GridPP PMB Minutes 368 (23.11.09) ================================= Present: David Britton (Chair), Sarah Pearce, Andrew Sansum, Tony Doyle, Jeremy Coles, Pete Clarke, Steve Lloyd, Roger Jones, Robin Middleton, John Gordon, David Kelsey, Tony Cass, Glenn Patrick, Dave Colling, Neil Geddes (Suzanne Scott, Minutes) Apologies: None 1. Required Discussion Papers ============================== DB had circulated an email detailing discussion papers required in relation to the forthcoming Imperial College F2F, and the GridPP4 proposal, as follows: 1. NGI Interface. DB 2. Tier-2 Structure. DB 3. Project Management in GridPP4. SP 4. Economic Impact, Knowledge Exchange and Dissemination. SP It was noted that papers 1-4 were either extant, or were in progress. 5. Hardware Requirements. DB/AS DB noted that for hardware, he needed to discuss this with AS but required experiment input. GP noted he could provide info later this week. DC and RJ would also need to provide input. ACTION 368.15 GP, DC & RJ to provide experiment input to DB/AS for 'Hardware Requirements' initial document for discussion at Imperial, which DB/AS would prepare. 6. Tier-1 Role and Requirements. AS/DB DB noted that a Tier-1 document had to define requirements and manpower distribution in GridPP4. This had to be an internal and external view. AS could provide content for the F2F. Information required comprised services/manpower/responsibilities/roles etc. It didn't need to be a 'polished' document, but the information had to be available. 7. Technical (Middleware) Support. TD TD noted he would provide this document ok. 8. Deployment Support. JC DB advised that APEL and GOCDB were now in the NGI area, but other issues relating to dTeam and deployment had to be addressed. JC would do this ok. DB advised that the paper should show how the dTeam would operate, and how deployment would operate in relation to the Tier-2 Co-ordinators/relating to EGI/and site admins. The exact final structure might not make too much difference to this, so JC should address the issues. 9. Experiment Support. GP DB noted that this paper related to the experiment support posts at the Tier-1, and we should note the brief from STFC on defining the boundaries between generic and experiment-specific support. GP noted he could do something as a starting point, but would need more input. 10. Cloud Computing. TD TD noted he would provide info - he had already received lots of inputs from people. DB advised that a few points needed extracted, rather than providing urls. 11. Financial Planning. SP It was noted that evolving financial planning was required - and policy needed. SP would work on this. DB asked if any other areas needed to be covered? No. Initial informal papers should be provided in advance of the upcoming F2F so that they could be discussed. At the F2F we needed to be in a position to conclude those discussions and move onto the writing phase. Full list of actions are noted below. 2. Tier-2 Structure ==================== DB had circulated an initial document, which had generated an email discussion. Were there comments? DC advised that for CMS, the priority was (in addition to the Tier-1) a good, functioning, and reliable Tier-2 infrastructure. It was noted that they needed 2 x FTE level of effort per site, to ensure reliability. RJ agreed. LHCb was less reliant on the Tier-2. GP confirmed they weren't too bothered where the CPU was, as long as they had it, but he noted that Sysadmin support was still required if there were problems, although the support was likely to be dictated by ATLAS and CMS requirements. SL commented that the experiments were rightly pushing for more compact resources and manpower. A long discussion followed, about how to optimise the Tier-2 manpower such that a high quality of service could be provided, and at the same time keeping as much as possible in terms of distributed support and site engagement. The discussion was brought to a close after 45 mins. DB felt that he had sufficient input to further develop the ideas circulated earlier in the Tier-2 discussion paper. Specifically, it was clear that a concrete and defendable rationale was needed for the proposed Tier-2 infrastructure. This would need to be presented to the CB on December 11th. 3. Project Management ====================== SP had circulated a paper. There were five areas to address: Quarterly Reports, Project Map, Financial reporting, Risk Register, Financial planning (including hardware). The main decision would be on quarterly reporting and how we do this, bearing in mind the admin burden and the timescales involved. Were there any comments? DB noted the trade-off: responsibility to the OC as against the time-consuming nature of the reporting. PC asked whether we believed the quarterly reporting actually correlated with delivery on the ground? He doubted that it ever had any effect on delivery. DB advised that it was invaluable when people weren't performing - the paper trail was needed at that point. PC felt this was not sufficient reason to maintain it - it was too