Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l - Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] [Usatlas-hllhc-management-l] [External] FW: questions

usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: U.S. ATLAS HL-LHC Upgrade Level 2 and Deputies-NSF only Management Mailing List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Zhang, Jinlong" <zhangjl AT anl.gov>
  • To: Elliot Lipeles <lipeles AT hep.upenn.edu>
  • Cc: Mark Kruse <mkruse AT phy.duke.edu>, "usatlas-hllhc-management-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <usatlas-hllhc-management-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, "usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net>
  • Subject: Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] [Usatlas-hllhc-management-l] [External] FW: questions
  • Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 19:17:28 +0000

Hi Elliot,

>
> On the alternatives, there has been a lot of progress on the CPU-base
> tracking which makes it at least plausible now, but I think there are still
> space and power challenges there. This requires abandoning the evolution
> option. They would need to come up with a lot of money (similar to HTT) for
> hardware.
>
According the study, space and power is not a problem, money wise is not even
close to HTT. The working group document is in progress. So maybe safer not
to make statements on these, but just say technology wise this is plausible.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page