1 / 8

Run II Review Closeout

Run II Review Closeout. 15 Sept., 2004 FNAL. Thanks!. …all the hard work from the reviewees And all the speakers …hospitality of our hosts Good progress since the last review. Things ARE working. Data Handling.

opa
Télécharger la présentation

Run II Review Closeout

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Run II Review Closeout 15 Sept., 2004 FNAL

  2. Thanks! • …all the hard work from the reviewees • And all the speakers • …hospitality of our hosts • Good progress since the last review. • Things ARE working.

  3. Data Handling • CD has an impressive data archive with a few PB of RunII data.  Enstore seems to be quite mature and work very well. • There is no agreed-upon strategy for data dispersal or duplication or the need for such a strategy. • CDF and D0 have demonstrated high-throughput data access through the use of dCache and SAM, respectively. • CD has successfully managed past instances of tape technology evolution and seems aware of steps need for bridging future evolution in this technology. • While the use of SAM in D0 is ubiquitous, CDF should accelerate its buy-in to this technology.  The CDF decision to place its new data only in SAM is commendable. • We haven't seen particular indications of the non-scalability of SAM, though the need of widely distributed processes to update a database may present technical challenges. • CDF, in particular, seems to be reaping the benefit of the substantial effort invested by CD to work with DESY and CMS to develop and deploy dCache.

  4. Reconstruction Farms • Factor 2 gain in D0 reconstruction speed was impressive • Due to increased luminosity this year further speed up is necessary in d0reco • We applaud the fast response of CD to the needs of the experiment by supplying people to the task force • D0 plans to use SAMGrid in p17 reprocessing, which is a step forward • CDF appears to have enough head room in reconstruction capacity given the move to 1-pass processing and limited reprocessing. • CDF is planning to merge of CAF and reconstruction resources which would be beneficial to manage any fluctuating processing needs • In line with CD’s overall plan? Probably needs closer consultation with CD

  5. Monte Carlo Production Farms • We congratulate both experiments in producing most of the MC samples offsite • CDF needs to solve the problem of manual intervention in concatenation • Encouraged to use SAM to automate book-keeping and increase operation efficiency

  6. Remote Analysis/Production • Congratulate on developing and using outside computing, 50% in the case of CDF next year, significant resources in D0. • The Run II experiments have clearly bought into the fact that they need to be grid-enabled to continue do analysis in the LHC era. • CDF has a clearly defined migration path which eventually leads to SAMGrid (SAM/JIM).  In a year or two there will be no other options. • We are looking forward to seeing D0 do full raw data reprocessing using SAMGrid on remote sites this winter.  This requires access to the database which is a new functionality for SAMGrid. • We are happy to see the formation of the Run II computing group and hope that it leads to increased communication and joint development of SAMGrid and work on interoperability with the various HEP Grids. • Event size is an important aspect of data handling and movement on Grids, and the experiments seem to be converging on an useful event size of 30-60 KBytes. They should continue to work on this and seek further improvements.

  7. Networking • Overall plan seems good • Plan to keep EsNet as the main provider is good. • Need to quickly get the MAN • Involvement in StarLight R&D also good

  8. Planning/Management/Funding • CD seems to have solved space/cooling problems with moves to NMF and HDCF. • CD Common projects and collaborating with other experiments • Scientific Linux e.g. we encourage bringing in the larger scientific community. • Common projects of CDF/D0 and CD are progressing… • need to improve communications between the 2 experiments • CD should continue to pressure the 2 exp. towards these common projects • Grid area • Need to get the 3 exp. (CMS/D0/CDF) working on a common solution for sharing FNAL compute resources • Interoperate CAB/CAF/…all FNAL resources • CD needs to clarify their overall strategy for building this FNAL synergy • This includes “interoperating” on global grids • SAM and CDF • CDF Management needs to push this • Find manpower to make it happen • Planning for computing resources needs to be more formal • Particularly for CDF we have a hard time understanding how they establish priorities • Funding • FNAL needs to be clearer on the budget numbers • Is there going to be tax (like the UPS from last year)? • Exp. need to maintain contingency in their budgets • We (the committee) are still unclear how tight the budget situation is…

More Related