much input for a minority use, and he was generally against it. DC noted that some form of reporting was required, but it was too heavy as it stood and a lot of time was spent on it. It could take up to a day and a half per quarter of Duncan's time. SP commented that the Tier-2 Co-ordinators have most reporting to do. DB asked DC what information being refined was of importance? Were some things important to document? DC would come back to him with thoughts/suggestions. RJ commented that the metrical information was more required than other things, but we needed to know the experiment performance per site, therefore reporting in general was useful. The quarterly reporting less so. DB noted that PMB feedback to SP was required - we had to plan for project management generally for GridPP4 re reporting to the OC and STFC, but the reporting should also be useful to the experiments - a minimal format was required. RJ noted that automated metrics would be useful. AS thought the quarterly reporting to be a lot of work but quite useful - the challenge was to ensure that it reflected the operational aspect of the service - milestones vs metrics. JC agreed. The experiment metrics could be improved. TD suggested that someone could be appointed with oversight that had a position at the experiments and also at the sites - the experiments didn't use these reports for project management. AS thought the metrics should be tied-into something that the experiments measured. DB concluded that it would be good not to have the quarterly reports, but, rather, a project with limited milestones to be tracked, which the Project Manager had oversight of individually - the remainder of the project info could be gathered automatically via the dashboard - this would help both experiments and sites. DC agreed that this would be a good model. AS noted that it was the process of review, however, that did generate opinions and this was also useful - auto- generated info was often not analysed. Comments should be sent to SP. 4. Quarterly Reporting Review ============================== SP had circulated an email. SP went through the issues set out in the email relating to the quarterly reports - citing red metrics etc. There was a discussion regarding incidents at the Tier-1. DB advised that with any incident, the Tier-1 should give a reasonable current estimate for downtime, and let users know. AS agreed, noting that an estimate of over-run downtime would also be useful in comparison with the estimate. DB noted that an under-run of downtime might also apply. AS would iterate with Gareth re downtime action. ACTION 368.14 AS to iterate with Gareth in relation to actions required for downtime communications. 5. Week's Notes ================ Tier-2 Hardware Grants ---------------------- SP had circulated an email from Trish Mullins. New JeS forms were required due to staff leaving and lack of records at STFC. It was noted that there was an ATLAS CB meeting this afternoon - convergence (or otherwise) of the Tier-2 hardware grants would be announced then. Multi-user Pilot Jobs --------------------- JG confirmed he had sent a draft paper to Ian Bird. DB asked whether JG could impress upon him the urgency of both a statement and policy? No statement had been sent round as yet. DB suggested JG let Ian Bird have a copy of the site statement positions on this issue contained within JC's email, in relation to UK action. JG would follow this up urgently. 6. AOB ======= LHCb & ATLAS workshops ---------------------- Requests had been received from both LHCb & ATLAS for workshop contributions to cost from GridPP. DB advised that: 1. LHCb cost at Ł85 per night at Cambridge was too steep. 2. For ATLAS no breakdown of people had been provided. DB noted that ATLAS had asked for Ł6k and LHCb Ł5.5k. These costs were disproportionate to the GridPP Collaboration Meeting costs therefore it was not reasonable to subsidise them at that level. DB proposed support in conjunction with experiments providing joing funding at a level of Ł45-50 per night for accommodation plus a small sum for peripherals. Ł50.00 per head was considered reasonable. DB asked for views? It was agreed to set the level per head of contribution from GridPP to be up to Ł80.00 per head, which included accommodation (1-night) and peripherals, with a cap at about Ł3k. Where possible, a single Invoice was to be sent to RM. STANDING ITEMS ============== SI-1 Tier-1 Manager's Report ----------------------------- AS reported as follows: Fabric: 1) Lot 2 of disk servers have failed acceptance. In consultation with our procurement team, our supplier has provided us with a detailed testing/recovery plan to resolve the problems by the end of November. Supplier has two configurations that have been found to work under testing. Expect to decide solution to re-deploy this Friday. If re-deployment is successful we would expect hardware to emerge from certification in around mid-february (possibly earlier if re-deployment is low impact intervention). 