 1999-2001 1999-2001 GriPhyNGriPhyN USAUSA NSF $11.9M + $1.6M 2000-2005NSF $11.9M + $1.6M 2000-2005 EU DataGridEU DataGrid EUEU ECEC €10M€10M 2001-2004 2001-2004 PPDG II (CP) USAPPDG II (CP) USA DOEDOE $9.5M$9.5M 2001-2004 2001-2004 iVDGLiVDGL USAUSA NSFNSF $13.7M + $2M$13.7M + $2M 2001-2006 2001-2006 DataTAGDataTAG EUEU ECEC €4M €4M 2002-2004 2002-2004 GridPP GridPP UKUK PPARCPPARC >$15M>$15M 2001-2004 2001-2004 LCG (Ph1)LCG (Ph1) CERN MSCERN MS 30 MCHF30 MCHF 2002-2004 2002-2004
Many Other Projects of interest to HENPMany Other Projects of interest to HENP Initiatives in US, UK, Italy, France, NL, Germany, Japan, …Initiatives in US, UK, Italy, France, NL, Germany, Japan, … Networking initiatives: Networking initiatives: DataTAG, AMPATH, CALREN-XD… DataTAG, AMPATH, CALREN-XD… US Distributed Terascale Facility: US Distributed Terascale Facility:
($53M, 12 TeraFlops, 40 Gb/s network)($53M, 12 TeraFlops, 40 Gb/s network)
Daily, Weekly, Monthly and Yearly Statistics on 155 Mbps US-CERN Link
20 - 100 Mbps Used Routinely in ’01BaBar: 600 Mbps Throughput in ‘02
BW Upgrades Quickly Followedby Upgraded Production Use
Tier A
"Physicists have indeed foreseen to test the GRID principles starting first from the Computing Centres in Lyon and Stanford (California). A first step towards the ubiquity of the GRID."
Pierre Le HirLe Monde 12 april 2001
CERN-US Line + Abilene
Renater + ESnet3/2002
D. Linglin: LCG Wkshop
Two centers are trying to work as one:-Data not duplicated-Internationalization-transparent access, etc…
RNP Brazil (to 20 Mbps)
FIU Miami/So. America (to 80 Mbps)
Transatlantic Net WG (HN, L. Price) Bandwidth Requirements [*]
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 CMS 100 200 300 600 800 2500
ATLAS 50 100 300 600 800 2500 BaBar 300 600 1100 1600 2300 3000 CDF 100 300 400 2000 3000 6000 D0 400 1600 2400 3200 6400 8000
BTeV 20 40 100 200 300 500 DESY 100 180 210 240 270 300
CERN BW
155-310
622 2500 5000 10000 20000
[*] [*] Installed BW. Maximum Link Occupancy 50% Installed BW. Maximum Link Occupancy 50% AssumedAssumed
See http://gate.hep.anl.gov/lprice/TANSee http://gate.hep.anl.gov/lprice/TAN
MONARC: CMS Analysis ProcessMONARC: CMS Analysis Process
Hierarchy of Processes (Experiment, Analysis Groups,Individuals)Hierarchy of Processes (Experiment, Analysis Groups,Individuals)
SelectionSelectionIterative selectionIterative selectionOnce per monthOnce per month~20 Groups’~20 Groups’
ActivityActivity(10(109 9 101077 events) events)
Trigger based andTrigger based andPhysics basedPhysics basedrefinementsrefinements
25 25 SI95sec/eventSI95sec/event~20 jobs per ~20 jobs per
monthmonth
AnalysisAnalysisDifferent Physics cutsDifferent Physics cuts
& MC comparison& MC comparison~Once per day~Once per day
~25 Individual~25 Individualper Groupper GroupActivityActivity
(10(1066 –10 –1077 events) events)
Algorithms Algorithms applied to applied to
datadatato get to get resultsresults
10 SI95sec/event10 SI95sec/event~500 jobs per ~500 jobs per
dayday
