An analysis of data transfer issues From GRIF‐LAL and IN2P3‐LPC to TOKYO

An analysis of data transfer issuesFrom GRIF LAL and IN2P3 LPC to TOKYO‐ ‐

Tomoaki NakamuraICEPP, University of TOKYO

2012/8/7 Tomoaki Nakamura ICEPP, Univ. of Tokyo 1


from Feb. 2012 to Jun. 2012

GRIF-LAL → TOKYO IN2P3-LCP → TOKYO

Problems in transfers from GRIF-LAL and IN2P3-LPC to TOKYO.

Timeout occurs occasionally for files bigger than 1 GB.

Such hotspots affect smooth data distribution in FR-cloud, since DDM assumes uniform connectivity in a cloud.

This problems have already indicated in,

https://savannah.cern.ch/bugs/?90998

Data transfer matrix in FR-cloud




Transfer from GRIF-LAL to TOKYO (file size: 1GB) , reference LYON

Transfer from TOKYO to GRIF-LAL (file size: 1GB) , reference LYON

http://www.icepp.jp/monitor/transferspeed/　Data are collected by daily test transfer (file size is 1GB) between storages using the “lcg-rep” with 10 streams.

Plots are shown since Dec. 2011.

For the transfer from GRIF-LAL to TOKYO, almost of data points indicate very slow rate except for some points.

For the transfer from TOKYO to GRIF-LAL, basically no problem even as compared to LYON.

2012/8/7 3Tomoaki Nakamura ICEPP, Univ. of Tokyo

http://www.icepp.jp/monitor/transferspeed/

http://www.icepp.jp/monitor/transferspeed/

Transfer from IN2P3-LPC to TOKYO (file size: 1GB) reference LYON

Transfer from TOKYO to IN2P3-LPC (file size: 1GB) reference LYON

Data are collected by same way with GRIF-LAL.

For the transfer from IN2P3-LPC to TOKYO, the transfer rate is not always so bad and much better than the case of GRIF-LAL. However, it is very unstable basically.

For the transfer from TOKYO to IN2P3-LPC, it seems no problem similar to the case for the transfer from TOKYO to GRIF-LAL.

2012/8/7 4Tomoaki Nakamura ICEPP, Univ. of Tokyo


Transfer from GRIF-LAL to TOKYO (file size: 50MB)

← no data →

← no data →

~ Dec. 20, 2011

Transfer from IN2P3-LPC to TOKYO (file size: 50MB)

Then, go to check older data since Sep. 2011.

These plots are made by using transfer of small files (50MB). It should be insensitive to TCP fair share parameters.

For the transfer from GRIF-LAL to TOKYO, obviously the rate drop down suddenly around Dec.20, 2011.

For the transfer from IN2P3-LPC to TOKYO, there are no significant changes before and after the Dec. 20, 2011.


http://perfsonar2.icepp.jp/serviceTest/index.cgi?eventType=bwctl　perfSONAR at TOKYO (TOKYO : GRIF-LAL)

As far as take a look at the perfSONAR throughput initiated by an instance at TOKYO, network itself seems to have no problem between GRIF-LAL and TOKYO.

Unfortunately, there are no data by perfSONAR for IN2P3-LPC.

http://perfsonar2.icepp.jp/serviceTest/index.cgi?eventType=bwctl

http://perfsonar2.icepp.jp/serviceTest/index.cgi?eventType=bwctl


ID Num. transferredFile server

1 8clrdata-dpm11.in2p3.fr












13 5clrgpfs2srv-dpm02.in2p3.fr





Transfer from IN2P3-LPC to TOKYO sorted by FSs in IN2P3-LPCsince Dec. 2011file size: 1GB● all data points□ average with standard error

Then, go to check file server dependence.

Average transfer rate indicate some file server dependence.

Need to contact with site admin. of IN2P3-LPC, and check any differences on some parameters in file servers.

2012/8/7 8


1 13lcg-fs01.icepp.jp

















Transfer from IN2P3-LPC to TOKYO sorted by FSs in TOKYOsince Dec. 2011file size: 1GB● all data points□ average with standard error

Since TOKYO is just a receiver of file transfer in this case, there is no file server dependence as expected.



