280 likes | 498 Views
US ATLAS Project Management. J. Shank DOE/NSF review of LHC Computing 8 July, 2003 NSF Headquarters. Outline/Charge. International ATLAS organization Org. Chart, Time Line, DC plans, LCG software integration US ATLAS organization Project management plan for the Research Program
E N D
US ATLAS Project Management J. Shank DOE/NSF review of LHC Computing 8 July, 2003 NSF Headquarters
Outline/Charge • International ATLAS organization • Org. Chart, Time Line, DC plans, LCG software integration • US ATLAS organization • Project management plan for the Research Program • WBS and MS Project scheduling • Procedure for determining Computing/M&O budget split • FY03 Budget • FY04 Budget • Answers to Jan. review management issues J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Slide from D. Barberis. LHCC 1 July, 2003 x x New ATLAS Computing Organization J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
2003 Jul 03 POOL/SEAL release Jul 03 ATLAS release 7 (with POOL persistency) Aug 03 LCG-1 deployment Dec 03 ATLAS complete Geant4 validation Mar 04 ATLAS release 8 Apr 04 DC2 Phase 1: simulation production Jun 04 DC2 Phase 2: reconstruction (the real challenge!) Jun 04 Combined test beams (barrel wedge) Dec 04 Computing Model paper Jul 05 ATLAS Computing TDR and LCG TDR Oct 05 DC3: produce data for PRR and test LCG-n Nov 05 Computing Memorandum of Understanding Jul 06 Physics Readiness Report Oct 06 Start commissioning run Jul 07 GO! NOW 2004 2005 2006 Slide from D. Barberis. LHCC 1 July, 2003 2007 ATLAS Computing Timeline J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
How to get there:1) Software • Software developments in progress: • Geant4 simulation validation for production • GeoModel (Detector Description) integration in simulation and reconstruction • Full implementation of new Event Data Model • Restructuring of trigger selection, reconstruction and analysis environment • POOL persistency • Interval of Validity service and Conditions DataBase • Detector response simulation in Athena • Pile-up in Athena (was in atlsim/G3) Slide from D. Barberis. LHCC 1 July, 2003 J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
How to get there:2) Data Challenges • DC1 (2002-2003) completed in April 2003: • 2nd pass of reconstruction with Trigger L1 and L2 algorithms for HLT TDR in progress • Zebra/Geant3 files will be converted to POOL format and used for large-scale persistency tests • they will be used as input for validation of new reconstruction environment • DC2 (1st half 2004): • provide data for Computing Model document (end 2004) • full use of Geant4, POOL and Conditions DB • simulation of full ATLAS and of 2004 combined test beam • prompt reconstruction of 2004 combined test beam • DC3 (2nd half 2005): • scale up computing infrastructure and complexity • provide data for Physics Readiness Report • Commissioning Run (from 2nd half 2006): • real operation! Slide from D. Barberis. LHCC 1 July, 2003 J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
LCG Applications Components • SEAL • Plug-in manager • Internal use by POOL now • Full integration into Athena Q3 2003 • Data Dictionary • Integrated into Athena now • Includes Python support • POOL • Integration underway • Goal is to have demonstrated support for POOL by 31 July • Ability to read and write components of the ATLAS EDM • Complete support by Oct 2003 • SEAL Maths Library • Integrate in time for DC-2 • PI • Integrate ROOT implementation of AIDA API Q3 2003 • SPI Software Project Infrastructure Slide from D. Barberis. LHCC 1 July, 2003 J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
US ATLAS Computing Organization Chart J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
US ATLAS Computing Management Plan • Existing document from Nov., 2001 • Includes Tier-2 selection process (timescale has slipped) • Being rewritten now to take into account new structure and Research Program • Main change: relative roles of Shank/Huth • In broad brush-strokes: • Shank: day-to-day management of the computing plan • Budget allocation for project funded people • Work plan for all computing activities • Huth: deals with issues broader than just US ATLAS • NSF Large ITR: DAWN • Grid projects: PPDG, GriPhyN, iVDGL • LCG (POB) • ICB (ATLAS International Computing Board) • This new organization with Shank/Huth is working well. J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
US ALTAS Computing planning • Complete scrubbing of the WBS from January review is in progress. • Series of WBS scrubbing meetings culminating on 6/6/03 • Participants: Level 3 managers and above • Concentrated on project funded resources • This part is done and is reflected in talks today. • More work needed on base and other funded resources. • More work needed on integration with ATLAS planning • Working with new ATLAS planning officer. • ATLAS planning will be complete in Sept. manpower review J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
Facilities/GTS/Production MS Project J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
MS Project Facilities Milestones J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
Grid3/GTS Milestones J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
Software MS Project Milestones for ATLAS overall, LCG and U.S. ATLAS J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
Computing/M&O budget split • US Executive Board and US Level 2 managers advise the Project Manager(PM) on M&O/Computing split • Long standing US Management Contingency Steering Group from the construction project now becomes an advisory body to the PM for the Computing/M&O split • Members: • P. Jenni, T. Akesson, D. Barberis, H. Gordon, R. Leitner, J. Huth, L. Mapelli, G. Mikenberg, M. Nessi, M. Nordberg, H. Oberlack, J. Shank, J. Siegrist, K. Smith, S. Stapnes, W. Willis • Represents all ATLAS interests • Meets ~ quarterly • Unique body that has served ATLAS and US ATLAS well. • Decisions based on interleaved priorities, case-by-case. • US computing presently working with ATLAS computing to prepare “planning tables” as used in the construction project. • requires detailed resource loaded schedule RP profile J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
U.S. ATLAS Research Program J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