Monte CarloMonte Carlo5000 5000
SI95sec/eventSI95sec/event
RAW DataRAW Data
ReconstructionReconstruction Re-processingRe-processing3 Times per year3 Times per year
Experiment-Experiment-Wide ActivityWide Activity(10(1099 events) events)
New detector New detector calibrationscalibrations
Or understandingOr understanding
3000 3000 SI95sec/eventSI95sec/event
1 job year1 job year3000 3000
SI95sec/eventSI95sec/event3 jobs per year3 jobs per year
Tier0-Tier1 Link RequirementsTier0-Tier1 Link Requirements Estimate: for Hoffmann Report 2001 Estimate: for Hoffmann Report 2001
1) 1) Tier1 Tier1 Tier0 Data Flow for Analysis Tier0 Data Flow for Analysis 0.5 - 1.0 Gbps0.5 - 1.0 Gbps2) Tier2 2) Tier2 Tier0 Data Flow for Analysis Tier0 Data Flow for Analysis 0.2 - 0.5 Gbps0.2 - 0.5 Gbps3) Interactive Collaborative Sessions (30 Peak) 3) Interactive Collaborative Sessions (30 Peak) 0.1 - 0.3 Gbps0.1 - 0.3 Gbps4) Remote Interactive Sessions (30 Flows Peak) 4) Remote Interactive Sessions (30 Flows Peak) 0.1 - 0.2 Gbps0.1 - 0.2 Gbps5) Individual (Tier3 or Tier4) data transfers 5) Individual (Tier3 or Tier4) data transfers 0.8 Gbps0.8 Gbps
Limit to 10 Flows of 5 Mbytes/sec eachLimit to 10 Flows of 5 Mbytes/sec eachTOTAL Per Tier0 - Tier1 LinkTOTAL Per Tier0 - Tier1 Link 1.7 - 2.8 Gbps1.7 - 2.8 Gbps
NOTE:NOTE: Adopted by the LHC Experiments; given in the Steering Committee Adopted by the LHC Experiments; given in the Steering Committee
Report on LHC Computing: “1.5 - 3 Gbps per experiment”Report on LHC Computing: “1.5 - 3 Gbps per experiment” Corresponds to ~10 Gbps Baseline BW Installed Corresponds to ~10 Gbps Baseline BW Installed
on US-CERN Linkon US-CERN Link Report also discussed the effects of higher bandwidthsReport also discussed the effects of higher bandwidths
For example all-optical 10 Gbps Ethernet + WAN by 2002-3For example all-optical 10 Gbps Ethernet + WAN by 2002-3
Tier0-Tier1 BW RequirementsEstimate: for Hoffmann Report 2001
Does Not IncludeDoes Not Include more recent ATLAS Data Estimates more recent ATLAS Data Estimates 270 Hz at 10270 Hz at 103333 Instead of 100Hz Instead of 100Hz 400 Hz at 10400 Hz at 103434 Instead of 100Hz Instead of 100Hz 2 MB/Event Instead of 1 MB/Event ?2 MB/Event Instead of 1 MB/Event ?
Does Not Allow Fast Download to Tier3+4 Does Not Allow Fast Download to Tier3+4 of “Small” Object Collectionsof “Small” Object Collections Example: Download 10Example: Download 1077 Events of AODs (10 Events of AODs (104 4 Bytes) Bytes) 100 100
Gbytes; At 5 Mbytes/sec per person (above) that’s 6 Hours !Gbytes; At 5 Mbytes/sec per person (above) that’s 6 Hours ! This is a still a rough, bottoms-up, static, and hence This is a still a rough, bottoms-up, static, and hence
Conservative Model. Conservative Model. A Dynamic distributed DB or “Grid” system with Caching, A Dynamic distributed DB or “Grid” system with Caching,
Co-scheduling, and Pre-Emptive data movement Co-scheduling, and Pre-Emptive data movement may well require greater bandwidthmay well require greater bandwidth
