Transcript International Networks and the US-CERN Link

HENP Networks and Grids for
Global Virtual Organizations
Harvey B. Newman
California Institute of Technology
TIP2004, Internet2 HENP WG Session
January 25, 2004
The Challenges of Next Generation
Science in the Information Age
Petabytes of complex data explored and analyzed by
1000s of globally dispersed scientists, in hundreds of teams
 Flagship Applications
 High Energy & Nuclear Physics, AstroPhysics Sky Surveys:
TByte to PByte “block” transfers at 1-10+ Gbps
 eVLBI: Many real time data streams at 1-10 Gbps
 BioInformatics, Clinical Imaging: GByte images on demand
 HEP Data Example:
 From Petabytes in 2003, ~100 Petabytes by 2007-8,
to ~1 Exabyte by ~2013-5.
 Provide results with rapid turnaround, coordinating
large but limited computing and data handling resources,
over networks of varying capability in different world regions
 Advanced integrated applications, such as Data Grids,
rely on seamless operation of our LANs and WANs
 With reliable, quantifiable high performance
Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
CERN, Geneva: 2007 Start
 pp s =14 TeV L=1034 cm-2 s-1
 27 km Tunnel in Switzerland & France
CMS
TOTEM
First Beams:
April 2007
Physics Runs:
from Summer 2007
pp, general
purpose; HI
ALICE : HI
ATLAS
Atlas
LHCb: B-physics
Four LHC Experiments: The
Petabyte to Exabyte Challenge
ATLAS, CMS, ALICE, LHCB
Higgs + New particles; Quark-Gluon Plasma; CP Violation
6000+ Physicists &
Engineers; 60+ Countries;
250 Institutions
Tens of PB 2008; To 1 EB by ~2015
Hundreds of TFlops To PetaFlops
LHC: Higgs Decay into 4 muons
(Tracker only); 1000X LEP Data Rate
(+30 minimum bias events)
All charged tracks with pt > 2 GeV
Reconstructed tracks with pt > 25 GeV
109 events/sec, selectivity: 1 in 1013 (1 person in a thousand world populations)
LHC Data Grid Hierarchy:
Developed at Caltech
CERN/Outside Resource Ratio ~1:2
Tier0/( Tier1)/( Tier2)
~1:1:1
~PByte/sec
~100-1500
MBytes/sec
Online System
Experiment
CERN Center
PBs of Disk;
Tape Robot
Tier 0 +1
Tier 1
~10 Gbps
IN2P3 Center
INFN Center
RAL Center
FNAL Center
2.5-10 Gbps
Tier 3
~2.5-10 Gbps
Tier 2
Institute Institute
Physics data cache
Workstations
Institute
Tier2 Center
Tier2 Center
Tier2 Center
Tier2 CenterTier2 Center
Institute
0.1 to 10 Gbps
Tens of Petabytes by 2007-8.
An Exabyte ~5-7 Years later.
Tier 4
Emerging Vision: A Richly Structured, Global Dynamic System
Bandwidth Growth of Int’l HENP
Networks (US-CERN Example)
 Rate of Progress >> Moore’s Law. (US-CERN Example)
 9.6 kbps Analog








64-256 kbps Digital
1.5 Mbps Shared
2 -4 Mbps
12-20 Mbps
155-310 Mbps
622 Mbps
2.5 Gbps 
10 Gbps 
(1985)
(1989 - 1994)
(1990-3; IBM)
(1996-1998)
(1999-2000)
(2001-2)
(2002-3)
(2003-4)
(2005)
[X 7 – 27]
[X 160]
[X 200-400]
[X 1.2k-2k]
[X 16k – 32k]
[X 65k]
[X 250k]
[X 1M]
A factor of ~1M over a period of 1985-2005
(a factor of ~5k during 1995-2005)
 HENP has become a leading applications driver,
and also a co-developer of global networks;
HEP is Learning How to Use Gbps Networks Fully:
Factor of ~50 Gain in Max. Sustained TCP Thruput
in 2 Years, On Some US+Transoceanic Routes
*
9/01
105 Mbps 30 Streams: SLAC-IN2P3; 102 Mbps 1 Stream CIT-CERN
 5/20/02 450-600 Mbps SLAC-Manchester on OC12 with ~100 Streams
 6/1/02
290 Mbps Chicago-CERN One Stream on OC12
