FOCUS report to the HEPCCC

1. FOCUS report to the HEPCCC Is this FOCUS?! Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

2. FOCUS Presentation to HEPCCC Agenda • FOCUS initialisation in 1999 • Review of topics considered in 1999 • Overview of subject matter and themes • Membership • Model of operation • Mandate • Position of FOCUS • FOCUS in the next Millennium • Conclusions NB Somewhat different type of presentation from Manuel’s in 1998 Excellent time to review, certainly do not claim to have all the answers! Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

3. FOCUS Initialisation (1) • Two things I wasn’t told…! • The previous chairman would be the other side of the fence • The secretary would be retiring too • Began by interviewing 12 people • Where did FOCUS ‘sit’? • Did it have a useful role? • How could it be improved? • Asked … ‘would you be secretary?!’ • Surprised by response • Even world-class cynics were rather positive! • Basically sound - few complaints • Necessary structure within CERN • And found an excellent secretary .. Marco Cattaneo (but would not recommend that next chairman be faced with same problem of having to find a secretary…!) Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

4. FOCUS Initialisation (2) • Conclusion: • Not ‘asking the wrong question(s)’ in FOCUS • Inherited a ‘going concern’ • General agreement that FOCUS works • But .. changing environment (see later) • Working with Manuel:- • Turns out to be excellent arrangement • Real benefit from previous experience • (Give Manuel chance to comment later!) • Superb support • Marco and Monique Budel • Overall: Interesting Challenge! • So far .. well received, except criticism from Jurgen: • Too little user input • Too long • Both addressed in last meeting, but Jurgen missed mtg..! • FOCUS sits within a whole set of committees... Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

5. FOCUS centric view of computing! HEPCCC ACCU? Report upwards Receive advice FOCUS EP Forum Desktop Forum Cross-member ...less relevant? Swap agenda items LCB projects beyond R&D move to FOCUS? New- report to Focus Cocotime LCB Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

6. Review of topics considered in 1999(2000) • Categorise topics: • Policy Required- • Review • Informational • Also .. Update on IT activities (not included below) • and: • IT - led • User(FOCUS) led Some items not uniquely defined, indeed migrate from one category to another... Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

7. Platforms at CERN PCs for Physics data processing IT April NICE .. Plans for physics service, W2000 User/IT July Pilot LINUX batch and inter. Service IT July LINUX for 2000s -proposal for project IT July (Proposal for migrating from RISC) IT July LINUX 2000 proposal IT Dec Proposed timescales for RISC UNIX decommiss. IT Dec Mobile Computing Users’ facilitiesUser Mar2 (1999) (2000) FOCUS Topics 1999 - Policy Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

8. STORAGE HPSS, stage IT April Summary of HEPiX mass storage mtg. IT July Results of survey of storage requirements IT July User requ. for backup and archive User Oct Review of ASDM and archive policy prop. IT Dec Support of tape media User/IT Mar2 LHC Computing Review Marseille presentation ‘User’ Oct Review/status User/IT Jun2 Review of application s/w services for LHC era User view User Oct Gigabit ethernet to desktops Experiments’ needs and IT plans User/IT Oct COMPASS computing Users’ report User Dec W2k project Status IT Mar2 Security Issues Network Security User/IT Jun2 Password Policies User/IT Jun2 Encryption User/IT Jun2 GEANT4 Status User Jun2 Storage Area Networks Review IT Jun2 FOCUS Topics 1999 - Review Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

9. Y2k Issues IT/User April Lessons learnt IT Mar2 New printing service- LINUX Motivation, features, architecture IT April Cocotime Allocations 2000 User Oct Support of compilers and OS versions for 2000 IT proposal IT Dec Farm Monitoring IT/PDP projectIT Mar2 FOCUS Topics 1999 - Informational Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

10. Overview of meetings and topics • Approximate split:- • 25% policy • 50% review --> policy • which is split equally between ‘IT’, ‘User’ and shared • 25% informational Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

11. Main ‘policy’ theme in 1999(1) • Instructional to review consideration of ‘Platforms at CERN’ • PCs for Physics data processing IT April All HEP computing needs met by Intel PCs running Linux or Windows 2000 In conclusion, the FOCUS committee supports this proposal and recommends that no further purchases of RISC equipment are made, unless there are very compelling reasons to do so. IT division is encouraged to build up Linux support, and to make a proposal for end-dates for support of the RISC UNIX services (ACTION). • NICE .. Plans for physics service, W2000 User/ITJuly Plans described for restructuring servers and migration to Windows2000 FOCUS believes the plans presented will move towards meeting the demands of the experiments. FOCUS supports the move away from NetWare servers to NT-4. It endorses the DTF decision to skip W98 and to concentrate on developing a Windows2000 server prototype and Windows2000 service architecture. FOCUS will look into new representation on the DTF (ACTION). • Pilot LINUX batch and interactive Service IT July Public interactive service on Linux; suggestion made that RISC UNIX public services to be phased out by end 2001 at the latest FOCUS supports expanding the public interactive Linux service and providing general purpose batch capacity on Linux. It recognises the importance of moving general interactive work to the desktop. It acknowledges that there is concern with the proposal to phase out other PLUS services by the end of 2001 (see also 6.1 for a related discussion on RISC Unix operating system support). Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

