Software Project Status

1. Software Project Status Torre Wenaus, BNL/CERN US ATLAS Software Manager DOE/NSF Review of the US ATLAS Physics and Computing Project January 15, 2003

2. U.S. ATLAS Software Project Overview Recent developments in green • Control framework and architecture • Software Project Leader, principal development role, ATLAS LCG applications area liaison • Databases and data management • Database Leader, primary ATLAS expertise on ROOT/relational baseline • Software support for development and analysis • Software librarian, quality, development tools, … • Automated build/testing system adopted by Int’l ATLAS • Subsystem software roles complementing hardware responsibilities • Muon system software coordinator, LAr DB coordinator • Scope commensurate with U.S. in ATLAS: ~20% of overall effort • Commensurate representation on steering group • Strong role and participation in LCG common effort

3. U.S. ATLAS Software Organization

4. U.S. ATLAS - ATLAS Coordination US International US roles in Int’l ATLAS software: D. Quarrie (LBNL), Chief Architect => Software Project Leader D. Malon (ANL), Database Coordinator P. Nevski (BNL), Geant3 Simulation Coordinator, Simulation production lead C. Tull (LBNL), EDG WP8 Liaison H. Ma (BNL), Raw Data Coordinator T. Wenaus (BNL), Planning Officer See task matrix

5. ATLAS Subsystem/Task Matrix Physics Coordinator: F.Gianotti Chief Architect: D.Quarrie Computing Steering Group members/attendees: 4 of 19 from US (Malon, Quarrie, Shank, Wenaus) (Likely to be reorganized)

6. Project Planning Status • U.S./Int’l ATLAS WBS and schedule fully unified • US/Int’l software planning currently covered by same person (TW) • Synergies with the US ATLAS Software Manager job outweigh the added burden of the ATLAS Planning Officer role • No ‘coordination layer’ between US and Int’l ATLAS planning • Possible only because of how the ATLAS Planning Officer role is currently (narrowly) scoped: schedule and WBS • As pointed out by an ATLAS computing review in March, ATLAS would benefit from a full FTE Planning Officer • Reorganization expected soon under the new ATLAS computing management • Probably a new position combining Planning Officer with Release Coordinator • Will be important that the new person is effective and well connected with the US – it would be strongly in the U.S. self-interest to have it be a U.S. person

7. ATLAS Computing Planning • US led a comprehensive review and update of ATLAS computing schedule in the spring • Milestone count increased by 50% to 600; many others updated • Milestones and planning coordinated around DC schedule • Reasonably comprehensive and detailed through 2002 • New round underway now to flesh out 2003 schedule • US core activity scheduling in reasonable shape • Long term milestones reworked to reflect LHC schedule, LCG • Centered around escalating data challenges • Computing management reorganization should help planning • Stronger decision making • Project office (recommendation to new management) • cf. recommendations to new management from computing working group, Sep 2002 (on web)

8. Major Milestones One DC per year until startup

9. Summary Major Milestones Green: Done Gray: Original date Blue: Current date

10. Software Support, Quality Control • New releases are available in the US typically ~1-2 days after CERN • Provided in AFS for use throughout the US • Librarian receives help requests and queries from ~25 people in the US • US-developed nightly build facility used throughout ATLAS • Central tool in the day to day work of developers and the release process • Recently expanded as framework for progressively integrating more quality control and testing • Testing at component, package and application level • Code checking to be integrated • CERN support functions partially transferred to new ATLAS librarian • BNL-based nightlies resumed • Much more stable build environment than CERN at the moment • Use timely, robust nightlies to promote usage of the Tier 1 for development • System will probably be adopted by the LCG Applications Area

11. Software Support, Quality Control (2) • Testing integrated into automated builds • Unit tests, package tests, integration/system tests • ATLAS (finally!) established a dedicated support team (SIT) for software infrastructure, testing, release management etc. • U.S. represented by the U.S. ATLAS librarian, an active team member • SIT needs a dedicated leader (currently the rotating, and overloaded, release manager heads SIT) • Provides a much needed context for U.S. support and QA efforts • pacman (Boston U) for remote software installation • Adopted by grid projects for VDT, and a central tool in US grid testbed work

12. Grid Software • Development is being managed as an integral part of the software effort • Grid software activities tightly integrated into ongoing core software program, for maximal relevance and return • Grid project programs consistent with this have been developed • And has been successful • e.g. Distributed data manager tool (Magda) we developed was adopted ATLAS-wide for data management in the DCs • Grid goals, schedules integrated with ATLAS (particularly DC) program • However we do suffer some program distortion • e.g. priority tradeoffs between near term and long term needs affected by grid funding: emphasis on the latter sometimes at the expense of the former • e.g. basic persistency needs vs. distributed data management