 9/02
850, 1350, 1900 Mbps Chicago-CERN 1,2,3 GbE Streams, 2.5G Link
 11/02 [LSR] 930 Mbps in 1 Stream California-CERN, and California-AMS
FAST TCP 9.4 Gbps in 10 Flows California-Chicago
 2/03
[LSR] 2.38 Gbps in 1 Stream California-Geneva (99% Link Utilization)
 5/03
[LSR] 0.94 Gbps IPv6 in 1 Stream Chicago- Geneva
 TW & SC2003: 5.65 Gbps (IPv4), 4.0 Gbps (IPv6) in 1 Stream Over 11,000 km

FAST TCP:




Baltimore/Sunnyvale
Fast convergence to equilibrium
RTT estimation: fine-grain timer
Delay monitoring in equilibrium
Pacing: reducing burstiness
Measurements 11/02
 Std Packet Size
 Utilization averaged
over > 1hr
 4000 km Path
9G
90%
10G
88%
90%
Average
utilization
92%
95%
1 flow
2 flows
7 flows
Fair Sharing
Fast Recovery
8.6 Gbps;
21.6 TB
in 6 Hours
9 flows
10 flows
Fall 2003: Transatlantic Ultraspeed TCP Tranfers
Throughput Achieved: X50 in 2 years
Terabyte Transfers by the Caltech-CERN Team:
Nov 18: 4.00 Gbps IPv6 Geneva-Phoenix (11.5 kkm)
 Oct 15: 5.64 Gbps IPv4 Palexpo-L.A. (10.9 kkm)
 Across Abilene (Internet2) Chicago-LA,
Sharing with normal network traffic
 Peaceful Coexistence with a Joint Internet2Telecom World VRVS Videoconference
Nov 19: 23+ Gbps TCP: Caltech,
SLAC, CERN, LANL, UvA, Manchester
Juniper,
HP
Level(3)
Telehouse
HENP Major Links: Bandwidth
Roadmap (Scenario) in Gbps
Year
Production
Experimental
Remarks
SONET/SDH
2001
2002
0.155
0.622
0.622-2.5
2.5
2003
2.5
10
DWDM; 1 + 10 GigE
Integration
2005
10
2-4 X 10
 Switch;
 Provisioning
2007
2-4 X 10
~10 X 10;
40 Gbps
~5 X 40 or
~20-50 X 10
~25 X 40 or
~100 X 10
1st Gen.  Grids
SONET/SDH
DWDM; GigE Integ.
40 Gbps 
~10 X 10
Switching
or 1-2 X 40
2nd Gen  Grids
2011
~5 X 40 or
Terabit Networks
~20 X 10
~Fill One Fiber
2013
~T erabit
~MultiTbps
Continuing the Trend: ~1000 Times Bandwidth Growth Per Decade;
We are Rapidly Learning to Use Multi-Gbps Networks Dynamically
2009
HENP Lambda Grids:
Fibers for Physics
 Problem: Extract “Small” Data Subsets of 1 to 100 Terabytes
from 1 to 1000 Petabyte Data Stores
 Survivability of the HENP Global Grid System, with
hundreds of such transactions per day (circa 2007)
requires that each transaction be completed in a
relatively short time.
 Example: Take 800 secs to complete the transaction. Then
Transaction Size (TB)
Net Throughput (Gbps)
1
10
10
100
100
1000 (Capacity of
Fiber Today)
 Summary: Providing Switching of 10 Gbps wavelengths
within ~2-4 years; and Terabit Switching within 5-8 years
would enable “Petascale Grids with Terabyte transactions”,
to fully realize the discovery potential of major HENP programs,
as well as other data-intensive research.
National Light Rail
Footprint
SEA
POR
SAC
NYC
CHI
OGD
DEN
SVL
CLE
FRE
PIT
BOS
WDC
KAN
NAS
STR
LAX
RAL
PHO
SDG
WAL
OLG
ATL
NLR
DAL
Up Now
Initially 4 10 Gb
Wavelengths
15808 Terminal, Regen or OADM site
Future: to
Fiber route
40 10Gb Waves
 Transition beginning now to optical, multi-wavelength R&E networks.
 Also Note: XWIN (Germany); IEEAF/GEO plan for dark fiber in Europe
JAC
Starting
GLIF network 1Q2004:
“Global Lambda Integrated Facility”
10 Gbit/s
Stockholm
NorthernLight
New York
MANLAN
IEEAF
10 Gbit/s
2.5 Gbit/s
10 Gbit/s
2x10
Gbit/s
Tokyo
WIDE
Chicago
IEEAF
10
Gbit/s
Tokyo
APAN
2x10
Gbit/s
2.5 Gbit/s
IP service path
SURFnet
10 Gbit/s
Amsterdam
NSF
10 Gbit/s
10 Gbit/s
(2/29 ?)