2) New procurements have started. - Disk ITT has closed and evaluation is complete. Standstill has ended - order likely to be placed today or tomorrow. - CPU tender is closed and evaluation is complete. Standstill has started. 3) Procurement is underway for an additional 4*1Gb/s second OPN link to CERN as resiliant backup. (No update) 4) The UPS room supply causes instability on our EMC RAID arraus. We are working on schedules that lead to a short downtime on 5th January to move services back to the EMC units, either on clean LPD room power or on fixed UPS room power. We will need two "at risk" interventions in the next 3 weeks. The first ASAP to test the UPS bypass (was scheduled last week but had to be cancelled. The second to bypass the UPS and correct the problem. We will need to negotiate on best possible dates for these interventions. 5) A rolling upgrade to deploy new Linux kernel is mainly complete, but still need to do disk servers. Service: 1) SAM availability for the OPS VO was 100%. The weekend's operations were smooth with no callouts. Weekly production report is at: https://www.gridpp.ac.uk/wiki/RAL_Tier1_Experiments_Liaison_Meeting_Oper ations_Reports 2) Still problem where sometimes batch jobs land on the wrong node. Continue to be investigated. A test cluster has been set up. 3) There was a problem within Castor Disk-to-Disk copies for LHCb from the LHCbUser Service Class. We are still investigating but as we believe this is not a required feature for LHCB it is being treated as a low priority. SI-2 ATLAS weekly review & plans --------------------------------- RJ reported they were running well with only minor problems. SI-3 CMS weekly review & plans ------------------------------- DC had nothing to report. SI-4 LHCb weekly review & plans -------------------------------- GP reported as follows: Operations: 1. Intermittent SQLite NFS locking problem at RAL. GGUS ticket 53472 submitted and ongoing. 2. First proton data (beam gas and splash) for 2009 taken and was reconstructed at RAL and CNAF on Sunday. Now have 5 DST files replicated to all T1 sites (+CERN). Outlook: 3. Data from beam collisions? 4. Intermittent productions and user analysis SI-5 Production Manager's Report --------------------------------- JC reported as follows: 1) On the subject of multi-user pilot jobs. I had responses from each of the experiments (see below – I did not check with ALICE as they were not mentioned in the discussion last week (see action)) that confirmed that these types of jobs are now routinely running. This was discussed with GridPP site administrators on Thursday at the monthly UKI meeting. The general position seems to be that sites will continue supporting this type of work (is there any choice at this stage) BUT: i) The WLCG MB must clarify in a statement what is expected. The work violates the Grid Acceptable Use Policy and if sites do not take action they are in effect ignoring the grid policies. Either the policy must change or a period of “special approved” running is declared. WLCG and the experiments must formally indicate that the consequences of running in this manner are accepted and the timescale for which it will take place. ii) The MB statement (expected on Tuesday 24th)will be circulated to sites (via public lists) as soon as possible so that university/site security officers can be informed of the change. In some cases this may mean that the site has to respond by asking for the jobs not to be run on their site. iii) Information must be published indicating how sites can request mappings (held in the experiment job submission systems) for any specific job running on their site. The SL5 WN release with glexec (the holding factor for site testing) appears to have now passed certification, as has ARGUS. 2) The EGEE operational security team have indicated that sites not applying the latest kernel updates or implementing the workarounds will face suspension with 7 days warning that this will happen. One GridPP site could potentially be affected. 3) At the UKI meeting on Thursday we asked sites to please: - Avoid downtimes & upgrades that are not absolutely required (check if unsure) - Keep a close eye on the main test result pages - Respond to tickets quickly - Keep a close eye on the various lists for information relevant to your site - Raise (appropriate) problems for community support rather than take longer by trying to solve it locally - Share (especially user) problems and issues with other sites (via the mailing lists) Site availability over the last week has been fair at 93% overall from SAM ops and (97% for last 24hrs); 96% for ATLAS SAM tests; 99% for CMS SAM tests (main CMS sites only); and 95% for LHCb SAM tests (most sites are 100% with UCL and ECDF at 0%). No major issues were brought up at the meeting on Thursday. Also, the WLCG T2 report for October has been released: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewfile/LCG/SamMbReports?filename=Tier2_ Reliab_200910.pdf. The London Tier-2 is the only concern with 77% for availability and reliability. Only Brunel made it above 85% in either area. QMUL had Lustre, NFS and hardware issues. IC had problems with their SE. RHUL was affected by a site-BDII being unavailable. It should be noted that EGEE recently agreed that a site getting less than 70% for availability in three consecutive months should be suspended. 