LCG Progress on Policies & Coming Challenges

1. LCG Progress on Policies & Coming Challenges Ian Bird IT Division, CERN LCG and EGEE Rome 9 December 2003 9 December 2003 - 1

2. The Large Hadron Collider Project 4 detectors CMS ATLAS Requirements for world-wide data analysis Storage – Raw recording rate 0.1 – 1 GBytes/sec Accumulating at 5-8 PetaBytes/year 10 PetaBytes of disk Processing – 100,000 of today’s fastest PCs LHCb 9 December 2003 - 2

3. CERN/Outside Resource Ratio ~1:2Tier0/( Tier1)/( Tier2) ~1:1:1 ~PByte/sec ~100-1500 MBytes/sec Online System Experiment CERN Center PBs of Disk; Tape Robot Tier 0 +1 Tier 1 ~2.5-10 Gbps FNAL Center IN2P3 Center INFN Center RAL Center 2.5-10 Gbps Tier 2 Tier2 Center Tier2 Center Tier2 Center Tier2 Center Tier2 Center ~2.5-10 Gbps Tier 3 Institute Institute Institute Institute Tens of Petabytes by 2007-8.An Exabyte ~5-7 Years later. Physics data cache 0.1 to 10 Gbps Tier 4 Workstations LHC Computing Hierarchy Emerging Vision: A Richly Structured, Global Dynamic System 9 December 2003 - 3

4. Introduction – the LCG Project • LHC Computing Grid (LCG) is a grid deployment project • Prototype computing environment for LHC • Focus on building a production-quality service • Learn how to maintain and operate a global scale production grid • Gain experience in close collaboration between regional (resource) centres • Understand how to integrate fully with existing computing services • Building on the results of earlier research projects; Learn how to move from test-beds to production services • Address policy-like issues needing agreement between collaborating sites 9 December 2003 - 4

5. The LCG Deployment Board • Grid Deployment Board (GDB) set up to address policy issues requiring agreement and negotiation between resource centres • Members: country representatives, applications, and project • Sets up working groups • Short term or ongoing • Bring in technical experts to focus on specific issues • GDB approves recommendations from working groups • Groups: • Several that outlined initial project directions (operations, security, resources, support) • Security – standing group – covers many policy issues • Storage management • Grid Operations Centre task force • User Support group 9 December 2003 - 5

6. Policies and procedures 6 documents approved to date • Security and Availability Policy for LCG • Prepared jointly with GOC task force • Approval of LCG-1 Certificate Authorities • Audit Requirements for LCG-1 • Rules for Use of the LCG-1 Computing Resources • Agreement on Incident Response for LCG-1 • User Registration and VO Management 4 more being written (with GOC group) • LCG Procedures for Resource Administrators • LCG Guide for Network Administrators • LCG Procedure for Site Self-Audit • LCG Service Level Agreement Guide 9 December 2003 - 6

7. Security and Availability Policy • Prepared jointly with GOC group • Objectives • Agreed set of statements • Attitude of the project towards security and availability • Authority for defined actions • Responsibilities on individuals and bodies • Promote the LHC science mission • Control of resources and protection from abuse • Minimise disruption to science • Obligations to other network (inter- and intra- nets) users • Broad scope: not just hacking • Maximise availability and integrity of services and data • Resources, Users, Administrators, Developers (systems and applications), and VOs • Does NOT override local policies • Procedures, rules, guides etc • contained in separate documents 9 December 2003 - 7

8. Policy: Ownership, maintenance and review • The Policy is • Prepared and maintained by Security Group and GOC • Approved by GDB • Formally owned and adopted as policy by SC2 • Technical docs implementing or expounding policy • Procedures, guides, rules, … • Owned by the Security Group and GOC • timely and competent changes • GDB approval for initial docs and significant revisions • Must address the objectives of the policy • Review the top-level policy at least every 2 years • Ratification by SC2 via GDB if major changes required 9 December 2003 - 8

9. User Registration & VO Management • User registers once with LCG (and not at individual sites) • Accepts User Rules • Gives the agreed set of personal data • Agreement on a minimal set was important achievement • Requests to join one VO/Experiment • Sites need robust VO Registration Authorities (RA) to check • The user actually made the request • User is valid member of the institute & experiment • That all user data looks reasonable • User data is distributed to all LCG sites • Work needed on more robust scaleable procedures for 2004 9 December 2003 - 9

10. Approach to Service SLAs • Formal Contract with GOC? – No, because • GOC is not (likely to be) a legal body • GOC will not (be likely to) have any formal powers over Service Providers • GOC will not (be likely to) pay for any Services • So difficult for GOC to enforce a traditional SLA • Instead, prefer a virtual contract between Service Provider and the LCG Grid Community • Any Centre wishing to provide a Service must publish its design levels for the specified service level parameters of that Service • LCG will then monitor the actual levels achieved and publish them so they may be compared with the design levels • Service Providers (Centres) will then compete on quality or possibly quality/cost, either to attract work or enhance reputation 9 December 2003 - 10

11. Form of SLA • One for each instance of a LCG Service • To be published on the GOC website in standard format exactly as provided by the Service Administrator • Format still to be agreed, but likely to contain as a minimum • Identification of Service (type, release, etc) • Statement on compliance with Security and Availability Policy (standard wording) • Limitations on use (if any) • Designed Availability • Designed Reliability • Designed Performance (Service-specific; to be defined for each type of Service) 9 December 2003 - 11

12. Sites in LCG-1 – 21 Nov 9 December 2003 - 12

13. Future Challenges and Issues 9 December 2003 - 13

14. Challenges – 1 • Authentication issues • Must agree the future PMA bodies for CA’s • EGEE likely to take over this role for Europe • Collaborate with GridPMA.org, TERENA and GGF • Online CA services, credential repositories • KCA, SLAC Virtual Smart Card, MyProxy, … • Need to define best practice and minimum standards • Authorization developments • VOMS (EDG) to be implemented soon in LCG • Confirms membership of VO, groups, roles • local AuthZ (EDG LCAS/LCMAPS, US CMS VOX) and VOMS-aware services are needed • To give the experiments the functionality they require • BUT, active research area – how this maps to local infrastructures 9 December 2003 - 14

15. Challenges – 2 • Collaboration between resource providers: • Risks involved in opening resources to wide community – essential to build and maintain trust • Policies must be complete and enforced • Technical solutions not yet there to implement and enforce • Must maintain open access to all collaborators • Successful so far • Scalable solution for selective access needs tools and services that do not yet exist • For LCG – issues of charging are not directly relevant • But do need accounting • Will be important for EGEE 9 December 2003 - 15

16. Challenges – 3 • Interoperability between grids (national, international, community, …) • Must understand what this means at all levels (political, technical, ..) • Many very basic technical challenges to address • Status today • Need same middleware • Need same information schema • Need same usage policies • Need to map users in compatible ways • Need to agree security, access, etc. 9 December 2003 - 16

17. Summary • LCG has made significant progress in understanding issues • Particularly related to security and access • Much more to do • Many things not needed within a single community will become important for EGEE – e.g. charging and cost of services • Real SLAs – EGEE will address, LCG will be a customer • Federating grids – in all guises • Not really understood at any level • Essential to have forum where these issues can be addressed 9 December 2003 - 17