London
UKLight
lambda service path
2.5 Gbit/s
10
Gbit/s
(2/29 )
Dwingeloo
DWDM ASTRON/JIVE
SURFnet
10
Gbit/s
SURFnet
10 Gbit/s
Geneva
CERN
2.5 Gbit/s
Prague
CzechLight
Aarnet: SXTransport Project in 2004
 Connect Major Australian Universities to 10 Gbps Backbone
 Two 10 Gbps Research Links to the US
 Aarnet/USLIC Collaboration on Net R&D Starting Now
GLORIAD: Global Optical Ring (US-Ru-Cn)
“Little Gloriad” (OC3) Launched January 12; to OC192 in 2004
Germany: 2003, 2004, 2005
 GWIN Connects 550 Universities, Labs, Other Institutions
GWIN: Q4/03
GWIN: Q4/04
Plan
XWIN: Q4/05
(Dark Fiber Option)
Classical, HENP Data Grids, and
Now Service-Oriented Grids
 The original Computational and Data Grid concepts are
largely stateless, open systems: known to be scalable
 Analogous to the Web
 The classical Grid architecture has a number of implicit
assumptions
 The ability to locate and schedule suitable resources,
within a tolerably short time (i.e. resource richness)
 Short transactions with relatively simple failure modes
 HENP Grids are Data Intensive & Resource-Constrained
 1000s of users competing for resources at 100s of sites
 Resource usage governed by local and global policies
 Long transactions; some long queues
 HENP Stateful, End-to-end Monitored and Tracked Paradigm
 Adopted in OGSA, Now WS Resource Framework
The Grid Analysis Environment (GAE)
The GAE: key to “success” or “failure” for physics & Grids in the LHC era:
100s - 1000s of tasks, with a wide range of computing, data
and network resource requirements, and priorities
Caltech GAE Team
19
Increased functionality,
standardization
The Move to OGSA and then
Managed Integration Systems
~Integrated Systems
Web services + …
X.509,
LDAP,
FTP, …
Custom
solutions
App-specific
Services
Open
Web Grid
Serv
Services
Arch
Resrc Framwk
Stateful;
Managed
GGF: OGSI, …
(+ OASIS, W3C)
Globus Toolkit Multiple implementations,
including Globus Toolkit
Defacto standards
GGF: GridFTP, GSI
Time
Managing Global Systems: Dynamic
Scalable Services Architecture
MonALISA: http://monalisa.cacr.caltech.edu
Dynamic Distributed Services
Architecture (DDSA)
 “Station Server” Services-engines
at sites host “Dynamic Services”
 Auto-discovering, Collaborative
Lookup
Service
 Scalable to thousands of
service-Instances
 Servers interconnect dynamically;
form a robust fabric
 Service Agents: Goal-Oriented,
Autonomous, Adaptive
Station
 Adaptable to Web services:
Server
many platforms & working
environments (also mobile)
See http://monalisa.cacr.caltech.edu
http://diamonds.cacr.caltech.edu
Lookup
Discovery
Service
Lookup
Service
Station
Server
Caltech/UPB (Romania)/NUST (Pakistan) Collaboration
Station
Server
GAE Architecture
Analysis
Client
Analysis
Client
Analysis
Client
HTTP, SOAP, XML/RPC
Grid Services
Web Server
Scheduler
Catalogs
FullyAbstract
Planner
Metadata
PartiallyAbstract
Planner
FullyConcrete
Planner
Data
Management
Virtual
Data
Monitoring
Replica
Execution
Priority
Manager
Grid Wide
Execution
Service
Caltech GAE Team
Applications
Analysis Clients talk
standard protocols to
the “Grid Services Web
Server”, a.k.a. the Clarens
data/services portal.
Simple Web service API
allows Analysis Clients
(simple or complex) to
operate in this architecture.
Typical clients: ROOT, Web
Browser, IGUANA, COJAC
The Clarens portal hides the
complexity of the Grid
Services from the client, but
can expose it in as much
detail as req’d for e.g.
monitoring.
Key features: Global
Scheduler, Catalogs,
Monitoring, and Grid-wide
Execution service.
23
GAE Architecture
“Structured Peer-to-Peer”
 The GAE, based on Clarens and
Web services, easily allows a “Peerto-Peer” configuration to be built,
with associated robustness and
scalability features.
 Flexible: allows easy creation,
use and management of highly
complex VO structures.
 A typical Peer-to-Peer scheme
would involve the Clarens servers
acting as “Global Peers,” that
broker GAE client requests among
all the Clarens servers available
worldwide.
Caltech GAE Team
24
UltraLight Collaboration:
http://ultralight.caltech.edu
 Caltech, UF, FIU,
(HENP, VLBI, Oncology, …)
Application Frameworks
Grid Middleware
Grid/Storage
National
Lambda
Rail
 Integrated
hybrid
experimental
network,
leveraging Transatlantic
Management
R&D network partnerships; packet-switched
+ dynamic optical paths
POR
 10 GbE across US and the Atlantic: NLR, DataTAG, TransLight,
SAC
NYC
&
NetherLight,CHIUKLight,
etc.; Extensions Network
to Japan, Protocols
Taiwan, Brazil
OGD
DEN
SVL
CLE
PIT WDC
FRE
 End-to-end
monitoring;
Realtime trackingBandwidth
and optimization;
Management
KAN
RAL
NAS provisioning
STR bandwidth
LAXDynamic
PHO
Distributed CPU & Storage
WAL ATL
SDG
OLG
 Agent-based
services
spanning
all
layers
of the system, from the
DAL
JAC
optical cross-connects
to the applications. Network Fabric
SEA
End-to-end Monitoring
Intelligent Agents
 Cisco, Level(3)
Flagship Applications
End-to-end Monitoring
Intelligent Agents
UMich, SLAC,FNAL,
MIT/Haystack,
CERN, UERJ(Rio),
NLR, CENIC, UCAID,
Translight, UKLight,
Netherlight, UvA,
UCLondon, KEK,
Taiwan
ICFA Standing Committee on
Interregional Connectivity (SCIC)
 Created by ICFA in July 1998 in Vancouver ; Following ICFA-NTF
 CHARGE:
 Make recommendations to ICFA concerning the connectivity between
the Americas, Asia and Europe (and network requirements of HENP)
 As part of the process of developing these
recommendations, the committee should
 Monitor traffic
 Keep track of technology developments
 Periodically review forecasts of future
bandwidth needs, and
 Provide early warning of potential problems
 Create subcommittees when necessary to meet the charge
 The chair of the committee should report to ICFA once per
year, at its joint meeting with laboratory directors (Today)
 Representatives: Major labs, ECFA, ACFA, NA Users, S. America
ICFA SCIC in 2002-2004
A Period of Intense Activity
 Strong Focus on the Digital Divide Continuing
Five Reports; Presented to ICFA 2003
See http://cern.ch/icfa-scic
 Main Report: “Networking for HENP” [H. Newman et al.]
