Software Status/Plans

Torre Wenaus, BNL/CERN

US ATLAS Software Manager

US ATLAS PCAP Review

November 14, 2002

PCAP Review, November 14, 2002 Slide 2 Torre Wenaus, BNL/CERN

U.S. ATLAS Software Project Overview

Control framework and architecture Chief Architect, principal development role, ATLAS LCG

applications area liaison Databases and data management

Database Leader, primary ATLAS expertise on ROOT/relational baseline

Software support for development and analysis Software librarian, quality control, software development tools,

training… Automated build/testing system adopted by Int’l ATLAS

Subsystem software roles complementing hardware responsibilities Muon system software coordinator

Scope commensurate with U.S. in ATLAS: ~20% of overall effort Commensurate representation on steering group

Strong role and participation in LCG common effort

Recent developments in green

PCAP Review, November 14, 2002 Slide 3 Torre Wenaus, BNL/CERN

U.S. ATLAS Software Organization

William WillisProject Manager

John HuthAssociate Project Manager,

Computing and Phy sics WBS 2

James ShankDeputy

External Advisory Group

Ian HinchliffeManager, Phy sics

WBS 2.1

Torre WenausManager, Sof tware

WBS 2.2

Bruce GibbardManager, Facilities

WBS 2.3

D. QuarrieControl/Framework

2.2.1.1,2.2.1.2

David MalonData Management

2.2.1.3

S. RajagopalanEv ent Model

2.2.1.4

J. ShankDetector Specif ic

2.2.2, 2.2.2.1

F. MerrittTraining

2.2.5L. Vacavant

Pixel/SCT2.2.2.2

F. LuehringTRT

2.2.2.3

S. RajagopalanLiquid Argon Calorimeter

2.2.2.4

T. LeCompteTilecal2.2.2.5

S. GoldfarbMuons2.2.2.6

S. GonzalezTrigger/DAQ

2.2.2.7

Subsy stems

Core Sof tware

R. BakerTier 1 Facility

R. GardnerDistributed ITInf rastructure

Facilities

TBNCollaborativ e

Tools2.2.3

R. BakerDeputy

T. WenausSof tware Support

Coordinator2.2.4

A. UndrusSof tware Librarian

2.2.4.1

Computing CoordinationBoard

Phy sics Manager, IB Conv ener, co-chairs

PCAP Review, November 14, 2002 Slide 4 Torre Wenaus, BNL/CERN

U.S. ATLAS - ATLAS Coordination

US roles in Int’l ATLAS software:US roles in Int’l ATLAS software:

D. Quarrie (LBNL), Chief ArchitectD. Quarrie (LBNL), Chief Architect

D. Malon (ANL), Database CoordinatorD. Malon (ANL), Database Coordinator

P. Nevski (BNL), Geant3 Simulation P. Nevski (BNL), Geant3 Simulation Coordinator, Simulation production leadCoordinator, Simulation production lead

C. Tull (LBNL), EDG WP8 LiaisonC. Tull (LBNL), EDG WP8 Liaison

H. Ma (BNL), Raw Data CoordinatorH. Ma (BNL), Raw Data Coordinator

T. Wenaus (BNL), Planning OfficerT. Wenaus (BNL), Planning Officer

US International

See task matrix

William WillisU.S. ATLAS Project

Manager

Peter JenniATLAS

Spokesperson

John HuthAssociate PM

NormanMcCubbinSoftware

Coordiinator

I. HinchliffePhysics SM

F. GianottiPhysics

Coordinator

T. WenausSoftware SM

B. GibbardFacilities SM

D. QuarrieFramework

D. MalonDatabase

SubsystemSoftware

T. WenausPlanning Officer

D. QuarrieChief Archectect

D.MalonDatabase

A. PutzerNCB

L. PeriniATLAS GRID

R. GardnerDistributed Computing

SubsystemSoftware

PCAP Review, November 14, 2002 Slide 5 Torre Wenaus, BNL/CERN

ATLAS Subsystem/Task Matrix

Offline

Coordinator

Reconstruction Simulation Database

Chair N. McCubbin D. Rousseau A. Dell’Acqua D. Malon

Inner Detector D. Barberis D. Rousseau F. Luehring S. Bentvelsen /

D. Calvet

Liquid Argon J. Collot S. Rajagopalan M. Leltchouk H. Ma

Tile Calorimeter A. Solodkov F. Merritt V.Tsulaya T. LeCompte

Muon J.Shank J.F. Laporte A. Rimoldi S. Goldfarb

LVL 2 Trigger/

Trigger DAQ

S. George S. Tapprogge M. Weilers A. Amorim /

F. Touchard

Event Filter V. Vercesi F. Touchard

Computing Steering Group members/attendees: 4 of 19 Computing Steering Group members/attendees: 4 of 19 from US (Malon, Quarrie, Shank, Wenaus)from US (Malon, Quarrie, Shank, Wenaus)