3.1) Meanwhile only about 40% of GridPP sites have (completely) moved to SL5 WNs. Several of the remaining sites now indicate a timeline that takes them into 2010. In contrast all but two sites are now at the recommended SRM versions. 4) We move to regular (biweekly or as required) combined deployment team and site meetings from next week. This allows for faster and more direct follow up on site issues and experiment requests at this important time. 5) David Wallom (NGS) has asked about support for a new site (Sussex) who wish to deploy gLite. The site is already known to SouthGrid. He also asked about GridPP site affiliation with NGS. Three sites remain unaffiliated: UCL, Cambridge and RALPPD. SI-6 LCG Management Board Report --------------------------------- There was no meeting. REVIEW OF ACTIONS ================= 348.2 JC to investigate whether the decrease in job success rate metric in the last quarter is due to time-outs at busy sites or due to job-aborts due to incorrectly setup environments. This was still in progress - DB noted that the next Quarterly Reports will help and possibly render the action redundant. SP asked that this remain open until the next Quarterly Reports. 354.2 JC to consult with site admins on a framework policy for releases, with a mechanism for escalation, plus a mechanism for monitoring. 358.1 SP to work with the working group on the following issues in relation to GridPP/NGS convergence: 1. identify Institutes 2. identify manpower 3. decide who is bidding for what - a draft transition plan would be made available by the end of the year; GridPP4 requirements would also be considered. SP was waiting on the Working Group to reply to her. SP reported there had been an email exchange and she had sent suggestions on how to move forward. JC had met with Andy Richards at RAL. One of the issues was uncertainty in relation to funding - SP needed more detail re resources and options for the future, also for EGEE-funded manpower at present and what we have signed up to in NGI. She was awaiting a response. DB noted that NG was trying to understand the proposals and the funding fractions. In defining GridPP4 we needed to define these posts and responsibilities. JC noted that JG had suggested going through the EGI proposal document for info. 359.4 JC to follow up dTeam actions from the DB, as follows: --------------------------- 05.02 dTeam to try and sort out CPU shares and priority resources, at Glasgow first (perhaps by raising the job priority in Panda). --------------------------- JC would check the situation with Graeme Stewart (who was currently on annual leave). 361.3 JC and AS to check Tier-1 and Tier-2 gstat2 results (in relation to SL5 having been discussed at the GDB). JC reported that he had checked this, but information from AS was still awaited. JC noted that there were issues with the results. JC noted that the action as worded was done weeks ago. It is an ongoing deployment team action on the Tier-2 coordinators to get the information corrected. JC action done. AS still to respond. 366.2 RJ to provide ATLAS HW requirements for 2011-15. RJ & DC had a preliminary discussion - they need to agree common profile, even if it is flat cash. 366.3 DC to provide CMS HW requirements for 2011-15. In progress. 366.4 GP to provide LHCn HW reqiremens for 2011-15. GP had started this. DB noted he needed the numbers for hardware costings and needed something soon to begin work. The deadline was 2 weeks for prelim. numbers. AS would look at them as well. 366.5 SL/DB to estimate what fraction of STFC funding goes to non-LHC groups. What about the theory side? 366.6 GP to invite input from Other Experiments. 366.7 DB (in consultation with AS) to provide HW-cost estimates for 2011 - 2015. DB was awaiting inputs. 366.8 AS to confirm that the Tier-1 proposes to use Tape-based storage in the period 2011 - 2015. AS noted this depended on money costs. DB advised this related to long-term plans and power capacity. Physical footprint space? Alternatives? Early action on AS required. AS had sent tech questions round the team and would forward inputs when available. DC noted to the meeting that today was the 16th Nov - only 4 weeks remained until Imperial, by which time we needed to have made extensive progress. 366.9 RJ to confirm that ATLAS supports the use of Tape storage in the period 2011-2015. RJ noted they had a belief in the archival work but the cost was to be provided by the provider. Tape would have a front-end staging system. DB asked whether they might want to move to another model? We should not assume that tape will do. A statement was required. 366.10 DC to confirm that CMS supports the use of Tape storage in the period 2011-2015. 366.11 GP to confirm that LHCb supports the use of Tape storage in the period 2011-2015. 