1 22grid18.lal.in2p3.fr












Transfer from GRIF-LAL to TOKYO sorted by FSs in GRIF-LALsince Dec. 2011file size: 1GB● all data points□ average with standard error

Average transfer rate is too bad except for two file servers.

According to the site admin. of GRIF-LAL, No. 9 and No. 12 are relatively new file servers. However, there are no differences of settings for data transfer in all file servers… † †




















Transfer from GRIF-LAL to TOKYO sorted by FSs in TOKYOsince Dec. 2011file size: 1GB● all data points□ average with standard error

There is no file server dependence in TOKYO same as for IN2P3-LPC case.















Transfer from GRIF-LAL to TOKYO sorted by FSs in GRIF-LALSep.1, 2011 – Dec. 19, 2011file size: 50MB● all data points□ average with standard error

Indeed, there was no file server dependence for the transfer from GRIF-LAL to TOKYO before Dec. 20, 2011. The transfer rate was also not so bad even for the 50MB file transferring.















Transfer from GRIF-LAL to TOKYO sorted by FSs in GRIF-LALDec.20, 2011 – Jul. 1, 2012file size: 50MB● all data points□ average with standard error

However, the average rate was dropped down after Dec. 20 independent of difference of file servers (see previous page).

All Sites, 7days average (2011-09-01 ~ 2012-07-01)small: 0 ~ 100MB

medium: 100MB ~ 1GB

large: 1GB ~

AGLT2_DATADISKAUSTRALIA-ATLAS_DATADISKBEIJING-LCG2_DATADISKBNL-OSG2_DATADISKCA-ALBERTA-WESTGRID-T2_DATADISKCA-MCGILL-CLUMEQ-T2_DATADISKCA-SCINET-T2_DATADISKCA-VICTORIA-WESTGRID-T2_DATADISKCERN-PROD_DATADISKCSCS-LCG2_DATADISKCSTCDIE_DATADISKCYFRONET-LCG2_DATADISKDESY-HH_DATADISKDESY-ZN_DATADISKFZK-LCG2_DATADISKGOEGRID_DATADISKGRIF-IRFU_DATADISKGRIF-LPNHE_DATADISKHEPHY-UIBK_DATADISKIFAE_DATADISKIFIC-LCG2_DATADISKILLINOISHEP_DATADISKIL-TAU-HEP_DATADISKIN2P3-CC_DATADISKIN2P3-CPPM_DATADISKIN2P3-LAPP_DATADISKIN2P3-LPC_DATADISKIN2P3-LPSC_DATADISKINFN-FRASCATI_DATADISKINFN-MILANO-ATLASC_DATADISKINFN-NAPOLI-ATLAS_DATADISKINFN-ROMA1_DATADISKINFN-T1_DATADISKITEP_DATADISKJINR-LCG2_DATADISKLIP-COIMBRA_DATADISKLIP-LISBON_DATADISKLRZ-LMU_DATADISKMPPMU_DATADISKMWT2_DATADISKNCG-INGRID-PT_DATADISKNDGF-T1_DATADISKNET2_DATADISKNIKHEF-ELPROD_DATADISKOU_OCHEP_SWT2_DATADISKPIC_DATADISKPRAGUELCG2_DATADISKRAL-LCG2_DATADISKRO-02-NIPNE_DATADISKRO-07-NIPNE_DATADISKRO-14-ITIM_DATADISKRO-16-UAIC_DATADISKRRC-KI_DATADISKRU-MOSCOW-FIAN-LCG2_DATADISKRU-MOSCOW-SINP-LCG2_DATADISKRU-PNPI_DATADISKRU-PROTVINO-IHEP_DATADISKSARA-MATRIX_DATADISKSE-SNIC-T2_DATADISKSFU-LCG2_DATADISKSLACXRD_DATADISKSWT2_CPB_DATADISKTAIWAN-LCG2_DATADISKTECHNION-HEP_DATADISKTOKYO-LCG2_DATADISKTR-10-ULAKBIM_DATADISKTRIUMF-LCG2_DATADISKUAM-LCG2_DATADISKUKI-LT2-QMUL_DATADISKUKI-LT2-RHUL_DATADISKUKI-LT2-UCL-HEP_DATADISKUKI-NORTHGRID-LANCS-HEP_DATADISKUKI-NORTHGRID-LIV-HEP_DATADISKUKI-NORTHGRID-MAN-HEP_DATADISKUKI-NORTHGRID-SHEF-HEP_DATADISKUKI-SCOTGRID-ECDF_DATADISKUKI-SCOTGRID-GLASGOW_DATADISKUKI-SOUTHGRID-BHAM-HEP_DATADISKUKI-SOUTHGRID-CAM-HEP_DATADISKUKI-SOUTHGRID-OX-HEP_DATADISKUKI-SOUTHGRID-RALPP_DATADISKUNI-FREIBURG_DATADISKWEIZMANN-LCG2_DATADISKWUPPERTALPROD_DATADISK