Does Not Include “Virtual Data” operations;Does Not Include “Virtual Data” operations;Derived Data Copies; Data-description overheadsDerived Data Copies; Data-description overheads
Further MONARC Model Studies are NeededFurther MONARC Model Studies are Needed
*
Also see http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/monitoring/bulk/; and the Internet2 E2E Initiative: http://www.internet2.edu/e2e
Maximum Throughput on Transatlantic Links (155 Mbps)
8/10/01 105 Mbps reached with 30 Streams: SLAC-IN2P38/10/01 105 Mbps reached with 30 Streams: SLAC-IN2P3 9/1/01 102 Mbps in One Stream: CIT-CERN9/1/01 102 Mbps in One Stream: CIT-CERN 11/5/01 125 Mbps in One Stream (modified kernel): CIT-CERN11/5/01 125 Mbps in One Stream (modified kernel): CIT-CERN 1/09/02 190 Mbps for One stream shared on 2 155 Mbps links1/09/02 190 Mbps for One stream shared on 2 155 Mbps links 3/11/02 120 Mbps 3/11/02 120 Mbps Disk-to-DiskDisk-to-Disk with One Stream on 155 Mbps with One Stream on 155 Mbps
link (Chicago-CERN)link (Chicago-CERN) 5/20/02 450 Mbps SLAC-Manchester on OC12 with ~100 Streams5/20/02 450 Mbps SLAC-Manchester on OC12 with ~100 Streams 6/1/02 290 Mbps Chicago-CERN One Stream on OC12 (mod. Kernel) 6/1/02 290 Mbps Chicago-CERN One Stream on OC12 (mod. Kernel)
Some Recent Events:Reported 6/1/02 to ICFA/SCIC
Progress in High Throughput: 0.1 to 1 GbpsProgress in High Throughput: 0.1 to 1 Gbps Land Speed Record: SURFNet – Alaska (IPv6) Land Speed Record: SURFNet – Alaska (IPv6)
(0.4+ Gbps)(0.4+ Gbps) SLAC – Manchester (Les C. and Richard H-J) SLAC – Manchester (Les C. and Richard H-J)
(0.4+ Gbps)(0.4+ Gbps) Tsunami (Indiana) (0.8 Gbps UDP)Tsunami (Indiana) (0.8 Gbps UDP) Tokyo – KEK (0.5 – 0.9 Gbps)Tokyo – KEK (0.5 – 0.9 Gbps)
Progress in Pre-Production and Production NetworkingProgress in Pre-Production and Production Networking 10 Mbytes/sec FNAL-CERN (Michael Ernst)10 Mbytes/sec FNAL-CERN (Michael Ernst) 15 Mbytes/sec disk-to-disk Chicago-CERN 15 Mbytes/sec disk-to-disk Chicago-CERN
(Sylvain Ravot)(Sylvain Ravot) KPNQwest files for Chapter 11; Stops network yesterday.KPNQwest files for Chapter 11; Stops network yesterday.
Near Term Pricing of Competitor (DT) ok.Near Term Pricing of Competitor (DT) ok. Unknown impact on prices and future planning Unknown impact on prices and future planning
in the medium and longer termin the medium and longer term
Baseline BW for the US-CERN Link:Baseline BW for the US-CERN Link: HENP Transatlantic WG (DOE+NSF HENP Transatlantic WG (DOE+NSF))
US-CERN Link: 622 Mbps this monthUS-CERN Link: 622 Mbps this month DataTAG 2.5 Gbps Research Link in Summer 2002DataTAG 2.5 Gbps Research Link in Summer 2002 10 Gbps Research Link by Approx. Mid-200310 Gbps Research Link by Approx. Mid-2003
Transoceanic Networking
Integrated with the Abilene,
TeraGrid, Regional Nets
and Continental Network
Infrastructuresin US, Europe,
Asia, South America
Baseline evolution typicalBaseline evolution typicalof major HENPof major HENP
links 2001-2006 links 2001-2006