Physics Coordinator: F.Gianotti

Chief Architect: D.Quarrie

PCAP Review, November 14, 2002 Slide 6 Torre Wenaus, BNL/CERN

Project Planning Status

U.S./Int’l ATLAS WBS/PBS and schedule fully unified US/Int’l software planning covered by same person (TW)

Synergies outweigh the added burden of the ATLAS Planning Officer role

No ‘coordination layer’ between US and Int’l ATLAS planning

Possible because of how the ATLAS Planning Officer role is currently scoped

As pointed out by an informal ATLAS computing review in March, ATLAS would benefit from a full FTE Planning Officer

I have a standing offer to the Computing Coordinator: to step aside if/when a capable person with more time is found

Until then, I scope the job to what I have time for and what is highest priority

PCAP Review, November 14, 2002 Slide 7 Torre Wenaus, BNL/CERN

ATLAS Computing Planning

US led a comprehensive review and update of ATLAS computing schedule in the spring

Milestone count increased by 50% to 600; many others updated Milestones and planning coordinated around DC schedule Reasonably comprehensive and detailed through 2002

New round underway now to flesh out 2003 schedule US core activity scheduling in reasonable shape

Long term milestones reworked to reflect LHC schedule, LCG Centered around escalating data challenges

Weak decision making, still a problem, translates to (among other things) weak planning

Strong recommendation of the March review to fix this Should be fixed in the present computing management

reorganization

PCAP Review, November 14, 2002 Slide 8 Torre Wenaus, BNL/CERN

Summary Major Milestones

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Tbyte database prototype (Done)Release of Athena pre-alpha version (Done)Athena alpha release (Done)Geant3 digi data available (Done)Athena beta release (Done)Athena accepted (ARC concluded) (Done)Athena Lund release (Done)Event store architecture design document (Done)DC0 production release (Done)Decide on database product (Done)DC0 Completed - continuity test (Done)Full validation of Geant4 physics DelayDC1 Completed DelayComputing TDR Finished (Align with LCG) DelayDC2 Completed (followed by annual DCs) DelayDC3 Completed (Exercise LCG-3) NewPhysics readiness report completed DelayDC4 Completed (Align with wedge test) NewFull chain in real environment (DC5) Delay

Green: Done Gray: Original date Blue: Current date

PCAP Review, November 14, 2002 Slide 9 Torre Wenaus, BNL/CERN

Major Milestones

One DC per year until startup

PCAP Review, November 14, 2002 Slide 10 Torre Wenaus, BNL/CERN

Data Challenge 1

DC1 phase 1 (simu production for HLT TDR) executed successfully World-wide operation

Phase 2, starting in the next weeks, focuses on testing of new software Introduction and testing of new event data model Intensive Geant4 usage Intensive Grid usage Data production for Physics and computing model studies First tests of computing model Analysis using Analysis Object Data (AOD)

DC1 Phase 2 too early for LCG common persistency POOL production use

POOL production releases in spring/summer 2003

PCAP Review, November 14, 2002 Slide 11 Torre Wenaus, BNL/CERN

Software Support, Quality Control

New releases are available in the US typically ~1-2 days after CERN Provided in AFS for use throughout the US

Librarian receives help requests and queries from ~25 people in the US US-developed nightly build facility used throughout ATLAS

Central tool in the day to day work of developers and the release process Recently expanded as framework for progressively integrating more quality

control and testing Testing at component, package and application level Code checking to be integrated

CERN support functions being transferred to new ATLAS librarian BNL-based nightlies recently resumed

Much more stable build environment than CERN at the moment Use timely, robust nightlies to promote usage of the Tier 1 for development

PCAP Review, November 14, 2002 Slide 12 Torre Wenaus, BNL/CERN

Software Support, Quality Control (2)

Testing integrated into automated builds Unit tests, package tests, integration/system tests

ATLAS has (finally!) established a dedicated support team (SIT) for software infrastructure, testing, release management etc.