12. Main ‘policy’ theme in 1999(2) • LINUX for 2000s -proposal for project IT July Project to enable and promote Linux on Intel based h/w as fully functional platform A "Linux for the 2000s" project is now starting. Broadly its mandate is to enable and promote Linux on Intel based hardware as a fully functional computer platform for CERN usage. The project team will include a "core team" and contributors where core team members are expected to come from IT and to work actively on the project and contributors will be welcome from all parts of CERN willing to participate in the global effort. At the next FOCUS Lionel Cons, the Project Leader, will present the plans of the project which will be getting together over the summer months. (ACTION) • (Proposal for migrating from RISC) IT July Proposal for time-scales for reducing dependence and support for RISC UNIX It was agreed that the purpose of the agenda item was to BEGIN a discussion, and that FOCUS would return to this at the December meeting (ACTION). • Then two items resulting from previous actions • LINUX 2000 proposal IT Dec Delayed by at least one meeting... • Proposed timescales for RISC UNIX decommiss. IT Dec Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

13. Observations Issue identified initially by IT (and others) Also presented at HEPCCC and HEPiX Mostly IT led throughout Started generally and became more specific On each occasion led to well defined FOCUS ‘Action’ Considerable amount happening outside the meetings (Very helpful to have conclusions from meeting partially formed in advance) December meeting will be culmination of year’s work LINUX 2000? Lessons to be learned Avoid repetition … but difficult if you do not see the talk beforehand Do everything to ensure issues are raised at FOCUS and not elsewhere L3 felt that IT were not taking their interests into account, went to DG Despite … agreeing to FOCUS conclusion at meeting, not complaining to chairman, agreeing to the Minutes (and not asking for them to be changed subsequently) Very good advertisement of issues before mtg imp (3 weeks) Only break-down of the system? (R. Cashmore to comment …) Main ‘Policy’ theme in 1999(3) Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

14. ‘Policy’ theme for 2000(1) • FOCUS gradually working up head of steam re ‘Storage’ • HPSS, stage - Storage management IT April Three level system proposed: disk/ HSM for user-group data/staged tape FOCUS endorsed the idea that IT division enhances the SHIFT software for COMPASS and NA48. We should learn from all current R&D and evaluations and be in a position such that when a decision on an overall mass storage system needs to be made, and can be made, we are well prepared. • Summary of HEPiX mass storage meeting IT July Three mass storage projects described: ENSTORE, EuroStore, Castor; also BaBar and HPSS discussed The topic should be revisited by FOCUS after the summer of 2000, when a better understanding of the emerging mass storage technologies should permit a decision on the future of HPSS (ACTION). • Results of survey of storage requirements IT July Review of non-home directory storage, backup and archive FOCUS is pleased that the three areas of user data storage, backup and archiving are being revised. It notes that AFS remains the convenient choice for smaller files, in particular when used by multiple people. It welcomes the HSM proposal and AGREES to the proposal conditions, assuming a mechanism is found to keep for an agreed period all archived files belonging to a deleted account (ACTION). It supports the rationalisation of the three parallel backup services, and agrees that the future of ADSM is uncertain. It recognises that a strategy for archiving is needed. FOCUS invites Judy to report back to the December meeting (ACTION). Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

15. ‘Policy’ theme for 2000(2) • User requirement for backup and archive User Oct Capture of user requirements for backup and data archive FOCUS is pleased to receive a review of user requirements for remote backup and data archive. PC/Workstation users report that the current situation is healthy. FOCUS looks forward to new proposals being presented at the next meeting. And... • Review of ASDM and archive policy proposal IT Dec • Support of tape media User/IT Mar2 • Aims re Storage... • Complete activities as far as possible in 1999 • Work towards policy for HSM in summer 2000 • Other issues likely to be important in 2000 • Migration to LINUX • Re-discussion of move away from Fortran CERNLIB Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