13. FY03 Software FTEs by Category Total 17.9. Total effort, all funding sources.

14. FY03 Core Software Personnel Green: new people since last November

15. Software Activity in FY03 FTE breakdown by category and funding source

16. Effort Level Changes • ANL/Chicago – loss of .5 FTE in DB • Ed Frank departure; no resources in FY03 to replace • Another .5 FTE lost via departure; replacement soon with full-time hire • BNL – cancelled 1 FTE new hire in data management • Insufficient funding in the project and the base program to sustain the bare-bones plan • Results in transfer of DB effort to grid (PPDG) effort – because the latter pays the bills, even if it distorts our program towards lesser priorities • LBNL – stable project-supported FTE count in architecture/framework • But loss of base support is threatening effort level and deliverables • Grid funding being sought to ameliorate • DB effort hard-hit; somewhat ameliorated by common project • Because the work is now in the context of a broad common project, US can still sustain our major role in ATLAS DB • A material example of common effort translating into savings (even if we wouldn’t have chosen to structure the savings this way!)

17. Personnel Priorities for FY02, FY03 • This is how we are doing, relative to goals… • Sustain LBNL (4.5FTE) and ANL (3FTE) support • This we are doing so far. • Add FY02, FY03 1FTE increments at BNL to reach 3FTEs in FY03 • Failed in 02; BNL hire cancelled. Recover to 3 FTEs in FY03 • Restore the .5FTE lost at UC to ANL • No resources in FY03. Expect to recover this in FY04. • Establish sustained presence at CERN. • No resources, despite being a high priority • We rely on labs to continue base program and other lab support to sustain existing complement of developers • And needed base program support is not there.Lab base programs are being hammered…

18. Software Funding in FY02 and FY03 Funded FTEs FY02 FY03 Drop in base support at labs in FY03 exceeds increase in project support

19. General and longer term priorities • These are reflected in the software request in the research program proposal (and go back as far as our original Jan 2000 project plan) • Priorities in order: • Sustain existing ANL, BNL, LBNL efforts • Complete the ramp of the lab based core developer FTEs to the long-planned levels • ANL 3.5 FTEs, LBNL 4.5 FTEs, BNL 4 FTEs • Establish, over and above these lab levels, presence at CERN of three core developer FTEs • In addition to lab people located at CERN • Close local coupling to ATLAS users, LCG, Software Leader • Establish effort at the core-subsystem interface – sited mainly at universities and possibly CERN – to • support translation of core developments into established software employed by end users • better support US leadership roles with developer effort capable of translating decisions into established solutions

20. FY04 Software Project Costs (Dollar figures are estimates) Priority 1 2 3 4 Best guess for FY04 support is $3.61M  1 + 2 + 3 + 4 (2 FTEs)

21. SW Funding Profile Comparisons

22. Project-funded FTEs based on GAP profile

23. US Software Project Effort FTEs in principal activities by fiscal year and WBS category for project-supported people. With conservative assumptions about project support (labs only)

24. Total US Core Software Effort FTEs by fiscal year and WBS category. Total effort from all sources. With conservative assumptions about project support (labs only)

25. US ATLAS Software Manager (L2SM) • By my estimate a ~.3FTE role (a long-ago estimate which I think is accurate for someone ‘up to speed’ in the job) • My total ‘US time’ is 25%; I addressed the deficiency by • Taking on a deputy, David Adams, for both L2SM and BNL PAS group leader roles • PAS deputy role is much more substantive, because the greatest impact of my LCG job is on that role, not the L2SM • Dropping PPDG liaison role and involvement in US grid • Dropping technical work on Magda • But, the time I have is still not enough to the job fully • I am all for turning over the job to someone else under the right conditions, and a very good scenario looks close to being settled • With other L2 reorganization taking place, grid aspects will no longer be part of the job, which should make the time required significantly less than .3FTE

26. Concluding Remarks • No strategic changes; program is working, but stressed by funding • US has consolidated the leading roles in our targeted core software areas • Involved with new LCG common efforts in all our core areas • Architecture/framework effort level being sustained so far • And is delivering the baseline core software of ATLAS • Database/data mgmt effort reduced but so far preserving key technical expertise • Delivered current ATLAS baseline event store, and strong POOL participant • Cannot tolerate further reduction in a key strategic US core area • US major contributor to software infrastructure and QA in ATLAS • Recent emphasis: improve QA, and make the US development and production environment as effective as possible • Soft support from the project and base programs while the emphasis on grids grows: program distortion away from real priorities is a danger