70 likes | 90 Views
“HEP” SSC Homework SSC Workshop, LAL, 1 st July 2009. Jamie Shiers Grid Support Group IT Department, CERN. EGI_DS Transition Document - Status. Application & Community Support chapter: current draft is 0.7
E N D
“HEP” SSC HomeworkSSC Workshop, LAL, 1st July 2009 Jamie Shiers Grid Support Group IT Department, CERN
EGI_DS Transition Document - Status • Application & Community Support chapter: current draft is 0.7 • Plan is to incorporate comments / corrections from yesterday’s meetings, plus further input from Application Communities, (well) before end July • Versions 0.8, 0.9(?) • A further revision – 1.0 – will be made early September for consistency with draft “EGI” proposals • Specific changes include: • Manpower required; size of community affected; specific call areas targeted (e.g. 1.2.1.2, 1.2.3) • Input on Services from large communities, in particular WLCG, plus others • “SSC” input from HEP (other than WLCG) and other communities • Timescale for writing proposals very tight! • N.B. not cut&paste from a document with a different purpose • Target last two weeks of August for intensive writing of (1.2.1.1), 1.2.1.2, 1.2.3 (sub)proposals • September will be used for multiple reviews prior to public presentation during EGEE’09 • Two 2 hour sessions for “HEP SSC”: more than HEP, more than an SSC… • For WLCG, September may well include a “STEP’09” rerun followed / overlapping with preparations for LHC restart and data taking • Imperative we respect this timescale (and not overcommit to too many things…)
Questions • Contact points within the EGI management structure that are different and/or in addition to those in the EGI_DS Blueprint and Functions documents. • Identify "heavy" and/or VO-specific services that are needed by the community to fully exploit the EGI infrastructure. • Identify the institutes/projects/NGIs that have been contacted about the SSC. • Identify any ESFRI projects that have been contacted. • Identify likely partners that will be funded. • Identify likely partners that will be unfunded. • Identify common tools/libraries for porting that will be useful for the community. (E.g. BLAST, LAPACK, ...)
And Answers… • Contact points within the EGI management structure that are different and/or in addition to those in the EGI_DS Blueprint and Functions documents. • Very important to identify asap responsibilities for writing sub-proposals: ideally mid-July for allocating effort in August – already stretched • What is the EGI management structure? (As opposed to EGI_DS…) • Identify "heavy" and/or VO-specific services that are needed by the community to fully exploit the EGI infrastructure. • LHC experiment computing coordinators contacted: specific item at next week’s WLCG MB; follow-up week later during MB slot • See also “WLCG Data Taking Operations” paper on agenda page • Identify the institutes/projects/NGIs that have been contacted about the SSC. • Numerous: further steps to be taken asap (formal channels include HEPCCC etc but timescales not optimal) • Presentation at WLCG Overview Board & Grid Deployment Board: CERN, DESY, INFN, NDGF and other main HEP sites, LHC experiment computing coordinators, several of “related projects” • Projects such as GridPP, IGI, NDGF also through WLCG OB • OB asked for their help in disseminating information • On-going discussions with “partners”, such as WMO
And More Answers… • Identify any ESFRI projects that have been contacted. • Not AFAIK done. Relevance for this specific “SSC”? • Identify likely partners that will be funded. • Key centres of gravity for Application communities targetted by “HEP SCC”, including CERN, INFN, others? • Identify likely partners that will be unfunded. • Includes (at least) other “WLCG” sites, other HEP sites (for non-LHC VOs) + other disciplines • Identify common tools/libraries for porting that will be useful for the community. (E.g. BLAST, LAPACK, ...) • In WLCG terms this is the Application Area. Not clear (IMHO) that this is particular relevant given maturity of target communities…
“HEP” SSC – Progress? • We should use “progress” since the last meeting to estimate possible progress until the next… • Whilst I believe that – technically – there should be no problem to write a good technical proposal and extensively review it we must clearly ring-fence some (considerable) effort for this! • And… we still do not have full agreement on the scope, partners, call areas etc. • And… we must factor in summer and other activities
Conclusions • “Bottom up” approach re-agreed • FP7 information day has helped to clarify how much funding might be available and for which specific purposes • Timetable tight – but clear • Intent is to discuss our plan & interpretation directly with EU late August / early September