US-CMS Software and ComputingUS-CMS Software and Computing 1st Meeting of the FNAL Oversight Panel, 23-25 October 2000

Core Applications SoftwareCore Applications Software

Lucas TaylorNortheastern University

2

Luc

as T

aylo

r,

Cor

e A

pplic

atio

ns S

oftw

are

US-

CM

S So

ftw

are

and

Com

putin

g O

vers

ight

Pan

el,

FN

AL

, 23

-25

Oct

ober

US-CMS Core Applications US-CMS Core Applications SoftwareSoftware

2 sub-projects of US-CMS Software&Computing Project User Facilities (focussed on Tier 1 and Tier 2 centres) Core Applications Software (the subject of this talk)

Two main tasks for “Core Applications Software” US contributions to CMS Core Software

US responsibility for delivering a canonical fraction (~25%)

Software support specifically for US-CMS physicists To enable them to meet their detector commitments To enable them to fully exploit LHC physics To enable them to do the above from their home institutes

3

Luc

as T

aylo

r,

Cor

e A

pplic

atio

ns S

oftw

are

US-

CM

S So

ftw

are

and

Com

putin

g O

vers

ight

Pan

el,

FN

AL

, 23

-25

Oct

ober

Core Software ScopeCore Software Scope

Architecture of CMS software Software process and development environment Software framework, persistency services,

utilities,… Tools for distributed data access / processing Analysis environment and toolkits etc……requires professional software engineering

expertise

In other words, all that is required to support the closely related (mostly PRS) activities of: event generation, detector and trigger simulation,

reconstruction, data selection (online & offline), physics analysis, test-beams, etc….

...requires professional physicist expertise

4

Luc

as T

aylo

r,

Cor

e A

pplic

atio

ns S

oftw

are

US-

CM

S So

ftw

are

and

Com

putin

g O

vers

ight

Pan

el,

FN

AL

, 23

-25

Oct

ober

MONARC SpokespersonH. Newman, Caltech

MONARC SpokespersonH. Newman, Caltech

CMS Coordinator:L. Taylor, Northeastern

CMS Coordinator:L. Taylor, Northeastern

CMS Coordinator:D. Stickland, Princeton

CMS Coordinator:D. Stickland, Princeton

Core Software PlanningCore Software Planning

Three closely-related CMS projects with large software components Core Software and

Computing Physics

Reconstruction and Selection (PRS)

TriDAS

Adjustments to CMS organizational entities & plans are being refined

Software engineering resource needs will not change dramatically

N.B. this is an evolution not a revolution !

5

Luc

as T

aylo

r,

Cor

e A

pplic

atio

ns S

oftw

are

US-

CM

S So

ftw

are

and

Com

putin

g O

vers

ight

Pan

el,

FN

AL

, 23

-25

Oct

ober

Core Software MilestonesCore Software Milestones

May 2001: TriDAS: discovery at 100Hz

Nov 2000: L2/L3 100 reductionDec 2000: Trigger TDR

End 2001: DAQ TDR End 2002: Software & Computing TDR

May 2000: L2/L3 10 reduction

5% Mock Data Challenge~2003: Physics TDR

20% Mock Data Challenge

LHC/CMSturn on

Functional prototype phase is now complete

6

Luc

as T

aylo

r,

Cor

e A

pplic

atio

ns S

oftw

are

US-

CM

S So

ftw

are

and

Com

putin

g O

vers

ight

Pan

el,

FN

AL

, 23

-25

Oct

ober

Aside remark on the LHC Aside remark on the LHC scheduleschedule Current status (L.Maiani , RRB, 23 Oct 2000)

So far there is no change in the machine’s critical path 5-6 months delay in ATLAS/CMS caverns Expect ~2 weeks running in 2005; full running from April 2006

What are the implications for the CAS project? (Most of) CMS detector to be installed as originally planned Still need functioning (if partial) TriDAS and offline in 2005 Significant software work to be done before 2005 related to

detector / TriDAS / physics optimization– No software delays possible if no detector/TriDAS delays

Some savings possible for (UF) hardware purchases No significant savings for Software are

anticipated... ...although more detailed consideration is required

7

Luc

as T

aylo

r,

Cor

e A

pplic

atio

ns S

oftw

are

US-

CM

S So

ftw

are

and

Com

putin

g O

vers

ight

Pan

el,

FN

AL

, 23

-25

Oct

ober

““Functional Prototype” Functional Prototype” DeliverablesDeliverables

Documented requirements

Set of Software Prototypes, Packages, & Documentation

Software Infrastructure repository, multi-platform

build, release, distribution, and documentation systems.