 Monitoring WG Report
[L. Cottrell]
 Advanced Technologies WG Report [R. Hughes-Jones,
 Digital Divide Report
 Digital Divide in Russia Report
O. Martin et al.]
[A. Santoro et al.]
[V. Ilyin]
2004 Reports in Progress; Short Reports on Nat’l and
Regional Network Infrastructures and Initiatives.
Presentation to ICFA February 13, 2004
SCIC Report 2003
General Conclusions
 The scale and capability of networks, their pervasiveness
and range of applications in everyday life, and HENP’s
dependence on networks for its research, are all
increasing rapidly.
 However, as the pace of network advances continues to
accelerate, the gap between the economically “favored”
regions and the rest of the world is in danger of widening.
 We must therefore work to Close the Digital Divide
 To make Physicists from All World Regions Full Partners
in Their Experiments; and in the Process of Discovery
 This is essential for the health of our global
experimental collaborations, our plans for future
projects, and our field.
Work on the Digital Divide:
Several Perspectives
 Work on Policies and/or Pricing: pk, in, br, cn, SE Europe, …




 Share Information: Comparative Performance and Pricing
 Find Ways to work with vendors, NRENs, and/or Gov’ts
 Exploit Model Cases: e.g. Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic
Inter-Regional Projects
 South America: CHEPREO (US-Brazil); EU @LIS Project
 GLORIAD, Russia-China-US Optical Ring
 Virtual SILK Highway Project (DESY): FSU satellite links
Help with Modernizing the Infrastructure
 Design, Commissioning, Development
 Provide Tools for Effective Use: Monitoring, Collaboration
Workshops and Tutorials/Training Sessions
 For Example: Digital Divide and HEPGrid Workshop,
UERJ Rio, February 2004
Participate in Standards Development; Open Tools
 Advanced TCP stacks; Grid systems
ICTP 2nd Open Round Table on Developing
Countries Access to Scientific Information
STATEMENT: AFFORDABLE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET
FOR RESEARCH AND LEARNING
“Scholars from across the world meeting at the Abdus Salam International Centre for
Theoretical Physics (ICTP) in Trieste [10/2003] were concerned to learn of the barrier to
education and research caused by the high cost of Internet access in many countries.
The Internet enables the use of content which is vital for individuals and for institutions
engaged in teaching, learning and research. In many countries use of the Internet is
severely restricted by the high telecommunications cost, leading to inequality in realising
the benefits of education and research. Research staff and students in countries with
liberal telecommunications policies favouring educational use are gaining social and
economic advantage over countries with restrictive, high-cost policies. The potential
benefits of access to the Internet are not available to all.
The signatories to this message invite scholars in every country to join them in
expressing concern to governments and research funding agencies at the effect of high
telecommunications costs upon individuals and institutions undertaking teaching,
learning and research. The situation in many countries could be improved through
educational discounts on normal telecommunications costs, or through the lifting of
monopolies. It is for each country to determine its own telecommunications policies but
the need for low-cost access to the Internet for educational purposes is a need which is
common to the whole of humankind.”