FY03 Commitments • Existing effort on Athena and data management • FY03: 12 FTEs $2,293k • Project management/coordination 2 FTE • Core services 3.75 FTE • Program flow, kernel interfaces, user interfaces, calibration Infrastructure, EDM • Data management 3.6 FTE • Deploying DB services, Persistency service, Event store, geometry+primary numbers • Collections, catalogs, metadata • Application software 1.4 FTE • Geant3 + reconstruction • Infrastructure support 1.25 FTE • Librarian • Existing effort on data challenges, facilities • 4.5 FTE for T1 infrastructure/management $925k • Existing effort on Physics support: 1 FTE $100k • UM Collaboratory tools $20k Total FY03 expenditure: $3,338k J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
Proposed FY04 increment • Athena + Data Management • Ramps from 12 to 16.5 • 4.5 FTE priorities / work plan covered in SW talk • Facilities/DC Production • T1: (priorities discussed in facilities talk) • $390k for capital equipment • Ramp from 4.5 to 6.5 for T1 • Ramp DC production FTE from 0.9 to 2.5 • 1.5 FTE at the T1 center • 1.0 at university • This would ramp overall budget from $3.338 M in FY03 to approximately $5.2M in FY04. J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
FY04 Budget studies 1-6 run from very bare bones to what we think is the appropriate level for US ATLAS Current projections put us at model 4 Details of the SW FTE increment covered in SW talk by S. Rajagopalan J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
Details of these priorities will be in the sw talk Model 6 Model 5 Model 4 Models 1-3 (increments are in production) Effect on SW FTEs in FY04 budget scenarios • 1.0 FTE in Graphics • 0.5 FTE in Analysis Tools • 1.0 FTE in Data Management • 1.0 FTE in Detector Description • 1.0 FTE in Common Data Management Software • 0.5 FTE in Event Store J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
If forced into a $4.7M FY04 budget • SW Cuts : • Graphics(1.0 FTE) • Data Management (1 FTE): • support for non-event data (0.5 FTE) • supporting basic database services (0.5 FTE) • Analysis tools (0.5 FTE) • Det. Description. (1.0 FTE) • Other cuts in DB/Athena jeopardize our ability to test the computing model in the DC. • Other cuts in production capability don’t allow us to run the DC. • Delay new hires 1-3 months into the year to balance the budget. J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
The University Problem • US ATLAS has 3 National Labs • Lots of expertise, which we are effectively using • With budget pressures, little project funding left for university groups, both small and large. • On day 1, when we will extract physics from ATLAS, we NEED university groups fully involved (students, postdocs) • Solution:??? • Call on the Management Reserve • We are making a list • Will include some support for universities already working in the testbed • A little goes a long way! • Increase in base funding? J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
Jan 2003 LBL Review questions(1) • Facilities • Given funding shortfall, how will grid and networking support be covered • Relying on the US testbed facility (university/other labs) for some support • + 1 FTE new hire @ Tier 1 in FY04 • Network bandwidth support • Not critical for FY04: all will have OC12-192 • RHIC is only using 15-20% of the OC12 bandwidth now. • Coherent plan for grids (testing…) • Not clear on the confusing relationships that exist between projects within ATLAS and external grid • Grid3 Task force: Rob Gardner, Rich Baker. • Aligns all our efforts leading up to DC2: Aug. BNL tutorials, SC2003 demo, Pre-DC2 tests, DC2. J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
Jan 2003 LBL Review questions(2) • SW • US ATLAS must take care to properly plan across its operation the impact on US-specific efforts of taking on new central tasks. • We see the new international ATLAS management helping us here • Find extra, non-US help • Our scrubbed WBS is our guide! • Athena-Grid integration should be a priority • Is seen as important in overall ATLAS org. chart • NSF DAWN funding should solve this. • concerned about the necessary reliance of ATLAS on the newly formed LCG • ATLAS fully committed to LCG software. We see “value added” in the LCG applications area. • Grids: some worries. We have viable US grid projects delivering middleware • Will emphasize inter-operability. J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
Jan 2003 LBL Review questions(3) • Many milestones • No baseline • How do trade-offs impact the overall schedule • We have redefined the WBS and milestones • Many fewer milestones; aligned with our quarterly reporting to facilitate tracking J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
Project Management comments from Jan. 2003 review(1) • The scope should be more formally defined with software agreements. • SW agreements have been “on hold” in ATLAS for over 1 yr. • Is working for Athena; ADL experience has made most wary. • Probably makes sense for our DB effort. Will pursue… • US ATLAS should continue to be wary of taking on additional projects from International ATLAS • Working with ATLAS (DQ/DB + planning officer) to make sure tasks are covered by international effort • Our US WBS scrubbing sharply defines our tasks/deliverables. • The project managers could benefit from increased use of traditional project management tools • MS Project. Demonstrated here today. BNL project management office helping us. • Weekly phone meetings with all managers down to level 2 • Keeps all informed, on the same page, engaged. J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
Project Management comments from Jan. review (2) • It is important to have some personnel at CERN to assist the US ATLAS members • Always been our priority, BUT, not as high as maintaining sw development team. • LBL has always had ~1 at CERN. Currently 2 (D. Quarrie, M. Marino) • BNL has P. Nevski, T. Wenaus. • UM has 1 (base): S. Goldfarb, Muon sw coordinator. J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing
Conclusions • New management in place • Working well! • New WBS • Project funded parts scrubbed. • Scope, near-term deliverables well-defined • Working on long term and overall ATLAS planning • Working on non-project funded parts • Budget pressure still hurts • SW scope smaller than we think appropriate • Facilities ramping slowly • University support lacking J. Shank US ATLAS Project Management. DOE/NSF review of LHCC Computing