Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Storing CERN's Search for God (Particles)

Posted by Zonk on Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:19 PM
from the she-is-in-the-details-or-so-i'm-told dept.
Chris Lindquist writes "Think your storage headaches are big? When it goes live in 2008, CERN's ALICE experiment will use 500 optical fiber links to feed particle collision data to hundreds of PCs at a rate of 1GB/second, every second, for a month. 'During this one month, we need a huge disk buffer,' says Pierre Vande Vyvre, CERN's project leader for data acquisition. One might call that an understatement. CIO.com's story has more details about the project and the SAN tasked with catching the flood of data."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • News for Nerds! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KlomDark (6370) on Friday July 20 2007, @11:23PM (#19935573) Homepage Journal
    Wow! Actually geeky science news, not enough of that here lately!
    • by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Friday July 20 2007, @11:34PM (#19935629)
      Um...no. Actually, it's a product placement PR piece about Quantum's StorNext. (Read page 2...)
      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 21 2007, @12:55AM (#19935905)

        Um...no. Actually, it's a product placement PR piece about Quantum's StorNext. (Read page 2...)
        We knew there were some serious nerds on Slashdot, but to be potential customers for the same RAID system as CERN, whoa! :)
      • According to a guy that I met yesterday on the street (he was talking to himself or somebody) the only way I could meet God (and hopefully His particles) was through his son. WTF? Can't even *God* get a good secretary these days?
      • You may think of it as product placement, but I use it. I even provide the occasional blog entry [blogspot.com] on it on Advanced Topics. I sat through a RedHat performance tuning class that was quite excellent. But when they came to the part about ext3 and tuning it, well, let's face it - ext3 just isn't going to scale. I started with Veritas' Filesystem which is pretty nice. If you're a small-time admin, then you never get beyond a local, 4U disk array. Once your group spends more than US$2million on servers though, it's obvious what the problem is: Storage - The Final Frontier. SAN and clustered filesystems allow a level of scalability completely unheard of before.

        They also completely left out anything but a tagline of their multi-tiered solution. I wish they'd talked more about how CERN supports 500Gbit per second aggregate throughput to their disks (at least they implied that). 50GB/sec (or so) is probably the toughest I/O problem you've ever dealt with, or will deal with for a long time. Whose RAID controllers did they use? Did they focus on speed (ASIC and ISL minimization), availability (redundant fabrics), or both? Did each node get dual 4Gb links or just one?

        If this had been an advertisement, they would have discussed some 3.0 features like LAN clients.

        So, in short, it's easy to say it sounds like an advertisement. Quite possibly, Quantum (formerly ADIC) coerced them into getting the piece written. But if this had been an advertisement, there is so much more that is going on under the hood that would have been said. Large, fast, distributed filesystems are non-trivial and take an extreme amount of engineering and testing. StorNext really is good at what they claim to do.

        If you want to read about some of the drawbacks though, I yak about them on my blog [blogspot.com]. Sorry for the plug.

    • Re:News for Nerds! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by zeugma-amp (139862) on Friday July 20 2007, @11:36PM (#19935641) Homepage

      Interesting article.

      Many years ago when the SSC (Superconducting Super Collider) was still being built in Texas, I went to an HP users group meeting as I was working primarily with HP-3000 systems at the time. The fellow addressing the meeting was the head of the physics department at the SSC. It was a really neat presentation, in which he described a similar, though orders of magnitude smaller data storage requirement, though he was talking terabytes of data per month IIRC. At the time, they were planning on using two arrays of 40 workstation computers to handle the load. This would have been fairly early loosely coupled setup similar to a Beowulf cluster.

      After the presentation I went up to him and told him that all I wanted to do is sell him mag-tapes.

      These types of experiments evidently produce tons of data. I wonder if the processing could be parcelled out like Stanford's Folding@Home or SETI to speed up data correlations.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      ive often wondered if i could sneak into cern and just look around. i think the only two things you would need to do it would be a white lab coat and a really grizzled look on your face.

      i remember when i was under 18 i used to go to alot of places i wasnt allowed in just to check things out. i wasnt a malicious kid that would run around breaking things for fun, i just loved seeing various things that most people never see or think about, especially feats of engineering.

      when i turned 18 i looked back and was
      • Re:News for Nerds! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Rodolpho Zatanas (986694) on Saturday July 21 2007, @12:45AM (#19935855) Homepage
        From my experience, generic blue work clothes (preferably with your name on the breast pocket) work best. I once got into some research facility (they had lasers and everything) because I got out of the elevator on the wrong floor and some guy in a lab coat opened the door for me (I was wearing my work clothes because I was on my lunch break). I wandered about at the place for something like 10 minutes before I found a way out. There was even a security guy of some type sitting at a hallway but he lost interest in me after I looked him in the eye and said hello.
      • Re:News for Nerds! (Score:5, Informative)

        by xyvimur (268026) <koo3ahziNO@SPAMhulboj.org> on Saturday July 21 2007, @01:10AM (#19935971) Homepage
        Just go there and take a guided tour. If you'll hurry you'll be able to go to the detector pit and see it. Otherwise after starting up it will be inaccesible for visitors for the life-cycle of the experiments (10-20 years). Google for CERN visit service.

        Milosz [hulboj.org]
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      I'm not so sure about the "huge disk buffer". Smaller disks can be spun faster and tend to have lower latency. I'd like to see the drum drive make a comeback for disk cache...expensive, but fast!
  • If Only... (Score:4, Funny)

    by i_ate_god (899684) on Friday July 20 2007, @11:32PM (#19935613)
    If only I could get porn that fast

    there I said it, let's move on now.
  • 2,629,743 seconds in a month, so... 2,629,743 GB or 328,717 GB?

      It's too late to do math.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      2.6 Petabytes. The article says that they will be collecting petabytes of data. Also, the article clearly said GB. GB= Gigabyte Gb= Gigabit. The thing that I thought was "Wow that's ALOT of blinking lights!" Sweet!
      • Yeah that's why I was confused they had a big B but if you're talking network speed it's usually described in Gigabits, small b.

        "In total, the four experiments will generate petabytes of data."

          Divide at least 1 PB by four and you get 256 TB, I was close with 328 TB, so it must be Gigabits.
    • by this great guy (922511) on Saturday July 21 2007, @01:46AM (#19936089)

      Assuming a non-RAID 3x-replication tech solution (what Google do in their datacenters), using 500-GB disks (best $/GB ratio), they would need about 16 thousands disks:

      .001 (TB/sec) * 3600*24*30 (sec/month) * 3 (copies) * 2 (disk/TB) = 15552 disks

      Which would cost about $1.8M (disks alone):

      15552 (disk) * 110 ($/disk) = $1710720

      Packed in high-density chassis (48 disks in 4U, or 12 disks per rack unit), they could store this amount of data in about 30 racks:

      15552 (disk) / 12 (disk/rack unit) / 42 (rack unit/rack) = 30.9 racks

      Now for various reasons (vendors influence, inexperienced consultants, my experience in the IT world in general, etc), I have a feeling they are going to end up with a solution unnecessarily complex, much more expensive, and hard to maintain and expand... Damn, I would love to be this project leader !

  • based on 1GB/sec * ((3600 * 24) * 31) means over 2.5 Petabytes.
    Wow.
    Something like 3000 of the current ITB drives.
    How long until Exabyte level storage is required for some project or another?
  • FTL (Score:3, Funny)

    by unchiujar (1030510) on Saturday July 21 2007, @12:09AM (#19935771)
    "Due for operation in May 2008, the LHC is a 27-kilometer-long device designed to accelerate subatomic particles to ridiculous speeds, smash them into each other and then record the results."
    Next up ludicrous speed [wikipedia.org]!!! Better fasten your seat belts...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 21 2007, @12:11AM (#19935779)
    Hmm, lets see. ~2700 TB of data over one month. Let's store it on 500 GB drives. That's 5400 disk drives just to store the data. Add in the the extra drives for parity, and a few hundred hot spares, this thing could easily use OVER NINE THOUSAND drives.
    • by noggin143 (870087) on Saturday July 21 2007, @01:42AM (#19936065)
      We are expecting to record around 15PB / year during the LHC running. This data is stored onto magnetic tape with petabytes of disk cache to give reasonable performance. A grid of machines distributed worldwide analyses the data. More details are available on the CERN web site www.cern.ch.
    • How much is a 500Gb drive worth nowadays? 150$? So your OVER NINE THOUSAND drives are worth about, hum....1.35M$. CERN has a budget of about 5B$. It's the speed at which data is coming that's a problem. Not the total amount of data.
  • 1GB/s * 1 month = 1GB/s * 30 day/month * 24 hour/day * 3600s/hour = 2,592,000 GB.

    A big disk (Seagate ST3750640AS) is 750GB.

    324,000 GB / 750GB/disk = 3,456 disk.

    At AUD467 per disk this will cost AUD1,613,952 (plus computers+net). Even cheaper if you allow for the fact these are retail
    prices for wholesale quantities. Let's take the startup current of 2A@12V as the worst case power
    consumption and we end up with a maximum power of 83kW. That's less than 35 domestic heaters (2.4kW ea).

    Okay, it's not trivial s
  • 'During this one month, we need a huge disk buffer,' says Pierre Vande Vyvre, CERN's project leader for data acquisition. One might call that an understatement.
    I expect he referred to the problem of finding the God Particle as "distinctly non-trivial".
  • The network is one thing, but just processing that amount of data is incredible.

    200 computer breaks the 1GB chink into more manageable 5MB/Sec chinks of data, but then they still need to handle the metadata that figures out how to put it all back together. On top of this they'll need to have some redundancy in case of data loss, and how the load is redistributed if a machine croaks.

    These are good problems, it would be a fun system to work on.
  • Not So Huge (Score:5, Informative)

    by PenGun (794213) on Saturday July 21 2007, @01:45AM (#19936083) Homepage
    It's only 5x HD SDI single channel ~ 200MB/s. Any major studio could handle this with ease.

    SDI is how the movie guys move their digital stuff around. A higher end digital camera will capture at 2x HD SDI for a 2K res, 4:4:4 colour space. A few of em' and you got your 1GB/s easy. Spools onto godlike RAID arrays.

      Get em' to call up Warner Bros if they have problems.
  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Saturday July 21 2007, @02:52AM (#19936285)
    Just e-mail it all to Google. By then gMail should be able to handle that much per user.
  • by torako (532270) on Saturday July 21 2007, @03:01AM (#19936309) Homepage
    It's important to distinguish between the amount of data generated during an event right in the detector and the filtered data that in the end will be kept and saved on permanent storage. The ATLAS detector, for example, has a data rate in the order of terabits per sec during an event. There's a pretty sophisticated multi-level triggering system whose purpose it is to throw out most of that data (~98%) and only look for interesting events.

    Right now, the average event size for ATLAS is 1.6 MByte and the system is designed to keep around 200 events per second, or roughly 300 MByte. This isn't much of course, but you have to consider that the bunch crossing rate (i.e. the rate at which bunches of protons will collide and generate events) is 40 MHz.

    So you have to design a system that boils this rate from 40 MHz down to 200 Hz and only keeps the interesting parts, while also buffering all the data in the meantime. For this reason, the first trigger level is entirely implemented in hardware right in the detector and reduces the rate down to 75 KHz with a latency of 2.5 s. The rest of the trigger works on clusters using Linux computers and has a latency of o(1s).

  • by Roger W Moore (538166) on Saturday July 21 2007, @03:48AM (#19936423) Journal
    The ALICE experiment is actually concentrating on heavy ion collisions which is why they only worry mainly about one month/year, the rest of the time the machine is running protons for the other experiments, ATLAS and CMS, which will look for the Higgs. ALICE will hopefully study the quark gluon plasma but, as far as I know, has no plans to look for the Higgs.
  • by Mostly a lurker (634878) on Saturday July 21 2007, @07:26AM (#19937207)
    I assume they will want to have more than one copy of this for backup purposes. Here is my analysis on their choices. The total data to be backup up (for the month) is taken as a lazy 1 * 60 * 60 * 24 * 30 = 2,592,000 gigabytes
    • Printed hardcopy. Many authorities recommend this as you do not need to worry about changes in data formats over time. For exact calculation, we would need to know the font they were planning to use and the character encoding. However, let's take a working assumption that they can cram 10KB of data onto an A4 sheet. That implies 259,200,000,000,000 pages. They will probably not want to use an inkjet printer if they use this solution and may, indeed, choose to acquire multiple printers and split the load. A single printer at 10 ppm would take approximately 50,000 years to complete the backup. On 70gm paper, it would weigh a little over two million tons. At any rate, this would certainly produce reams of output.
    • Diskettes. This was good enough for nearly everyone 15 years ago. It is curious that such a tried and trusted technique is no longer in fashion. I assume regular 3.5" 1.44MB diskettes, generally recognised as easier to handle than 5.25". We shall need around 1,800,000,000 diskettes. One drawback is the person changing the diskettes as each one filled up might become a little bored after a while. On the positive side, the backup will be quite a lot faster than the printed solution. Assuming about one diskette per minute, inclusive of changing disks, the backup could be complete in less than 3,500 years.
    • Now considered somewhat old fashioned, punch cards were once a mainstay of every programmer's personal backups. Like printed hardcopy, anyone familiar with the character encoding used, could read the data without needing any access to a computer. If we assume 80 column cards, we would need 32,400,000,000,000 cards. I would be somewhat concerned about the problem of getting this stack of cards back in the correct order if I dropped it. With a weight of about 30 million tons and stretching perhaps 6 million miles end to end, handling certainly would be challenging and an accident very possible.
    • Paper (punched) tape was the only alternative on the first computer I used, a basic early model Elliott 803 without the optional magnetic tape. If I recall correctly, you could manage about 10 characters per inch, so you would need a paper tape over 4,000,000,000 miles long. Hmmm, that would be silly. The other solutions are clearly better.
    I am sure other options will be considered, but I just wanted to bring these up in case CERN had failed to consider them
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually their plan is to store all that data on Commodore 64 cassette tapes.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      Actually, there really is a gigantic room at CERN full of commodity PCs that form the first level of computing for the different experiments. The data is then shipped off to sites around the world for further processing. There is a combination of 'locally' distributed computing and world-wide grid being used.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      A standared dual CPU dual core HP server with Windows can keep a 4Gb FC pretty full if set up correctly. I work for a large bank, and we have many a Solaris box that can keep 4 or even 8 2Gb FC cards full into our FC and SATA disk arrays. Not to trivialize the extreme coolness of what they are doing at all, but a PB of data with a few PB of I/O in a day isn't what it used to be. I'm just glad to see they don't use Polyserve, it is worthless for clustering and has caused more downtime at work than it has
    • Even so, this is a big project. If they're projecting 1GB/sec for a month, even if they use the latest massive hard drives (1TB) they'll still need around 3000 of them. Presumably they won't need them all online full time, I'd imagine they'll use some sort of hot swapping. Still, that's a lot of data.
    • Considering the Creationist versus Science debate that would be be quite a hoot! Irony at it's best, Science discovers God.
    • Well, they could find pink invisible unicorns as well. What then?
    • With a God Particle generator, wouldn't you *generate* God? Wouldn't that be a hoot?!?
    • Im going to assume, for the sake of charity, that you are being facetious, and know that what is called the "god particle" has nothing whatsoever to do with god as the word is usually understood (as an invisible sky wizard). The higgs particle is only called the god particle as a joke by physicists to emphasize how awesome finding it would be. Once upon a time I was bothered by that, because I thought it was confusing for no good reason, but now I see it as a kind of intelligence test.
    • The physicists don't really want to find god, it's just the only way they can get research funding under the bush administration.
    • Finding God (Score:4, Funny)

      by Mark_MF-WN (678030) on Saturday July 21 2007, @04:11AM (#19936511)
      Don't worry -- the products of particle accelerators only exist for a few picoseconds. If God is created during a collision event, he will wink out of existence so fast that we'll only become aware of his presence by the shower of Mormonions and PatRobertsonite particles impinging on the detection apparatus.
      • Find God? which one? Zeus? The Muslim god? The christian god? Dagon? Thor? Endovelicus? The Spaguetti monster? Santa Claus? The tooth fairy?

        Geez, haven't you been paying any attention to physics for the last fifty years? Just as atoms (or protons, neutrons and electrons) can be used to create any kind of matter, so the God particle can be used to create any kind of god. Once they isolate the God particle, they'll be able to create a god who actually likes science. Or create a god who isn't always short

    • Not only did the Slashdot editor not catch a spelling mistake, he apparently didn't catch the fact that the linked article is an advertisement from CXO Media [cxo.com], which, according to its web site, mixes articles and advertisements: "Through our integrated media and marketing programs we provide..."

      From the linked article [cio.com]: "... the team is using Quantum's StorNext software as its file system..."

      Question: Did a Slashdot editor get paid directly for running an advertisement disguised as an article? Or was someone in Slashdot's parent company paid "under the table"? Or did the parent company get paid?

      Anyone wanting to read a real article from 2005 about CERN's data handling, data storage, and data processing can download this PDF file: Grid Computing: The European Data Grid Project [web.cern.ch].

      Real articles begin this way: "The computing challenges for LHC are: * the massive computational capacity required for analysis of the data and * the volume of data to be processed."

      Advertisements begin by talking about God and murder, this way (from the article linked by Slashdot): "CERN's Search for God (Particles)..."

      and "Maybe you last read about CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) and its massive particle accelerators in Angels & Demons by Dan Brown of The Da Vinci Code fame. In that book, the lead character travels to the cavernous research institute on the border of France and Switzerland to help investigate a murder."
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I think the correct word, considering the meaning, is "caching".

      No, I believe the word was catching. As in:
      They're throwing all this data at me and I gotta catch it.
    • ./go.sh | bzip2 > results.bz2 Problem solved!


      No. No, my friend; you do not grasp the scale of this project.
       
      ./go.sh | bzip2 | bzip2 > results.bz2