U.S. represented by the U.S. ATLAS librarian, an active team member

SIT needs a dedicated leader (currently the rotating, and overloaded, release manager heads SIT)

Provides a much needed context for U.S. support and QA efforts pacman (Boston U) for remote software installation

Adopted by grid projects for VDT, and a central tool in US grid testbed work

PCAP Review, November 14, 2002 Slide 13 Torre Wenaus, BNL/CERN

Grid Software

Software development within the ATLAS complements of the grid projects is being managed as an integral part of the software effort

Grid software activities tightly integrated into ongoing core software program, for maximal relevance and return

Grid project programs consistent with this have been developed And has been successful

e.g. Distributed data manager tool (Magda) we developed was adopted ATLAS-wide for data management in the DCs

Grid goals, schedules integrated with ATLAS (particularly DC) program

However we do suffer some program distortion e.g. we have to limit effort on providing ATLAS with event storage

capability in order to do work on longer-range, higher-level distributed data management services

PCAP Review, November 14, 2002 Slide 14 Torre Wenaus, BNL/CERN

Effort Level Changes

ANL/Chicago – loss of .5 FTE in DB Ed Frank departure; no resources to replace Another .5 FTE recently lost, will be replaced

BNL – cancelled 1 FTE new hire in data management Insufficient funding in the project and the base program to sustain the bare-bones

plan Results in transfer of DB effort to grid (PPDG) effort – because the latter pays the

bills, even if it distorts our program towards lesser priorities LBNL – stable project-supported FTE count in architecture/framework

But loss of base support is threatening effort level and deliverables Grid funding being sought to ameliorate

DB effort hard-hit, but ameliorated by common project Because the work is now in the context of a broad common project, US can still

sustain our major role in ATLAS DB A material example of common effort translating into savings (even if we wouldn’t

have chosen to structure the savings this way!)

PCAP Review, November 14, 2002 Slide 15 Torre Wenaus, BNL/CERN

Personnel Priorities for FY02, FY03

This is how we are doing relative to goals… Sustain LBNL (4.5FTE) and ANL (3FTE) support

This we are doing so far. Add FY02, FY03 1FTE increments at BNL to reach 3FTEs

Failed in 02; BNL hire cancelled. Should recover to 3 FTEs in FY03 Restore the .5FTE lost at UC to ANL

No resources Establish sustained presence at CERN.

No resources, despite being a very high priority We rely on labs to continue base program and other lab support to

sustain existing complement of developers And needed base program support is not there. Lab base programs

are being hammered.

PCAP Review, November 14, 2002 Slide 16 Torre Wenaus, BNL/CERN

General and longer term priorities

These are reflected in the software request in the research program proposal (and go back as far as our original Jan 2000 project plan)

Priorities in order: Sustain existing ANL, BNL, LBNL efforts Complete the ramp of the lab based core developer FTEs to the

long-planned levels ANL 3.5 FTEs, LBNL 4.5 FTEs, BNL 4 FTEs

Establish, over and above these lab levels, presence at CERN of at least 2 core developer FTEs

In addition to any lab people who might be located at CERN Establish effort at the core-subsystem interface – sited mainly at

universities and possibly CERN – to support the translation of core developments into established

software employed by end users better support the leadership roles held by the US with developer

effort capable of translating decisions into established solutions

PCAP Review, November 14, 2002 Slide 17 Torre Wenaus, BNL/CERN

SW Funding Profile Comparisons

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06

M$

2000 agency guideline

January 2000 PMP

11/2001 guideline

‘Compromise profile’

requested in 2000

Mid 02 bare bones

PCAP Review, November 14, 2002 Slide 18 Torre Wenaus, BNL/CERN

Concluding Remarks

No strategic changes; program is working, but stressed by funding

US has consolidated the leading roles in our targeted core software areas

Involved with new LCG common efforts in all our core areas

Architecture/framework effort level being sustained so far

And is delivering the baseline core software of ATLAS

Database/data mgmt effort reduced but so far preserving our key technical expertise

Leveraging that expertise for a strong role in common project

Cannot tolerate further reduction in a key strategic US core area

US major contributor to software infrastructure and QA in ATLAS

Recent emphasis: improve QA, and make the US development and production environment as effective as possible

Soft support from the project and base programs while the emphasis on grids grows is distorting our program in a troubling way