Proposal for a Baseline set of Technologies

Proposed Project Evolution Plan

8

Luc

as T

aylo

r,

Cor

e A

pplic

atio

ns S

oftw

are

US-

CM

S So

ftw

are

and

Com

putin

g O

vers

ight

Pan

el,

FN

AL

, 23

-25

Oct

ober

Where we go following the Where we go following the “Functional Prototype”“Functional Prototype” The Software is now moving into “pre-production”

phase (also known as “Fully Functional Software”) Evolutionary changes in CMS organisation; three

closely-interacting projects: Core Software and Computing Physics Reconstruction and Selection TriDAS

Increase formality for CMS planning Collection and refinement of use-cases and user requirements Systematic re-examination and documentation of architecture

and framework (Café: new project with strong US involvement)

Re-alignment of schedule and milestones (with whole of CMS) Definition of work packages and deliverables

9

Luc

as T

aylo

r,

Cor

e A

pplic

atio

ns S

oftw

are

US-

CM

S So

ftw

are

and

Com

putin

g O

vers

ight

Pan

el,

FN

AL

, 23

-25

Oct

ober

US-CMS Core Software PlanningUS-CMS Core Software Planning

An interim team has been working on CAS planning: 2. Core Applications Software

L. Taylor (Acting L2 - temporary), I. Fisk (Acting Deputy L2)

2.1. Software Architecture D. Stickland, L. Tuura,...

2.2 Interactive Graphics and User Analysis I. Gaponenko, L. Taylor,...

2.3 Distributed Data Management and Processing J. Bunn, I. Fisk, T. Wildish, R. Wilkinson,...

2.4 Support I. Fisk

Level 2 and Level 3 managers to be defined once our new L1 manager (Lothar Bauerdick) is fully on board

10

Luc

as T

aylo

r,

Cor

e A

pplic

atio

ns S

oftw

are

US-

CM

S So

ftw

are

and

Com

putin

g O

vers

ight

Pan

el,

FN

AL

, 23

-25

Oct

ober

Creation of the CAS WBSCreation of the CAS WBS

Maintain the US-CMS WBS distinct from CMS WBS Clarity regarding US roles and responsibilities Inclusion of US-specific items (notably local support) Requires ongoing integration with International CMS planning

Acknowledge that software is different to hardware no mass-production of many similar components software technologies continuously evolve continuous need for functioning systems from now to turn-on

Adopt a rolling approach to software planning More detail (deliverables, milestones, etc.) in short-term Longer-term resources according to “level-of-effort” scaling

– Optimal use of resources in a changing environment

11

Luc

as T

aylo

r,

Cor

e A

pplic

atio

ns S

oftw

are

US-

CM

S So

ftw

are

and

Com

putin

g O

vers

ight

Pan

el,

FN

AL

, 23

-25

Oct

ober

Granularity of the CAS WBSGranularity of the CAS WBS

t t+1year (i.e. FY2001 for t=today) Define US-CMS tasks to typically level 5 / 6 Associate deliverables, milestones Assign resources to each task Ensure that, by definition, the rolled-up resources assigned in

the US-CMS WBS are the sum of:– canonical 25% scaling of full CMS software project– US-specific support for physicists 25% of US-CMS total

