<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
FYI, from Chip Watson.<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject:
</th>
<td>Scrubbing computing requirements</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date: </th>
<td>Thu, 28 Aug 2014 09:46:56 -0400</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td>Chip Watson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:watson@jlab.org"><watson@jlab.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To: </th>
<td>Graham Heyes <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:heyes@jlab.org"><heyes@jlab.org></a>, Mark Ito
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:marki@jlab.org"><marki@jlab.org></a>, David Lawrence
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:davidl@jlab.org"><davidl@jlab.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">CC: </th>
<td>Sandy Philpott <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sandy.philpott@jlab.org"><sandy.philpott@jlab.org></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<font size="+1">All,<br>
<br>
The reviewed tape requirements for Physics for FY14 indicated a
need to write 3 PB to tape in FY14. So far in FY 14, Physics
has written around 1.3 PB, so wrong by a factor of two.<br>
<br>
I would like someone to scrub this data. Is this factor of 2
due to a uniform high estimation going on so that you never use
more than you ask for? If so, then I would request that you
give me two numbers by quarter for the next 3 fiscal years: (1)
most likely usage, (2) high estimate (likelihood 25% or less).
<br>
<br>
Similarly, we have not yet provisioned disk capacity at the
level presented in the review, and no one is screaming. This is
also off by a factor of 2-3. Again, is this coming from
cautious overestimating, or an unanticipated delay in ramping up
simulation?<br>
<br>
I am now making decisions that are influenced by these
projections, and so I need better insight as to how to treat
your numbers. (E.g., should I treat all numbs as "highest
possible need" and simply divide all numbers by 2 to obtain
"most likely" ?) GlueX is the driver for the next 18 months, so
I would especially like GlueX to scrub their disk and tape
data. <br>
<br>
Since FY15 is going to be tight (according to almost everyone),
I would really like to understand what you NEED vs what you want
"just in case", since over provisioning by a factor of 2 means
less money for Physics to do something else. </font><font
size="+1"><font size="+1">Please also clarify if all of the
numbers can be scaled with number of weeks of beam on target
(and tell me what your assumptions are for that). I.e. try to
separate the uncertainty of your estimation process from the
uncertainty in number of weeks of running.<br>
</font><br>
Please get this data back (or a first cut at it) to me within
two weeks as it is needed for planning for FY15. Please pass
this request along to whomever needs to be involved in this
process.<br>
<br>
thanks,<br>
Chip<br>
<br>
</font> <br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>