History - Throughput Quality
Improvements from US
Progress:
but the
Digital
Divide
is Being
Maintained
60% annual improvement
Factor ~100/10 yr
1.5-8 Year
Lag
 S.E. Europe, Russia:
 Lat Am., MidEast, China, Africa:
 India:
Catching Up
Keeping Up
Falling Behind
Bandwidth of TCP
< MSS/(RTT*Sqrt(Loss)) (1)
(1) Macroscopic Behavior of the TCP Congestion Avoidance Algorithm, Matthis,
Semke, Mahdavi, Ott, Computer Communication Review 27(3), July 1997
Current State – June 2003
(Max. Throughput in Mbps)
Bad < 200kbits/s < DSL
Acceptable > 200, < 1000kbits/s
Good > 1000kbits/s
Within region performance improving:
E.g. Ca/US-NA, Hu-SE Eu, Eu-Eu, Jp-E Asia, Au-Au, Ru-Ru
Africa, Caucasus, Central & S. Asia all bad
DAI: State of the World
Digital Access Index Top Ten
DAI: State of the World
Countries
AU-US
CN-HK
CN-HK
CN-JP
CN-JP
CN-UK
CN-US
CN-US
CN-US
APAN Link Information
Network
AARNet
CERNET/HARNET
CSTNET
CERNET
CERNET
CERNET
CERNET
CERNET
CSTNET
HK-US
HK-TW
JP-ID
JP-KR
JP-MY
JP-PH
JP-PH
JP-SG
JP-TH
JP-TH
JP-US
JP-VN
HARNET
HARNET/TANET
AI3(ITB)
APII
AI3(USM)
AI3(ASTI)
MAFFIN
AI3(SICU)
AI3(AIT)
SINET(ThaiSarn)
TransPac
AI3(IOIT)
2004.1.05 [email protected]
Bandwidth(Mbps)
AUP/Remark
310 to 2 X 10 Gbps
R&E + Commodity
2
R&E
155
R&E
10
R&E
45
Native IPv6
45
R&E
Research
10
200
R&E
155
R&E
45
R&E
10
R&E
2/1.5
R&E
2Gbps
R&E
1.5/0.5
R&E
1.5/0.5
R&E
Research
2
1.5/0.5
R&E
1.5/0.5
R&E
2
R&E
5 Gbps
R&E
1.5/0.5
R&E
APAN Link Information
Countries
Network
2004.1.05 [email protected]
Bandwidth(Mbps)
AUP/Remark
KR-FR
KOREN/RENATER
34
Research (TEIN)
KR-SG
APII
8
R&E
KR-US
KOREN/KREONet2
155
R&E
LK-JP
LEARN
3
R&E
MY-SG
NRG/SICU
2
Experiment (Down)
SG-US
SingaREN
90
R&E
TH-US
Uninet
155
R&E
TW-HK
ASNET/TANET2
155
R&E
TW-JP
ASNET/TANET2
155
R&E
TW-US
ASNET/TANET2
5 Gbps
R&E
(TW)-US-UK
ASNET/TANET2
155
R&E
Non APAN Links
Countries
Network
Bandwidth(Mbps)
AUP
IN-US/UK
ERNET
16
R&E
(JP)-US-EU
SINET
155
R&E / No Transit
JP-US
SINET
5 Gbps
R&E / No Transit
Brazil: RNP in Early 2004
International Connectivity Costs in the
Different European Market Segments
Market segment
Liberal Market with
transparent pricing
Liberal Market with less
transparent pricing structure
Emerging Market without
transparent pricing
Traditional Monopolist
market
Number of
Countries
8
Cost
Range
1-1.4
7
1.8-3.3
3
7.5-7.8
9
18-39
Dai Davies SERENATE Workshop Feb. 2003
Virtual Silk Highway:
The Silk Countries
Virtual SILK Highway
Architectural Overview

Hub Earth Station at DESY with access to the
European NRENs and the Internet via GEANT
– Providing International Internet access directly

National Earth Station at each Partner site
– Operated by DESY, providing international access
– Additional earth stations from other sources – none yet
– SCPC up-link, common down-link, using DVB

Routers for each Partner site
– Linked on one side to the Satellite Channel
– On the other side to the NREN
Bandwidth Plan – as of 3/03
From
To
MHz
DVB
SCPC
Mbps
Mbps
$K
08/02
11/02
2.9
3.1
0.77
20
12/02
05/03
5.4
6.9
2.40
92
06/03
11/03
7.5
9.5
3.32
136
12/03
05/04
9.4
12
4.10
175
06/04
11/04
12
16
4.90
220
12/04
07/05
15
19
6.50
379
1022
Progress in Slovakia 2002-2004
(January 2004)
VRVS
(Version
3)
VRVS
on
Windows
Meeting in 8 Time
Zones
80+ Reflectors
24.5k hosts worldwide
Users in 99 Countries
Study into European
Research and Education
Networking as Targeted
by eEurope
www.serenate.org
SERENATE is the name of a series of strategic studies into the
future of research and education networking in Europe,
addressing the local (campus networks), national (national
research & education networks), European and intercontinental
levels. The SERENATE studies bring together the research and
education networks of Europe, national governments and
funding bodies, the European Commission, traditional and
"alternative" network operators, equipment manufacturers,
and the scientific and education community as the users
of networks and services.
Summary and Conclusions by D.O. Williams, CERN 
Optics and Fibres
[Message to NRENs; or Nat’l Initiatives]
 If there is one single technical lesson from SERENATE it is that






transmission is moving from the electrical domain to optical.
The more you look at underlying costs the more you see the need for
users to get access to fibre.
When there’s good competition users can still lease traditional
communications services (bandwidth) on an annual basis.
 But: Without enough competition prices go through the roof.