Consult repeatedly with CMS

t+1year t+2year (i.e. FY2002 for t= today) As above but only define tasks to typically level 4 / 5

beyond t+2years (i.e. FY2003,4,5,...for t= today) As above but define tasks to ~ level 3 (~ ongoing

resolution) US-CMS responsibilities are essentially level-of-effort

Recall, e.g.L2 = CASL3 = IGUANAL4 = Interactive graphicsL5 = GUI ExtensionsL6 = Tree widget

12

Luc

as T

aylo

r,

Cor

e A

pplic

atio

ns S

oftw

are

US-

CM

S So

ftw

are

and

Com

putin

g O

vers

ight

Pan

el,

FN

AL

, 23

-25

Oct

ober

Rolling the Planning ForwardRolling the Planning Forward

Don’t panic… there is always a complete plan we roll forward the level-of-detail and responsibilities the required resources are constrained by the CMS

envelope Need to ensure consensus of US-CMS & agencies.

E.g. Minor changes (~L5) quarterly review (ASCB / JOG) Major changes (~L4)annual review (CB, DOE/NSF)

Need to ensure consensus of CMS Increase formality of reporting to CMS project

– CMS Software & Computing Technical Board (6 times / year)– CMS Software & Computing Board (4 times / year)

Aside: can we rationalise the timing of the various reviews ?– FNAL Software and Computing Oversight group (twice / year ?)– DOE/NSF Reviews (twice / year ?)– CMS Software & Computing Internal Review (annual)– LHCC Review (annual)

13

Luc

as T

aylo

r,

Cor

e A

pplic

atio

ns S

oftw

are

US-

CM

S So

ftw

are

and

Com

putin

g O

vers

ight

Pan

el,

FN

AL

, 23

-25

Oct

ober

US-CMS CAS Tasks & Engineers US-CMS CAS Tasks & Engineers TodayToday

Institute Main CAS Tasks andResponsibilities

Off-projectDevelopers

CASEngineers

Caltech MONARC leadership, distributed systemsimulations, ODBMS test beds, grid R&D,ORCA development, videoconferencing,production and software support

J. Bunn, M. Hafeez, T.Hickey, K. Holtman, H.Newman, A. Samar,R. Wilkinson

V. LitvinI. Legrand

FNAL Objectivity production DB, softwaresupport, training, development tools

J. Amundsen, M.Litmaath, S. Muzaffar

H. Wenzel1 approved

Northeastern IGUANA leadership, interactivegraphics/analysis tools, detector and eventvisualisation, Café architecture,dependency analysis, documentation tools,software support

G. Alverson,T. PaulL. TaylorS. Villa

Y.GaponenkoL. Tuura1 requested

Princeton ORCA leadership & calorimetry,architecture, distributed database andproduction management tools

D. SticklandC. Tully

T. Wildish

UC Davis ORCA, detector description, G3/G4simulations

R. BreedonT. Cox

M. Case

Institute Main CAS Tasks andResponsibilities

Off-projectDevelopers

CASEngineers

Caltech MONARC leadership, distributed systemsimulations, ODBMS test beds, grid R&D,ORCA development, videoconferencing,production and software support

J. Bunn, M. Hafeez, T.Hickey, K. Holtman, H.Newman, A. Samar,R. Wilkinson

V. LitvinI. Legrand

FNAL Objectivity production DB, softwaresupport, training, development tools

J. Amundsen, M.Litmaath, S. Muzaffar

H. Wenzel1 approved

Northeastern IGUANA leadership, interactivegraphics/analysis tools, detector and eventvisualisation, Café architecture,dependency analysis, documentation tools,software support

G. Alverson,T. PaulL. TaylorS. Villa

Y.GaponenkoL. Tuura1 requested

Princeton ORCA leadership & calorimetry,architecture, distributed database andproduction management tools

D. SticklandC. Tully

T. Wildish

UC Davis ORCA, detector description, G3/G4simulations

R. BreedonT. Cox

M. Case

Detailed description of WBS tasks Printed document, draft 1.3: “WBS Dictionary for the