Total U.S. Internet Traffic
Source: Roberts et al., 2001 U.S. Internet TrafficU.S. Internet Traffic
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Voice Crossover: August 2000
4X/Year2.8X/Year
1Gbps
1Tbps10Tbps
100Gbps10Gbps
100Tbps
100Mbps
1Kbps
1Mbps10Mbps
100Kbps10Kbps
100 bps
1 Pbps
100 Pbps10 Pbps
10 bps
ARPA & NSF Data to 96
New Measurements
Limit of same % GDP as Voice
Projected at 3/Year
Internet Growth Rate Fluctuates Over Time
U.S. Internet Edge Traffic Growth Rate6 Month Lagging Measure
0.000.00
0.500.50
1.001.00
1.501.50
2.002.00
2.502.50
3.003.00
3.503.50
4.004.00
4.504.50
Jan 00Jan 00 Apr 00Apr 00 Jul 00Jul 00 Oct 00Oct 00 Jan 01Jan 01 Apr 01Apr 01 Jul 01Jul 01 Oct 01Oct 01 Jan 02Jan 02
Gro
wth
Rat
e pe
r Yea
rG
row
th R
ate
per Y
ear
Average: 3.0/yearAverage: 3.0/year
10/00–4/01 Growth 10/00–4/01 Growth Reported 3.6/yearReported 3.6/year 10/00–4/01 Growth 10/00–4/01 Growth
Reported 4.0/yearReported 4.0/year
Source: Roberts et al., 2002
AMS-IX Internet Exchange Throughput Accelerating Growth in Europe (NL)Monthly Traffic
2X Growth from 8/00 - 3/01;2X Growth from 8/01 - 12/01 ↓
2.0 Gbps
4.0 Gbps
6.0 GbpsHourly Traffic
3/22/02
ICFA SCIC Meeting March 9 at CERN: Updates from Members
Abilene UpgradeAbilene Upgrade from 2.5 to 10 Gbps from 2.5 to 10 Gbps Additional scheduled lambdas planned for targeted Additional scheduled lambdas planned for targeted
for targeted applications: Pacific and National Light Rail for targeted applications: Pacific and National Light Rail US-CERNUS-CERN
Upgrade On Track: to 622 Mbps in July; Upgrade On Track: to 622 Mbps in July; Setup and Testing Done in STARLIGHTSetup and Testing Done in STARLIGHT
2.5G Research Lambda by this Summer: STARLIGHT-CERN2.5G Research Lambda by this Summer: STARLIGHT-CERN 2.5G Triangle between STARLIGHT (US), SURFNet (NL), 2.5G Triangle between STARLIGHT (US), SURFNet (NL),
CERNCERN SLAC + IN2P3 (BaBar) SLAC + IN2P3 (BaBar)
Getting 100 Mbps over 155 Mbps CERN-US LinkGetting 100 Mbps over 155 Mbps CERN-US Link 50 Mbps Over RENATER 155 Mbps Link, Limited by ESnet50 Mbps Over RENATER 155 Mbps Link, Limited by ESnet 600 Mbps Throughput is BaBar Target for this Year600 Mbps Throughput is BaBar Target for this Year
FNALFNAL Expect ESnet Upgrade to 622 Mbps this MonthExpect ESnet Upgrade to 622 Mbps this Month Plans for dark fiber to STARLIGHT underway, could be Plans for dark fiber to STARLIGHT underway, could be
done in ~4 Months; Railway or Electric Co. providerdone in ~4 Months; Railway or Electric Co. provider
ICFA SCIC: A&R Backbone and International Link Progress
GEANT Pan-European BackboneGEANT Pan-European Backbone ( (http://www.dante.net/geanthttp://www.dante.net/geant)) Now interconnects 31 countriesNow interconnects 31 countries Includes many trunks at 2.5 and 10 GbpsIncludes many trunks at 2.5 and 10 Gbps
UKUK 2.5 Gbps NY-London, with 622 Mbps to ESnet and Abilene2.5 Gbps NY-London, with 622 Mbps to ESnet and Abilene