A significant “divide” exists inside Europe – with the worst countries
[Macedonia, B-H, Albania, etc.] 1000s of times worse off than the best.
Also many of the 10 new EU members are ~5X worse off than the 15
present members.
Our best advice has to be “if you’re in a mess, you must get access
to fibre”.
Also try to lobby politicians to introduce real competition.
In Serbia – still a full telecoms monopoly – the two ministers talked and
the research community was given a fibre pair all around Serbia !
HEPGRID and Digital Divide Workshop
UERJ, Rio de Janeiro, Feb. 16-20 2004
Theme: Global Collaborations, Grids and
Their Relationship to the Digital Divide
NEWS:
Bulletin: ONE TWO
WELCOME BULLETIN
General Information
Registration
Travel Information
Hotel Registration
Participant List
How to Get UERJ/Hotel
Computer Accounts
Useful Phone Numbers
Program
Contact us:
Secretariat
Chairmen
ICFA, understanding the vital role of these issues for our
field’s future, commissioned the Standing Committee on
Inter-regional Connectivity (SCIC) in 1998, to survey and
monitor the state of the networks used by our field, and
identify problems. For the past three years the SCIC has
focused on understanding and seeking the means of
reducing or eliminating the Digital Divide, and proposed
in ICFA that these issues, as they affect our field of High
Energy Physics, be brought to our community for
discussion. This led to ICFA’s approval, in July 2003, of
the Digital Divide and HEP Grid Workshop.
More Information:
http://www.uerj.br/lishep2004
SPONSORS
CLAF
CNPQ
FAPERJ
UERJ
Networks, Grids and HENP
 Network backbones and major links used by HENP experiments
are advancing rapidly
 To the 10 G range in < 2 years; much faster than Moore’s Law
 Continuing a trend: a factor ~1000 improvement per decade;
a new DOE and HENP Roadmap
 Transition to a community-owned and operated infrastructure
for research and education is beginning with (NLR, USAWaves)
 HENP is learning to use long distance 10 Gbps networks effectively
 2002-2003 Developments: to 5+ Gbps flows over 11,000 km
 Removing Regional, Last Mile, Local Bottlenecks and
Compromises in Network Quality are now
On the critical path, in all world regions
 Digital Divide: Network improvements are especially needed
in SE Europe, So. America; SE Asia, and Africa
 Work in Concert with Internet2, Terena, APAN, AMPATH;
DataTAG, the Grid projects and the Global Grid Forum
Some Extra Slides
Follow
Computing Model Progress
CMS Internal Review of Software and Computing
ICFA and International Networking
ICFA Statement on Communications in Int’l HEP
Collaborations of October 17, 1996
See http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/icfa/icfa_communicaes.html
“ICFA urges that all countries and institutions wishing
to participate even more effectively and fully in
international HEP Collaborations should:
 Review their operating methods to ensure they
are fully adapted to remote participation
 Strive to provide the necessary communications
facilities and adequate international bandwidth”
NREN Core Network Size (Mbps-km):
http://www.terena.nl/compendium/2002
100M
Logarithmic Scale
10M
In Transition
Gr
100k
Ir
Lagging
Ro
1k
Ukr
100
Hu
Advanced
1M
10k
Leading
It
Pl
Ch
Es
Fi
Nl
Cz
Network Readiness Index:
How Ready to Use Modern ICTs [*]?
Market
Environment
(US)
Network
Readiness
Index
(FI)
( ): Which Country
is First
(US)
Political/Regulatory (SG)
Infrastructure
(IC)
Individual Readiness (FI)
Readiness
Business Readiness (US)
Gov’t Readiness
(SG)
Individual Usage
(KR)
Usage
Business Usage
(DE)
(FI)
Gov’t Usage
(FI)
(SG)
From the 2002-2003 Global Information
Technology Report. See http://www.weforum.org
PINGER History – Loss Quality
 Fewer sites have very poor
to dreadful performance
 More have good performance
(< 1% Loss)
 BUT <20% of the world’s
population has Good or
Acceptable performance
Throughput vs Net Readiness Index
NRI from Center for Int’l Development, Harvard
http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cr/pdf/gitrr2002_ch02.pdf
A&R focus
Internet for all focus
NRI Tops
Finland
5.92
US
5.79
Singapore 5.74
Sweden
5.58
Iceland
5.51
Canada
5.44
UK
5.35
Denmark 5.33
Taiwan
5.31
Germany 5.29
Netherlnd 5.28
Israel
5.22
Switz’land 5.18
Korea
5.10
Improved correlation (0.21 0.41) by Using derived throughput ~
MSS / (RTT * sqrt(loss)); fit an exponential
Interesting Outliers: Slovakia, Hungary, Portugal. Lithuania
UltraLight
http://ultralight.caltech.edu
 Serving the major LHC experiments; developments
broadly applicable to other data-intensive programs
“Hybrid” packet-switched and circuit-switched,
dynamically managed optical network
 Global services for system management
 Trans-US wavelength riding on NLR: LA-SNV-CHI-JAX
 Leveraging advanced research & production networks
 USLIC/DataTAG, SURFnet/NLlight, UKLight,
Abilene, CA*net4
 Dark fiber to CIT, SLAC, FNAL, UMich; Florida Light Rail
 Intercont’l extensions: Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo, Taiwan
 Flagship Applications with a diverse traffic mix
 HENP: TByte to PByte “block” data transfers at 1-10+ Gbps
 eVLBI: Real time data streams at 1 to several Gbps
MonaLisa: A Globally
Scalable Grid Monitoring System
By I. Legrand (Caltech) et al.
