1 / 27

LHCb report to LHCC and C-RSG

LHCb report to LHCC and C-RSG. Philippe Charpentier CERN on behalf of LHCb. Activities in 2009-Q3/Q4. Core Software Stable versions of Gaudi and LCG- AA Applications Stable as of September for real data Fast minor releases to cope with reality of life … Monte-Carlo

hollis
Download Presentation

LHCb report to LHCC and C-RSG

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. LHCb report toLHCC and C-RSG Philippe Charpentier CERN on behalf of LHCb

  2. Activities in 2009-Q3/Q4 • Core Software • Stable versions of Gaudi and LCG-AA • Applications • Stable as of September for real data • Fast minor releases to cope with reality of life… • Monte-Carlo • Intensive MC09 simulation (@ 5TeV) • Minimum bias • b- and c- inclusive • b signal channels • Few events in foreseen 2009 configuration (450 GeV) • MC09 stripping (2 passes) • Trigger stripping • Physics stripping • Real data reconstruction and stripping • As of November 20th … LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  3. Resource usage LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  4. 139 sites hit, 4.2 million jobs • Start in June: start of MC09 LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  5. Job failure: 15% (17% at Tier1s) LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  6. Failure breakdown LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  7. Production and user jobs LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  8. Jobs at Tier1s LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  9. Job types at Tier1s LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  10. CPU used (not normalised) • Average job duration • 5.6 hours for all jobs • 20 mn for user jobs (20%) • 6.6 hours for production jobs LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  11. Average job duration • 5.6 hours for all jobs • 20 mn for user jobs • 6.6 hours for production jobs LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  12. CPU usage (not normalised) LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  13. WLCG vs LHCb accounting (unnormalised) • 13% more in WLCG than in DIRAC (unnormalised) • 1.26 Mdaysvs 1.1 Mdays • Overhead of non reporting jobs + pilot/LCG/batch frameworks • Average CPU power: 1.5 kSI2k (from WLCG accounting) LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  14. Normalised CPU usage in 2009 • Ramping up of pilot role in summer • Resource usage decreased since LHC restarted • Concentrate on (few) real data • Wait for data analysis for continuing MC simulation • Group 1: production • Group 2: pilot • Group 3 & 4: user • Group 5: lcgadmin LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  15. Resource usage • Note: CERN above does not include non-Grid usage • From WLCG accounting: 32% is non-Grid at CERN • CERN number should then read: 2.18 kHS06.years • CPU usage within 10% of requests • Distribution not exactly like expected • More non-Tier1 resources available • Less MC ran at CERN + Tier1s • Almost no real data: less resources used at CERN • CAF not used as much as expected LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  16. Storage usage • *) From Castor queries today • **) From WLCG accounting end December • ***) Including 420 TB for T1D0 cache • Sites provided slightly more than the pledges • Thanks! • At CERN, some disk pools (default, T1D0) were not included in the requests but are in the accounting LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  17. Experience with real data LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  18. First experience with real data • Very low crossing rate • Maximum 8 bunches colliding (88 kHz crossing) • Very low luminosity • Minimum bias trigger rate: from 0.1 to 10 Hz • Data taken with single beam and with collisions No zero-suppression in VELO Otherwise ~25 GB only! LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  19. Real data processing • Iterative process • Small changes in reconstruction application • Improved alignment • In total 7 sets of processing conditions • Only last files were all processed4 times now (twice in 2010) • Processing submission • Automatic job creation and submission after: • File is successfully migrated in Castor • File is successfully replicated at Tier1 • If job fails for a reason other than application crash • The file is reset as “to be processed” • New job is created / submitted (automatic) • Processing more efficient at CERN (see later) • Eventually after few trials at Tier1, the file is processed at CERN • No stripping ;-) • DST files distributed to all Tier1s for analysis LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  20. Reconstruction jobs LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  21. Issues with real data • Castor migration • Very low rate: had to change the migration algorithm for more frequent migration (1 hour instead of 8 hours) • Issue with large files (above 2 GB) • Real data files are not ROOT files but open by ROOT • There was an issue with a compatibility library for slc4-32 bit on slc5 nodes • Fixed within a day • Wrong magnetic field sign • Due to different coordinate systems for LHCb and LHC ;-) • Fixed within hours • Data access problem (by protocol, directly from server) • Still dCache issue at IN2P3 and NIKHEF • dCache experts working on it • Moved to copy mode paradigm for reconstruction • Still a problem for user jobs: a pain! • Sites are regularly banned for analysis LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  22. Transfers and job latency • No problem observed during file transfers • Files randomly distributed to Tier1 • Will move to distribution by runs (few 100’s files) • For 2009, runs were never longer than 4-5 files! • Max file size set to 3 GB • Very good Grid latency • Time between submission and jobs starting running LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  23. Resource requests LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  24. Resource requests for 2010-12 • 2010 running • The requests were made in April-June 2009 • No additional resources expected • Try to fit within those requests • Running scenario for LHCb • March: 35% LHC efficiency @ 100 Hz • April-May-June: 50% LHC efficiency @ 1 kHz in average • July-August-September-half October: 50% @ 2 kHz • no Heavy Ion run for LHCb • This corresponds to 6.1 106 seconds @ 2 kHz • The 2009-10 request accounted precisely by chance for 6.1 106 seconds (0.5+5.6) • Therefore we use 6.1 106 seconds for 2010 at 2 kHz trigger rate • 2011 running • Use the recommendation of MB • March: 35% LHC efficiency @ 2 kHz • April to mid-October: 50% LHC efficiency @ 2 kHz • Total running time: 8.9 106 seconds • 2012: no run LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  25. Resource requirements for 2010-12 LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  26. Comments on resources • Very uncertain and fluctuating running plans! • Depending on LHC running, MC requests may be different • Minimum bias, charm physics, b physics… • Only after one year (at least) experience we can see how running analysis on the Grid works • Analysis at CERN? • Analysis at Tier3s? • Reliability for analysis? • 2012 is still very uncertain • No LHC running • Will the MC requests be the same as previous years • How many reprocessings? • Currently assume 1 full reprocessing of 2010 and 2 of 2011 LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

  27. Conclusions • Real data in 2009 • So few that it didn’t impact resource usage • Was extremely valuable for • Setting procedures • Start understanding the detector • Already very promising performance after a few days • Π0 peak, Λ and K0 reconstruction… • Exercising automatic processes • 2010 • Still expect somewhat chaotic running • Frequent changes in LHC settings, LHCb trigger commissioning • No change in LHCb resource requests w.r.t. June 2009 • 2011 • More precise requests with experience from 2010 • 2012 • Still very preliminary, but small increase only compared to 2011 LHCb to LHCC and C-RSG review, PhC

More Related