SuperSINET (Japan):SuperSINET (Japan): 10 Gbps IP and 10 Gbps Wavelength 10 Gbps IP and 10 Gbps Wavelength Upgrade to Two 0.6 Gbps Links, to Chicago and SeattleUpgrade to Two 0.6 Gbps Links, to Chicago and Seattle Plan upgrade to 2 X 2.5 Gbps Connection to Plan upgrade to 2 X 2.5 Gbps Connection to
US West Coast by 2003US West Coast by 2003 CA*net4 (Canada):CA*net4 (Canada): Interconnect customer-owned dark fiber Interconnect customer-owned dark fiber
nets across Canada at 10 Gbps, starting July 2002 nets across Canada at 10 Gbps, starting July 2002 ““Lambda-Grids” by ~2004-5Lambda-Grids” by ~2004-5
GWIN (Germany):GWIN (Germany): Connection to Abilene Upgraded Connection to Abilene Upgraded to 2 X 2.5 Gbps early in 2002 to 2 X 2.5 Gbps early in 2002
RussiaRussia Start 10 Mbps link to CERN and ~90 Mbps to US NowStart 10 Mbps link to CERN and ~90 Mbps to US Now
210 Primary ParticipantsAll 50 States, D.C. and Puerto Rico80 Partner Corporations and Non-
Profits22 State Research and Education
Nets 15 “GigaPoPs” Support 70% of
Members
2.510 Gbps Backbone
Caltech Connection with GbE to New Backbone
National R&E Network ExampleGermany: DFN TransAtlanticConnectivity Q1 2002
STM 4
STM 16
STM 16
2 X OC12 Now: NY-Hamburg 2 X OC12 Now: NY-Hamburg and NY-Frankfurtand NY-Frankfurt
ESNet peering at 34 MbpsESNet peering at 34 Mbps Upgrade to 2 X OC48 expected Upgrade to 2 X OC48 expected
in Q1 2002 in Q1 2002 Direct Peering to Abilene and Direct Peering to Abilene and
Canarie expectedCanarie expected UCAID will add another 2 OC48’s; UCAID will add another 2 OC48’s;
Proposing a Global Terabit Proposing a Global Terabit Research Network (GTRN) Research Network (GTRN)
FSU Connections via satellite:FSU Connections via satellite:Yerevan, Minsk, Almaty, BaikalYerevan, Minsk, Almaty, Baikal Speeds of 32 - 512 kbpsSpeeds of 32 - 512 kbps
SILK Project (2002): NATO fundingSILK Project (2002): NATO funding Links to Caucasus and CentralLinks to Caucasus and Central Asia (8 Countries) Asia (8 Countries)
Currently 64-512 kbpsCurrently 64-512 kbpsPropose VSAT for 10-50 X BW:Propose VSAT for 10-50 X BW: NATO + State Funding NATO + State Funding
National Research Networks in Japan
SuperSINET SuperSINET Started operation January 4, 2002Started operation January 4, 2002 Support for 5 important areas:Support for 5 important areas:
HEP,HEP, Genetics, Nano-Technology, Genetics, Nano-Technology,Space/Astronomy, Space/Astronomy, GRIDsGRIDs
Provides 10 Provides 10 ’s:’s: 10 Gbps IP connection 10 Gbps IP connection 7 Direct intersite GbE links7 Direct intersite GbE links Some connections to Some connections to 10 GbE 10 GbE in JFY2002in JFY2002
HEPnet-J HEPnet-J Will be re-constructed with Will be re-constructed with MPLS-VPN in SuperSINET MPLS-VPN in SuperSINET
Proposal: Two TransPacific Proposal: Two TransPacific 2.5 Gbps Wavelengths, and 2.5 Gbps Wavelengths, and Japan-CERN Grid Testbed by ~2003 Japan-CERN Grid Testbed by ~2003
Tokyo
Osaka
Nagoya
Internet
Osaka U
Kyoto U
ICRKyoto-U
Nagoya U
NIFS
NIG
KEK
Tohoku U
IMSU-Tokyo
NAO
U Tokyo
NII Hitot.