 Monitors Clusters, Networks
 Agent-based Dynamic





information / resource
discovery mechanisms
Implemented in
 Java/Jini; SNMP
 WDSL / SOAP with UDDI
Global System Optimizations
> 100 Sites and Growing
Being deployed in Abilene;
through the Internet2 E2EPi
MonALISA (Java) 3D Interface
PingER Benefits
Measures analyzes & reports round-trip
times, losses, availability, throughput ...
Covers 75+ countries (99% of Internet
connected population)
Low impact on network << 100bits/s,
important for many DD sites
Uses ubiquitous ping, no special host,
or software to install/configure at remote
sites
Provides quantitative historical (> 8yrs)
and near real-time information
How bad is performance to various
regions, rank countries?
Trends: who is catching up, falling
behind, is progress being made?
Compare vs. economic, development
indicators etc.
Useful for troubleshooting, setting
expectations; presenting to policy makers,
funding bodies
Countries Monitored
Used to
monitor
Only 1 host
Need > 1 host
to reduce
anomalies
Country
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Belarus
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa-Rica
Croatia
Cuba
Czech-Rep
Denmark
Egypt
Ho
sts
6
2
4
2
2
1
2
3
21
1
11
4
6
4
1
5
2
3
1
1
Country
Estonia
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Korea
Ho
sts
1
1
11
1
13
1
1
2
5
3
10
3
4
2
5
13
11
1
2
2
Country
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Malaysia
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia
Netherlands
New-Zealand
Nigeria
Norway
Pakistan
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Serbia &
Montenegro
Singapore
Hosts
1
1
2
3
5
2
1
12
4
1
2
1
1
4
2
1
12
1
2
1
Country
Slovakia
Slovenia
S Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
UK
US
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Venezuela
Vietnam
Albania
Philippines
Hosts
2
1
3
6
4
8
1
1
2
1
2
36
208
3
2
2
1
0
0
PingER Summary
 Performance is improving all over
 Performance to developed countries are orders of
magnitude better than to developing countries
 Poorer regions 5-10 years behind
 Poorest regions Africa, Caucasus, Central & S. Asia
 Some regions are:
Catching up:
SE Europe, Russia
Keeping up:
Latin America, Mid East, China
Falling further behind:
E.g, India, Africa
User Requirements
 In ALL countries and in ALL disciplines researchers are
eagerly anticipating improved networking tools. There is
no divide on the demand-side. Sciences, such as
particle physics, which make heavy use of advanced
networking, must help to break down any divide on the
supply-side, or else declare themselves elitist and
irrelevant to researchers in essentially all developing
countries.
Connectivity pricing and
competition
 In some locations the price of connectivity is (really)
unreasonably high
 Linked (obviously) to how competitive the market is
 Strong competition on routes between various key
European cities, and between major national centres
 Less competition  effectively none as you move to
countries with de facto monopoly or simply to parts of
countries where operators see little reason to invest.
 While some expensive routes are where you would
expect, others are much more surprising (at first sight),
like Canterbury and Lancaster (UK) and parts of Brittany
(F)
Understanding transmission
costs and DIY solutions
 Own trenching only makes sense in very special cases.
Say 1-30 km. Even then look for partners.
 Maybe useful (as a threat) over longer distances in
countries with crazy pricing
 Now possible to lease (short- or long-term) fibres on
many routes in Europe [0.5 to 2 KEuro/km Typ.]
 Transmission costs jump at ~200 km [below which you
can operate with “Nothing In Line” (NIL), above which
you need amplifiers] and ~800 km [above which you
need signal regenerators]
 Possibly leading to some new approaches in GEANT-2
implementation
AN INTERESTING STUDY
MADE BY FUNDAÇÃO GETULIO
VARGAS - BRAZIL.;
REPORTED by A. Santoro (UERJ)
July 11 SCIC Meeting
Until 2001, only
12,46% of Brazilians
had Access to a PC
and 8,31% to Internet
Digital Inclusion
0,00
0,00
Computer Internet
With a Very Non-Uniform
Distribution.
For Example: Concentration
in Parts of Rio de Janeiro
BRAZIL: Access to a PC, and to the Internet Vs. Yrs. of Study
% Having :PC - Internet - % Total Pop.
0 YEARS
TO 4 YEARS
4 TO 8 YEARS
8 TO 12 YEARS
MORE THAN 12 YEARS
~1/3 of those with Access to a PC and to the Internet is concentrated in
the hands of the 6% of the population who graduated from high school
Jensen, ICTP
Typ. 0-7 bps
Per Person
Progress
in Africa ?