16. Directors Hans Falk Hoffmann Jurgen May Rudiger Voss Roger Cashmore-attendance IT Representatives Jaques Altabar Manuel Delfino David Jacobs Gottfried Kellner Eric McIntosh Les Robertson Alan Silverman Wolfgang Von Ruden IT Members with Experimental Contact Tony Cass LHCb Fabrizio Gagliardo CMS Begigno Gobbo COMPASS Sverre Jarp ATLAS Harry Renshall ALICE Experimental Representatives Marco Cattaneo (sec) LHCb Bob Clare L3 Ryszard Gokieli DELPHI Alan Grant NOMAD Paul Jeffreys (chair) Livio Mapelli ATLAS Norman McCubbin ATLAS Helge Meinhard CHORUS Alan Norton NA48 Stephen O’Neale OPAL Martti Pimia CMS Florence Ranjard ALEPH Karel Safarik ALICE Andres Sandoval NA49 Lucas Taylor CMS Pierre Vande Vyvre ALICE Other Francois Etienne External Wolfgang Lerche Theory Mirco Mazzucato LCB Enzo Valente External Membership Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

17. Directors 3+1 IT 8 IT with experimental contact 4 Experimental Representatives 17, of which only four non-resident at CERN Other 4, should there be more? Total 36 (of which ~25 attend any given meeting) Non-CERN resident 6 Experimental Connections 25 SUMMARY Ideally more non-CERN resident members, but all areas covered. -> Advice from HEPCCC very welcome! ‘Volunteers’.. Membership Summary Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

18. FOCUS -tricky to make it work well • Model of operation • Ideally: • Well researched topic, users consulted, groundwork done • Needs active user participation in process (possibly through Work Group), preferably individual taking ownership of issue, reviewing, working with members of IT • May need several ‘bites at the cherry’ • Then … brought before the FOCUS committee • Users feel correctly represented • Solution presented which they can buy into • IT department - part of the plans • Request being made to IT viable, and costed • Directors can go away • Understanding and appreciating issue! • Resource implications well defined • Able to convince directorate that correct decision • Hard to realize in practice, challenge is to ensure rewarding meeting for all attendees Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

19. How can it be improved? • Some steps taken already: • Always have 4 agendas ahead (differing degrees of detail) • Brought in some new members (COMPASS in particular) • Looking to replace Desktop Forum representative • Have at least three weeks notice of full agenda before a meeting, and as many talks available in advance of the meeting as possible • Proving to be more and more difficult! • Increased user participation encouraged • Closer ties with Cocotime • Need to find ways to get Users to ‘own’ a review • Discuss draft agenda for next meeting and look for ‘volunteers’? • Possibly benefit from LHC Computing Review? • FOCUS has become mainly hardware together with specific software support issues • Rapid developments in h/w, s/w less well defined and other fora • Is this correct? Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

20. FOCUS - Mandate • FOCUS is an acronym for Forum On Computing: Users and Services • Taken from Minutes of 1st FOCUS Meeting (14 Mar. ‘96), which in turn was quoted from DG’s letter to Manuel Delfino, Feb. 6, 1996:- • “FOCUS will confront the needs of the CERN experiments and the present and planned evolution of CERN computing services with a time window extending roughly two years into the future.” • The Minutes added:- • “The mandate will be implemented by enhancing the communication between ‘consumers’ and ‘service providers’ of CERN computing in order to arrive at clear definitions of needs and of services. • FOCUS will need to implement liaisons with other relevant committees” Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

21. Change to Mandate? • After LHC Computing Review • Need to reappraise the role of FOCUS • Possibility that committee may collect extra responsibilities... Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

22. FOCUS-centric view of computing LHC COMPUTING REVIEW HEPCCC ACCU? Report upwards Receive advice FOCUS EP Forum Desktop Forum Cross-member ...less relevant? Swap agenda items LCB projects beyond R&D move to FOCUS? New- report to Focus Cocotime LCB Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

23. FOCUS - in the next Millennium • Alternative evaluation of computing provision at CERN?! • External review of IT was planned -- but everyone too busy at present, and inappropriate at time of LHC Computing Review • LHC Computing Review • “CERN committee landscape may change after review, but not fundamentally” • Need for FOCUS or similar • Possibly need to stretch time horizon (temporarily) to match review (beyond 2 years) • FOCUS members will no doubt provide expertise • FOCUS programme • Already have a rather challenging schedule • Looks to be an interesting year! Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC

24. Conclusions • First year under new management: • FOCUS is a useful forum, good progress made in year • Undergone a learning period • All advice most welcome! • While in process of learning, the IT environment at CERN is changing • FOCUS will need to evolve to meet new challenges • Very exciting period for IT And finally … like to give Manuel first chance to comment! Paul Jeffreys/HEPCCC