NII Chiba
IP
WDM path
IP router
OXC
ISAS
NLSURFnet
GENEVA
UKSuperJANET4
ABILENE
ESNET
CALREN
ItGARR-B
GEANT
NewYork
FrRenater
STAR-TAP
STARLIGHT
DataTAG ProjectDataTAG Project
EU-Solicited Project. EU-Solicited Project. CERNCERN, PPARC (UK), Amsterdam (NL), and INFN (IT);, PPARC (UK), Amsterdam (NL), and INFN (IT);and US (DOE/NSF: UIC, NWU and Caltech) partnersand US (DOE/NSF: UIC, NWU and Caltech) partners
Main Aims: Main Aims: Ensure maximum interoperability between US and EU Grid ProjectsEnsure maximum interoperability between US and EU Grid ProjectsTransatlantic Testbed for advanced network researchTransatlantic Testbed for advanced network research
2.5 Gbps Wavelength Triangle 7/02 (10 Gbps Triangle in 2003)2.5 Gbps Wavelength Triangle 7/02 (10 Gbps Triangle in 2003)
Wave
Triangle
TeraGrid (www.teragrid.org)TeraGrid (www.teragrid.org)NCSA, ANL, SDSC, CaltechNCSA, ANL, SDSC, Caltech
NCSA/UIUC
ANL
UIC Multiple Carrier HubsStarlight / NW UnivStarlight / NW Univ
Ill Inst of TechUniv of Chicago
Indianapolis (Abilene NOC)
I-WIRE
Caltech
San Diego
DTF Backplane: 4 X 10 Gbps
AbileneChicago
IndianapolisUrbana
OC-48 (2.5 Gb/s, Abilene)Multiple 10 GbE (Qwest)Multiple 10 GbE (I-WIRE Dark Fiber)
Source: Charlie Catlett, Argonne
A Preview of the Grid Hierarchyand Networks of the LHC Era
Idea to extend the TeraGrid to CERN
CA ONI, CALREN-XD + Pacific Light CA ONI, CALREN-XD + Pacific Light Rail Backbones (Proposed)Rail Backbones (Proposed)
Also: LA-CaltechMetro Fiber;
National Light Rail
Key Network Issues & Challenges
Net Infrastructure Requirements for High ThroughputNet Infrastructure Requirements for High Throughput Packet Loss must be ~Zero (at and below 10Packet Loss must be ~Zero (at and below 10-6-6))
I.e. No “Commodity” networksI.e. No “Commodity” networks Need to track down uncongested packet lossNeed to track down uncongested packet loss
No Local infrastructure bottlenecksNo Local infrastructure bottlenecks Multiple Gigabit Ethernet “clear paths” between Multiple Gigabit Ethernet “clear paths” between
selected host pairs are needed nowselected host pairs are needed now To 10 Gbps Ethernet paths by 2003 or 2004To 10 Gbps Ethernet paths by 2003 or 2004
TCP/IP stack configuration and tuning Absolutely RequiredTCP/IP stack configuration and tuning Absolutely Required Large Windows; Possibly Multiple StreamsLarge Windows; Possibly Multiple Streams New Concepts of New Concepts of Fair UseFair Use Must then be Developed Must then be Developed
Careful Router, Server, Client, Interface configuration Careful Router, Server, Client, Interface configuration Sufficient CPU, I/O and NIC throughput sufficientSufficient CPU, I/O and NIC throughput sufficient
End-to-endEnd-to-end monitoring and tracking of performance monitoring and tracking of performance Close collaboration with local and “regional” network staffsClose collaboration with local and “regional” network staffs
TCP Does Not Scale to the 1-10 Gbps RangeTCP Does Not Scale to the 1-10 Gbps Range
A Short List: Revolutions in Information Technology (2002-7)
Managed Managed Global Data Grids (As Above)Global Data Grids (As Above) Scalable Data-Intensive Metro and Long HaulScalable Data-Intensive Metro and Long Haul
Network TechnologiesNetwork Technologies DWDM: 10 Gbps then 40 Gbps per DWDM: 10 Gbps then 40 Gbps per ; ;
1 to 10 Terabits/sec per fiber 1 to 10 Terabits/sec per fiber 10 Gigabit Ethernet (See www.10gea.org) 10 Gigabit Ethernet (See www.10gea.org)
10GbE / 10 Gbps LAN/WAN integration 10GbE / 10 Gbps LAN/WAN integration Metro Buildout and Optical Cross ConnectsMetro Buildout and Optical Cross Connects Dynamic Provisioning Dynamic Provisioning Dynamic Path Building Dynamic Path Building