366.12 SP to liaise with AS to establish non-capacity costs. SP advised that discussions had started. DB noted a long-term question about the model. 366.13: SP to request and collect first cost estimates of posts for GridPP4. FEC and non-FEC posts need to be costed. The Tier-1 posts should be costed as accurately as possible as soon as possible since there is a large lever arm here. 366.14 DK to provide first estimate of average RAL post cost on the basis of the current distribution of posts/grades. Clearly this will need refinement once we understand the final mix better. DK had already started this and would have estimates later this week. 367.1 ALL: to send email responses/thoughts to DB, or to the list, on NGI issues discussed. 367.2 RM to fill-in the grey boxes on DB's UK NGI diagram of a minimal NGI, as to what NGS would be doing in the areas listed. 367.3 JG to contact Ian Bird directly, immediately, and ask for a clear formal statement in relation to multi-user pilot-jobs by the experiments. This formal statement was required immediately - we could not wait for this issue to be brought up at the next MB. 367.4 JC to contact Phillipe Charpentier (LHCb); Dario (ATLAS); Matthias and Claudio (CMS) and elicit formal, clear, statements from the experiments in relation to their current intentions/activities re multi-user pilot-jobs. Clear formal statements were required before information was to be sent round the community. Done, action closed. 367.5 DB to send formal information round the community re multi-user pilot- jobs, once clear statements had been received from Ian Bird (via JG) and the experiments (via JC). 367.6 RJ to submit a proposal to the PMB for funding assistance for the next ATLAS tutorial. ACTIONS AS AT 23.11.09 ====================== 348.2 JC to investigate whether the decrease in job success rate metric in the last quarter is due to time-outs at busy sites or due to job-aborts due to incorrectly setup environments. This was still in progress - DB noted that the next Quarterly Reports will help and possibly render the action redundant. SP asked that this remain open until the next Quarterly Reports. JC noted this is not possible to complete because the tests themselves were not valid for a period during Q3 and also the start of Q4. 354.2 JC to consult with site admins on a framework policy for releases, with a mechanism for escalation, plus a mechanism for monitoring. JC reported that the consultation happened. There were a few suggestions in the deployment team about how to progress in this area. It needs writing up and an implementation plan. 358.1 SP to work with the working group on the following issues in relation to GridPP/NGS convergence: 1. identify Institutes 2. identify manpower 3. decide who is bidding for what - a draft transition plan would be made available by the end of the year; GridPP4 requirements would also be considered. SP was waiting on the Working Group to reply to her. SP reported there had been an email exchange and she had sent suggestions on how to move forward. JC had met with Andy Richards at RAL. One of the issues was uncertainty in relation to funding - SP needed more detail re resources and options for the future, also for EGEE-funded manpower at present and what we have signed up to in NGI. She was awaiting a response. DB noted that NG was trying to understand the proposals and the funding fractions. In defining GridPP4 we needed to define these posts and responsibilities. JC noted that JG had suggested going through the EGI proposal document for info. 359.4 JC to follow up dTeam actions from the DB, as follows: --------------------------- 05.02 dTeam to try and sort out CPU shares and priority resources, at Glasgow first (perhaps by raising the job priority in Panda). --------------------------- JC would check the situation with Graeme Stewart (who was currently on annual leave). JC followed up with Graeme and the other experiments. A test was started but this area has been deemed low priority and further progress is not expected for some time. ATLAS see no issues with contention. LHCb are not intending to pursue anything in this area. A CMS discussion has started but again it does not appear to be urgent. If the experiments are not pushing this internally then there is nothing for the deployment team to follow up! 361.3 JC and AS to check Tier-1 and Tier-2 gstat2 results (in relation to SL5 having been discussed at the GDB). JC reported that he had checked this, but information from AS was still awaited. JC noted that there were issues with the results. JC noted that the action as worded was done weeks ago. It is an ongoing deployment team action on the Tier-2 coordinators to get the information corrected. JC action done. AS still to respond. 366.2 RJ to provide ATLAS HW requirements for 2011-15. RJ & DC had a preliminary discussion - they need to agree common profile, even if it is flat cash. 366.3 DC to provide CMS HW requirements for 2011-15. In progress. 