Limited
by many
external
systemic
factors:
Electricity;
Import Duties;
Education;
Trade
restrictions
Jensen, ICTP
DAI: State of the World
DAI: State of the World
DAI: State of the World
California Institute of Technology
Application Empowerment of
Global Systems: Key Role of HENP
 Effective use of networks is vital for the existence
and daily operation of Global Collaborations
 Physicists today face the greatest challenges in terms of
 Data intensiveness; volume and complexity
 Distributed computation and storage resources
 Global dispersion of many cooperating research teams
 Physicists and computer scientists have become
leading co-developers of networks and global systems
 Building on a tradition of building next-generation systems
that harness new technologies in the service of science
 Mission Orientation
 Tackle the hardest problems, to enable the science,
maintaining a years-long commitment
 Broad Applicability to Other Fields of Research, Society
Next Generation Grid Challenges:
Workflow Management & Optimization
 Scaling to Handle Thousands of Simultaneous Requests
 Including the Network as a Dynamic, Managed Resource
 Co-Scheduled with Computing and Storage
 Maintaining a Global View of Resources and System State
 End-to-end Monitoring
 Adaptive Learning: New paradigms for optimization,
problem resolution
 Balancing Policy Against Moment-to-moment Capability
 High Levels of Usage of Limited Resources Versus
Better Turnaround Times for Priority Tasks
 Strategic Workflow Planning; Strategic Recovery
 An Integrated User Environment
 User-Grid Interactions; Progressive Automation
 Emerging Strategies and Guidelines
Grid Enabled Analysis: View
of a Collaborative Desktop
Building the GAE is the “Acid Test” for Grids; and is
crucial for next-generation experiments at the LHC
 Large, Diverse, Distributed Community of users
 Support hundreds to thousands of analysis tasks,
shared among dozens of sites
 Widely varying task requirements and priorities
 Need Priority Schemes, robust authentication and Security
Relevant to the future needs of research and industry
External Services
Storage Resource Broker
CMS ORCA/COBRA
Cluster Schedulers
Iguana
ATLAS DIAL
Griphyn VDT
MonaLisa Monitoring
VO Management
Authentication
Browser
MonaLisa
ROOT
PDA
Clarens
Authorization
Logging
File Access
Key Escrow
Shell
Current Problems
Siting of the Earth Station - Uzbekistan
 AUPs – Armenia
 Licence - Armenia
 Existence of NREN – Turkmenistan
 Shortage of Bandwidth – Georgia
 Number of Earth Stations – Kazakhstan
 Marginal transmitters – putting in amplifiers

Next Generation Grid Challenges:
Workflow Management & Optimization
 Scaling to Handle Thousands of Simultaneous Requests
 Including the Network as a Dynamic, Managed Resource
 Co-Scheduled with Computing and Storage
 Maintaining a Global View of Resources and System State
 End-to-end Monitoring
 Adaptive Learning: New paradigms for optimization,
problem resolution
 Balancing Policy Against Moment-to-moment Capability
 High Levels of Usage of Limited Resources Versus
Better Turnaround Times for Priority Tasks
 Strategic Workflow Planning; Strategic Recovery
 An Integrated User Environment
 User-Grid Interactions; Progressive Automation
 Emerging Strategies and Guidelines
Abilene - Upgrade Completed!
SC2003 Bandwidth Challenge
Available fiber topology
Seattle
Portland
Montreal
Minneapolis
Green Bay
Toronto
Syracuse Albany
Salt Lake City
Oakland
San Francisco
San Jose
Omaha
Sacramento
San Luis Obispo
Los Angeles
Irvine
San Diego
Denver
Las Vegas
Phoenix
Tulsa
Oklahoma City
Raleigh
Charlotte
Nashville
Memphis
Atlanta
Birmingham
Santa Theresa
Fort Worth
Dallas
Jacksonville
Austin
San Antonio
Boston
Hartford
White Plains
Milwaukee
Stamford
Detroit
Weehawken
New York
Cleveland
Chicago
Newark
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Wilmington
Baltimore
Columbus
Indianapolis
Washington D.C.
Cincinnati
Kansas City
Louisville Richmond
Norfolk
St. Louis
Durham
Buffalo
Houston
Mobile
New Orleans
Orlando
Tampa
Miami
Leading & Emerging
Regional Optical Initiatives

















California (CALREN)
Colorado (FRGP/BRAN)
Connecticut (Connecticut Education Network)
Florida (Florida LambdaRail)
Indiana (I-LIGHT)
Illinois (I-WIRE)
Maryland, D.C. & northern Virginia (MAX)
Michigan
Minnesota
New York + New England region (NEREN)
North Carolina (NC LambdaRail)
Ohio (Third Frontier Network)
Oregon
Rhode Island (OSHEAN)
SURA Crossroads (southeastern U.S.)
Texas
Utah