Core Applications Sub-Project (WBS items 2.1 - 2.4)” Next talk by Ian Fisk

14

Luc

as T

aylo

r,

Cor

e A

pplic

atio

ns S

oftw

are

US-

CM

S So

ftw

are

and

Com

putin

g O

vers

ight

Pan

el,

FN

AL

, 23

-25

Oct

ober

CAS Software Engineers: Hiring CAS Software Engineers: Hiring Status Status

WBSTask J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

I. Legrand (Caltech)V. Litvin (Caltech)H. Wenzel (FNAL) 1 approved (FNAL) Y.Gaponenko (NEU)1 approved (NEU)1 requested (NEU)T. Wildish (Princeton)1 requested (UC Davis)TOTAL

WBSTask J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

I. Legrand (Caltech)V. Litvin (Caltech)H. Wenzel (FNAL) 1 approved (FNAL) Y.Gaponenko (NEU)L. Tuura (NEU)1 requested (NEU)T. Wildish (Princeton)1 approved (UC Davis)TOTAL

1999 2000

Status (January 2000)

Status (October 2000)

1999 2000WBSTask J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

I. Legrand (Caltech)V. Litvin (Caltech)H. Wenzel (FNAL) 1 approved (FNAL) Y.Gaponenko (NEU)1 approved (NEU)1 requested (NEU)T. Wildish (Princeton)1 requested (UC Davis)TOTAL

WBSTask J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

I. Legrand (Caltech)V. Litvin (Caltech)H. Wenzel (FNAL) 1 approved (FNAL) Y.Gaponenko (NEU)L. Tuura (NEU)1 requested (NEU)T. Wildish (Princeton)1 approved (UC Davis)TOTAL

1999 2000

Status (January 2000)

Status (October 2000)

1999 2000

15

Luc

as T

aylo

r,

Cor

e A

pplic

atio

ns S

oftw

are

US-

CM

S So

ftw

are

and

Com

putin

g O

vers

ight

Pan

el,

FN

AL

, 23

-25

Oct

ober

Software (and Computing) Software (and Computing) MoU’sMoU’s

Discussions on Software MoU’s in Hoffmann review Distinct from detector Maintenance & Operations MoU’s ?

– Opening discussion CERN RRB (23 Oct)– Further discussions in RRB’s of April 2001 / Oct 2001 / …

Range of opinions on appropriate level of detail for commitments

CMS tends to favour “level-of-effort” commitments– rather than detailed deliverables which are hard to

define for software and sustain into the future

Appropriate time-scale for Software MoU’s After detector M&O MoU’s > Oct 2001 ? Before Software & Computing TDR’s < Dec 2002 ?

16

Luc

as T

aylo

r,

Cor

e A

pplic

atio

ns S

oftw

are

US-

CM

S So

ftw

are

and

Com

putin

g O

vers

ight

Pan

el,

FN

AL

, 23

-25

Oct

ober

ContingencyContingency

CAS resources are dominated by personnel Variety of skills of software engineers (FTE is not well-defined) We need more tracking experience to understand how much

effort various tasks really require

Intrinsic uncertainty in overall CMS estimate tens of percent; probably not a factor of two

Market forces influence salaries ( Nasdaq !?) There may be unforeseen (US-)CMS crises needing

injections of manpower, perhaps expert consulting Proposal 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

17

Luc

as T

aylo

r,

Cor

e A

pplic

atio

ns S

oftw

are

US-

CM

S So

ftw

are

and

Com

putin

g O

vers

ight

Pan

el,

FN

AL

, 23

-25

Oct

ober

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 3Contingency factor 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 [$M] 1.00 1.38 1.57 1.77 1.99 2.22 2.28 12.22 2.35CAS Contingency [$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 Software and Computing 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 3Contingency factor 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 [$M] 1.00 1.38 1.57 1.77 1.99 2.22 2.28 12.22 2.35CAS Contingency [$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 Software and Computing 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

Summary of CAS ResourcesSummary of CAS Resources

Description of WBS tasks Printed draft 1.3 of “WBS Dictionary for the Core

Applications Sub-Project (WBS items 2.1 - 2.4)”

Next talk by Ian Fisk