1 / 6

University Computing for BaBar: Funding

University Computing for BaBar: Funding. Frank Porter Caltech US University PI Meeting June 22, 1999. Introduction. US Universities need to participate in BaBar analysis, simulation, software development Different models for doing this Needs to be funded DOE apprised of need

ivor-tyson
Download Presentation

University Computing for BaBar: Funding

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. University Computing for BaBar: Funding Frank Porter Caltech US University PI Meeting June 22, 1999

  2. Introduction • US Universities need to participate in BaBar analysis, simulation, software development • Different models for doing this • Needs to be funded • DOE apprised of need • Actual experience so far not terrific Frank Porter 990622

  3. What has been done? Spring 1998 - US PIs asked L.Gladney, B.Meadows, F.Porter to draft report on university computing for BaBar. Summer 1998 - Report completed: ~frankp/tex/babar/collab/univcomp.ps ~frankp/univcomp.xls December 11 1998 - D.Hitlin, F.Porter, T.Schalk visit DOE to discuss university computing for BaBar. doe9812.ps, doe9812GAF.ps on frankp web page at SLAC PK supportive, but suggests time-stretch, importance of university matching funds. Frank Porter 990622

  4. Frank Porter 990622

  5. Experience Summary Frank Porter 990622

  6. Conclusions • DOE has BaBar university computing document, proposal may refer to it • DOE response is generally supportive of need, but • Time lags, stretchout • Matching (1:1) typically expected Frank Porter 990622

More Related