US CMS Software and Computing Milestones and Funding Profiles Matthias Kasemann Fermilab

1. US CMS Software and Computing Milestones and Funding Profiles Matthias Kasemann Fermilab FNAL Oversight Panel October 24, 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann

2. CMS planning at LHCC review October 2000 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann

3. US CMS S&C schedule adapted to LHC • Constraints for updated S&C schedule: • Working CMS detector by mid-2005 • LHC pilot run in Fall 2005, few weeks of luminosity running • Complete detector and start LHC running in Spring 2006 • Lessons learned from other experiments: • Pilot running: for detector as well as for computing and analysis Fall 2005 • Finish facilities before physics data early FY06 • CMS Software schedule not changed • Adapt schedule: delay start of implementation of facilities by 12 months (03->04) • 9 month delay in startup of LHC luminosity running • 3 month: US FY05 ends in 9/2005 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann

4. US CMS S&C funding profile • Received draft funding profile from DOE: 5/30/2000 • Assume NSF funding profile after discussion • This is a BIG step for S&C projects: • guidance to allow detailed and solid planning • We want to continue to work with funding agencies to make S&C for CMS a success • profit for science from investment into LHC program Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann

5. CAS Project: Scope + Funding • US CMS CAS personnel contributions to CMS Core software: • determined by canonical scaling from CMS top-level resource-loaded WBS for Software • Add ~25% for additional US-specific software support • 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 • All this is unchanged due to the updated schedule. Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann

6. US CMS S&C profile: January 00 version now USCMS S&C expected: 40%-25% of UF people contribution from FNAL, not shown here Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann

7. Schedule for US-CMS S&C Project • In order to match the proposed funding profile from DOE/NSF more closely as well as the LHC schedule, we have stretched out the CMS Software and Computing Project Schedule. • User facilities: • Now – end FY2003: R&D phase • FY2004-FY2006: Implementation Phase • FY2007 and onwards: Operations Phase • This required a new hardware cost estimate and resource loaded WBS. Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann

8. UF: Updated schedule • Modified: • Stretch hardware installation on UF and Tier2 • Reevaluate UF facility manpower needs • Very similar results • Tier 1 and Tier 2 center scope are: • proposed by MONARC, • defined by CMS Computing Model • Reviewed by CERN Hoffmann Review • Hardware requirements need to remain flexible to respond to • advances in technology • in storage: capacity, cost, => disk vs. tape, store vs. recalculate • in networking: bandwidth, latency, => local vs. remote data storage and access, replication • in computing: speed, cost, => servers vs. commodity type computing • results of review and planning process at CERN • results of Grid R&D, availability of integrated ‘middleware’ software • => Serious planning requires contingency here! Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann

9. Hardware Costing For UF w/o T2 Hardware costing for User Facilities, excluding Tier 2 Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann

10. Hardware Costing For UF Hardware costing for User Facilities, INCLUDING Tier 2 from GriPhyN Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann

11. User Facility Personnel Costs Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann

12. Total User Facility Costs Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann

13. Total S&C Project cost Management reserve: 10% on manpower Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann

14. DOE funding vs. UF(Tier 1) + 2/3 CAS Management reserve: 10% on manpower Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann

15. From “Bottoms Up” Approach 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 • 1.1 Tier 1 Regional Center 13 17 20 18 • 1.2 System and User Support 1.3 2.25 3 3 5 4.5 4.5 • 1.3 Operations and Infrastructure 1 1.25 1.25 3 5 4.5 4.5 • 1.4 Tier 2 RCs 2.5 3.5 4 5 6.5 7.5 7.5 • 1.5 Networking 0.5 1 2 2.5 3 3 3 • 1.6 Computing and Software R&D 3 4 4.5 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 • 1.7 Construction Phase2 2 2 0.25 Computing • 1.8 Support of FNAL0.4 1.4 1 2.6 2.25 2 2based Computing • User Facilities (total) 10 15 18 30 37 43 41 • (Without T2 Personnel) 7.5 11.5 14 25 30 36 34 • Full time staff working on User Facilities tasks: (technicians, support staff, computing professionals) Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann

16. NSF funding vs. UF(Tier 2) + 1/3 CAS • Tier 2 center cost: • start of Prototype centers spread over FY01-04 • final implementation stretched over 2-3 years (FY04-06) • dominated by potential networking cost Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann

17. Funding - Request Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann

18. Evaluation of Profiles • The US CMS S&C project is managed and coordinated by the L1 PM, who carries budget authority • Funding shared differently for the two subprojects: • Tier1 center funded by DOE • Tier2 centers expected to be funded by NSF • CAS traditionally funded 2/3 DOE + 1/3 NSF • NSF part: under-funded by ~$1M/year • Tier 2 center cost dominated by networking cost • Uncertainty in networking cost for Tier 2 sites • Site Networking connectivity must be argument in selection process • Leveraging from University sites must contribute to cost of Tier2 centers • DOE part: • Dominated by Tier 1 personnel cost • Leveraging from FNAL infrastructure? • Part of WBS 1.3: Operations & Infrastructure • Part of WBS 1.5: Networking: LAN, WAN, monitoring, security • Part of WBS 1.8: Desktop systems, Support, Remote Control Room Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann

19. Conclusion (1) • The project needs to have a project office with: • Two project engineers supporting the L1 PM • coordinating the activities at all levels • Overseeing purchases • Establishing MoU’s, SOW’s • Preparing for Reviews • Tracking budget • Tracking the project progress • Not yet added to the previous numbers • Need to have management reserve / contingency for manpower (10% proposed, shown in the graphs) • The back loaded funding profile creates big problems now, additional help needed. • It is essential that we keep flexibility to use funds where needed most; only in this way are we able to take advantage of matching funds. Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann

20. Summary • Profile recognizes needs for operating S&C • Profiles heavily back-loaded towards 2005 • Result: • Funding does not allow to finish R&D and implementation for 2006 • Very hard to reach milestones: • Deliverables for Core Application Software • Contributions of US share to • Mock Data Challenges, • production exercises for trigger and physics studies • Test beam analyses for detector optimization • Preliminary analysis: implementation ready by 2007 • Severe impact for US based CMS data analysis: • Will not be able to fully contribute to CMS analysis • Will compromise readiness of CMS and US CMS for Physics • Disadvantage can only slowly be corrected because of operational needs Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann