Benedikt Hegner showed 6 slides.

Frank Wuerthwein:  Go where the money is. KNL will be relevant in the US. For CMS Reconstruction will be the most cpu intensive data processing activity, and of that Tracking is the biggest part

Marco Cattaneo: C++14 is coming, we all need to become familiar and develop expertise, need for common support

Michel Jouvin  : HSF TN’s were started in order to address this, so that expertise can be shared

Mattias Wadenstein : easier to deal with small projects; validation - use state of the art compilers, haven’t done anything yet on behalf of the entire community

Fons Rademakers :

Benedikt Hegner :

Ian Bird :

Danilo Piparo : we need to build a matrix of costs, for example see what we are prepared to give up; one example is precision, floating point give up IEEE performance

Liz Sexton-Kennedy : we have one person to do it for the experiment, this is a fundable model, have developer and user work closely together to achieve results

Latchezar Betev : for simulation code is focused in one place, therefore optimisation can be done for whole community, surprised more emphasis has not been given to this in the discussion

Marco Cattaneo :

Stefan Roiser : try to involve SE institutes - those close to our physics depts. and collaborate with computer scientists; in LHCb we need to change our framework and in particular the data model in order to exploit vectorisation for example, currently we are not using SIMD

Ian Bird: there are ways of giving recognition (see mail thread that was circulating earlier this year; idea is to look at code that is accessed/used in git repositories such that articles can reference what has been used in a piece of work, this allows developers to build their CVs

Danilo Piparo:

Benedikt Hegner : yes we need physicists for validating impact on physics results, but this shouldn’t prevent us for being outward-looking and learning from other fields, there is a place for non-physicists and this will help us to avoid re-inventing the wheel

Miron Livny : From experience, solutions owned by experiment(s) don’t become common, only solutions that are owned outside the experiments have a good chance to become common solutions.

Liz Sexton-Kennedy : Disagrees. Frontier and xrootd were solutions that grew out of a single experiment (CDF, BaBar). The solution has to be proven to work at scale for somebody before it is accepted by another. Common solutions need to be open source because it increases the trust between developers from different organizations.

 

Jeff :

Oxana : we need to lower the threashold for invoving non-physicists who would like to help

Frank Wuerthwein : If I look in CMS, the biggest contribution to tracking came from 5 people, 3 of whom have permanent jobs; I’d suggest that physicists have a harder time becoming permanent

Benedikt Hegner :

 

note taker :    John Harvey