““Lambda GridsLambda Grids” ” Defeating the “Last Mile” ProblemDefeating the “Last Mile” Problem
(Wireless; or Ethernet in the First Mile) (Wireless; or Ethernet in the First Mile) 3G and 4G Wireless Broadband (from ca. 2003);3G and 4G Wireless Broadband (from ca. 2003);
and/or Fixed Wireless “Hotspots” and/or Fixed Wireless “Hotspots” Fiber to the HomeFiber to the Home Community-Owned NetworksCommunity-Owned Networks
A Short List: Coming Revolutions in Information Technology
Storage VirtualizationStorage Virtualization Grid-enabled Storage Resource Middleware (SRM)Grid-enabled Storage Resource Middleware (SRM) iSCSI (Internet Small Computer Storage Interface);iSCSI (Internet Small Computer Storage Interface);
Integrated with 10 GbE Integrated with 10 GbE Global File Systems Global File Systems Internet Information Software TechnologiesInternet Information Software Technologies
Global Information “Broadcast” ArchitectureGlobal Information “Broadcast” ArchitectureE.g the Multipoint Information Distribution E.g the Multipoint Information Distribution
Protocol (Tie.Liao@inria.fr)Protocol (Tie.Liao@inria.fr) Programmable Coordinated Agent ArchitecturesProgrammable Coordinated Agent Architectures
E.g. Mobile Agent Reactive Spaces (MARS)E.g. Mobile Agent Reactive Spaces (MARS) by Cabri et al., University of Modena by Cabri et al., University of Modena
The “Data Grid” - Human InterfaceThe “Data Grid” - Human Interface Interactive monitoring and control of Grid resources Interactive monitoring and control of Grid resources
By authorized groups and individualsBy authorized groups and individualsBy Autonomous AgentsBy Autonomous Agents
HENP Major Links: Bandwidth Roadmap (Scenario) in Gbps
Year Production Experimental Remarks 2001 0.155 0.622-2.5 SONET/SDH 2002 0.622 2.5 SONET/SDH
DWDM; GigE Integ. 2003 2.5 10 DWDM; 1 + 10 GigE
Integration 2005 10 2-4 X 10 Switch;
Provisioning 2007 2-4 X 10 ~10 X 10;
40 Gbps 1st Gen. Grids
2008 ~10 X 10 or 1-2 X 40
~5 X 40 or ~20-50 X 10
40 Gbps Switching
2010 ~5 X 40 or ~20 X 10
~25 X 40 or ~100 X 10
2nd Gen Grids Terabit Networks
2012 ~Terabit ~MultiTerabit ~Fill One Fiber or Use a Few Fibers
One Long Range Scenario (Ca. 2008-12)HENP As a Driver of Optical NetworksPetascale Grids with TB Transactions
Problem: Extract “Small” Data Subsets of 1 to 100 Terabytes Problem: Extract “Small” Data Subsets of 1 to 100 Terabytes from 1 to 1000 Petabyte Data Storesfrom 1 to 1000 Petabyte Data Stores
Survivability of the HENP Global Grid System, with Survivability of the HENP Global Grid System, with hundreds of such transactions per day (circa 2007)hundreds of such transactions per day (circa 2007)requires that each transaction be completed in a requires that each transaction be completed in a relatively short time. relatively short time.
Example: Take 800 secs to complete the transaction. ThenExample: Take 800 secs to complete the transaction. Then Transaction Size (TB)Transaction Size (TB) Net Throughput (Gbps)Net Throughput (Gbps) 1 101 10 10 10010 100 100 1000 (Capacity of 100 1000 (Capacity of
Fiber Today) Fiber Today) Summary: Providing Switching of 10 Gbps wavelengthsSummary: Providing Switching of 10 Gbps wavelengths
within ~3 years; and Terabit Switching within 5-10 yearswithin ~3 years; and Terabit Switching within 5-10 yearswould enable “Petascale Grids with Terabyte transactions”,would enable “Petascale Grids with Terabyte transactions”,as required to fully realize the discovery potential of major as required to fully realize the discovery potential of major HENP programs, as well as other data-intensive fields.HENP programs, as well as other data-intensive fields.