366.4 GP to provide LHCn HW reqiremens for 2011-15. GP had started this. DB noted he needed the numbers for hardware costings and needed something soon to begin work. The deadline was 2 weeks for prelim. numbers. AS would look at them as well. 366.5 SL/DB to estimate what fraction of STFC funding goes to non-LHC groups. What about the theory side? 366.6 GP to invite input from Other Experiments. 366.7 DB (in consultation with AS) to provide HW-cost estimates for 2011 - 2015. DB was awaiting inputs. 366.8 AS to confirm that the Tier-1 proposes to use Tape-based storage in the period 2011 - 2015. AS noted this depended on money costs. DB advised this related to long-term plans and power capacity. Physical footprint space? Alternatives? Early action on AS required. AS had sent tech questions round the team and would forward inputs when available. DC noted to the meeting that today was the 16th Nov - only 4 weeks remained until Imperial, by which time we needed to have made extensive progress. 366.9 RJ to confirm that ATLAS supports the use of Tape storage in the period 2011-2015. RJ noted they had a belief in the archival work but the cost was to be provided by the provider. Tape would have a front-end staging system. DB asked whether they might want to move to another model? We should not assume that tape will do. A statement was required. 366.10 DC to confirm that CMS supports the use of Tape storage in the period 2011-2015. 366.11 GP to confirm that LHCb supports the use of Tape storage in the period 2011-2015. 366.12 SP to liaise with AS to establish non-capacity costs. SP advised that discussions had started. DB noted a long-term question about the model. 366.13: SP to request and collect first cost estimates of posts for GridPP4. FEC and non-FEC posts need to be costed. The Tier-1 posts should be costed as accurately as possible as soon as possible since there is a large lever arm here. 366.14 DK to provide first estimate of average RAL post cost on the basis of the current distribution of posts/grades. Clearly this will need refinement once we understand the final mix better. DK had already started this and would have estimates later this week. 367.1 ALL: to send email responses/thoughts to DB, or to the list, on NGI issues discussed. 367.2 RM to fill-in the grey boxes on DB's UK NGI diagram of a minimal NGI, as to what NGS would be doing in the areas listed. 367.3 JG to contact Ian Bird directly, immediately, and ask for a clear formal statement in relation to multi-user pilot-jobs by the experiments. This formal statement was required immediately - we could not wait for this issue to be brought up at the next MB. 367.5 DB to send formal information round the community re multi-user pilot- jobs, once clear statements had been received from Ian Bird (via JG) and the experiments (via JC). 367.6 RJ to submit a proposal to the PMB for funding assistance for the next ATLAS tutorial. 368.1 DB to circulate an initial informal paper on NGI Interface in advance of the upcoming F2F in order to form a basis for further discussion. 368.2 DB to circulate an initial informal paper on Tier-2 Structure in advance of the upcoming F2F in order to form a basis for further discussion. 368.3 SP to circulate an initial informal paper on Project Management in GridPP4 in advance of the upcoming F2F in order to form a basis for further discussion. 368.4 SP to circulate an initial informal paper on Economic Impact, Knowledge Exchange and Dissemination in advance of the upcoming F2F in order to form a basis for further discussion. 368.5 DB/AS to circulate an initial informal paper on Hardware Requirements in advance of the upcoming F2F in order to form a basis for further discussion. 368.6 AS/DB to circulate an initial informal paper on Tier-1 Role and Requirements in advance of the upcoming F2F in order to form a basis for further discussion. 368.7 TD to circulate an initial informal paper on Technical (Middleware) Support in advance of the upcoming F2F in order to form a basis for further discussion. 368.8 JC to circulate an initial informal paper on Deployment Support in advance of the upcoming F2F in order to form a basis for further discussion. 368.9 GP to circulate an initial informal paper on Experiment Support in advance of the upcoming F2F in order to form a basis for further discussion. 368.10 TD to circulate an initial informal paper on Cloud Computing in advance of the upcoming F2F in order to form a basis for further discussion. 368.11 SP to circulate an initial informal paper on Financial Planning in advance of the upcoming F2F in order to form a basis for further discussion. 368.12 ALL: comments on Tier-2 structure to be sent to DB. 368.13 ALL: comments on Project Management to be sent to SP. 368.14 AS to iterate with Gareth in relation to actions required for downtime communications. 368.15 GP, DC & RJ to provide experiment input to DB/AS for 'Hardware Requirements' initial document for discussion at Imperial, which DB/AS would prepare. The next PMB would take place on Monday 30th November at 12:55 pm. SL noted that the next CB meeting would take place on Friday 11 December, by phone.