Internet2 HENP WG [*] Mission: To help ensure that the requiredMission: To help ensure that the required
National and international network infrastructuresNational and international network infrastructures(end-to-end)(end-to-end)
Standardized tools and facilities for high performance Standardized tools and facilities for high performance and end-to-end monitoring and tracking, andand end-to-end monitoring and tracking, and
Collaborative systemsCollaborative systems are developed and deployed in a timely manner, and used are developed and deployed in a timely manner, and used
effectively to meet the needs of the US LHC and other major effectively to meet the needs of the US LHC and other major HENP Programs, as well as the at-large scientific community.HENP Programs, as well as the at-large scientific community. To carry out these developments in a way that is To carry out these developments in a way that is
broadly applicable across many fields broadly applicable across many fields Formed an Internet2 WG as a suitable framework: Formed an Internet2 WG as a suitable framework:
Oct. 26 2001 Oct. 26 2001 [*] Co-Chairs: S. McKee (Michigan), H. Newman (Caltech);[*] Co-Chairs: S. McKee (Michigan), H. Newman (Caltech);
Sec’y J. Williams (Indiana) Sec’y J. Williams (Indiana) Website: Website: http://www.internet2.edu/henphttp://www.internet2.edu/henp; also see the Internet2; also see the Internet2
End-to-end Initiative: End-to-end Initiative: http://www.internet2.edu/e2ehttp://www.internet2.edu/e2e
True End to End Experience
User perception ApplicationOperating systemHost IP stackHost network cardLocal Area Network Campus backbone
networkCampus link to regional
network/GigaPoPGigaPoP link to
Internet2 national backbones
International connections
EYEBALLAPPLICATION
STACKJACK
NETWORK. . .. . .. . .. . .
HENP Scenario Limitations:Technologies and Costs
Router Technology and Costs Router Technology and Costs (Ports and Backplane) (Ports and Backplane)
Computer CPU, Disk and I/O ChannelComputer CPU, Disk and I/O Channel Speeds to Send and Receive Data Speeds to Send and Receive Data
Link Costs: Unless Dark Fiber (?)Link Costs: Unless Dark Fiber (?) MultiGigabit Transmission Protocols MultiGigabit Transmission Protocols
End-to-End End-to-End ““100 GbE” Ethernet (or something else) by100 GbE” Ethernet (or something else) by
~2006: for LANs to match WAN speeds ~2006: for LANs to match WAN speeds
[*] See “Macroscopic Behavior of the TCP Congestion Avoidance Algorithm,” Matthis, Semke, Mahdavi, Ott, Computer Communication Review 27(3), 7/1997
Throughput quality improvements:BWTCP < MSS/(RTT*sqrt(loss)) [*]
China Improves But Far Behind
80% Improvement/Year Factor of 10 In 4 Years
Eastern Europe Far Behind
11900 Hosts;6620 Registered Users in 61 Countries 43 (7 I2) Reflectors Annual Growth 2 to 3X
Networks, Grids and HENP Next generation 10 Gbps network backbones are Next generation 10 Gbps network backbones are
almost here: in the US, Europe and Japanalmost here: in the US, Europe and Japan First stages arriving, starting nowFirst stages arriving, starting now
Major transoceanic links at 2.5 - 10 Gbps in 2002-3Major transoceanic links at 2.5 - 10 Gbps in 2002-3 Network improvements are especially needed in Network improvements are especially needed in
Southeast Europe, So. America; and some other regions:Southeast Europe, So. America; and some other regions: Romania, Brazil; India, Pakistan, China; Africa Romania, Brazil; India, Pakistan, China; Africa
Removing regional, last mile bottlenecks and Removing regional, last mile bottlenecks and compromises in network quality are now compromises in network quality are now All on the critical pathAll on the critical path
Getting high (reliable; Grid) application performance Getting high (reliable; Grid) application performance across networks means!across networks means!
End-to-end monitoring; a coherent approach End-to-end monitoring; a coherent approach Getting high performance (TCP) toolkits in users’ Getting high performance (TCP) toolkits in users’
handshands Working in concert with AMPATH, Internet E2E, I2 Working in concert with AMPATH, Internet E2E, I2
HENP WG, DataTAG; the Grid projects and the GGFHENP WG, DataTAG; the Grid projects and the GGF