Comparison with the other sites.

Data transfer throughput for the transfer from GRIF-LAL are extracted from ATLAS dashboad.

Red points are the average for each time bin.

Apparently, you can find a gap around the Dec. 20 even in the average for all file size categories.


Profiles (2011-09-01 ~ 2012-07-01)

0.7MB/sec → 0.5MB/sec (70%)

5.1MB/sec → 3.1MB/sec (60%)

12.9MB/sec → 8.5MB/sec (66%)

~2011-12-20

small: 0 ~ 100MB

medium: 100MB ~ 1GB

large: 1GB ~

Extracted only average points.

Average throughput have been decreased 30~40% after Dec. 20, 2011 as compared to before.



Sites (50% down after 2011-12-20)

down greater than 50%down less than 50%small: 0 ~ 100MB

medium: 100MB ~ 1GB

large: 1GB ~

To extract sites which has bad connectivity after Dec. 20, all sites are separated as two groups by the 50% threshold of the reduction rate.


large: 1GB ~• BEIJING-LCG2_DATADISK• CA-ALBERTA-WESTGRID-T2_DATADISK• CA-MCGILL-CLUMEQ-T2_DATADISK• CA-SCINET-T2_DATADISK• CYFRONET-LCG2_DATADISK• DESY-HH_DATADISK• HEPHY-UIBK_DATADISK• INFN-MILANO-ATLASC_DATADISK• LIP-LISBON_DATADISK• LRZ-LMU_DATADISK• MPPMU_DATADISK• NET2_DATADISK• PRAGUELCG2_DATADISK• RRC-KI_DATADISK• SFU-LCG2_DATADISK• SLACXRD_DATADISK• SWT2_CPB_DATADISK• TRIUMF-LCG2_DATADISK• UKI-LT2-UCL-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-NORTHGRID-LIV-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-NORTHGRID-MAN-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-NORTHGRID-SHEF-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-SCOTGRID-GLASGOW_DATADISK• UKI-SOUTHGRID-BHAM-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-SOUTHGRID-RALPP_DATADISK• UNI-FREIBURG_DATADISK

Bad connectivity (● down greater than 50% after 2011-12-20, ●Tier1, ●FR-Tier2)

small: 0 ~ 100MB• AUSTRALIA-ATLAS_DATADISK• BEIJING-LCG2_DATADISK• BNL-OSG2_DATADISK• CA-ALBERTA-WESTGRID-T2_DATADISK• CA-MCGILL-CLUMEQ-T2_DATADISK• CA-SCINET-T2_DATADISK• DESY-HH_DATADISK• DESY-ZN_DATADISK• FZK-LCG2_DATADISK• ITEP_DATADISK• JINR-LCG2_DATADISK• NET2_DATADISK• OU_OCHEP_SWT2_DATADISK• RO-02-NIPNE_DATADISK• RRC-KI_DATADISK• RU-PNPI_DATADISK• SFU-LCG2_DATADISK• SLACXRD_DATADISK• SWT2_CPB_DATADISK• TAIWAN-LCG2_DATADISK• TOKYO-LCG2_DATADISK• TRIUMF-LCG2_DATADISK

medium: 100MB ~ 1GB• AUSTRALIA-ATLAS_DATADISK• BNL-OSG2_DATADISK• CA-ALBERTA-WESTGRID-T2_DATADISK• CA-MCGILL-CLUMEQ-T2_DATADISK• CA-SCINET-T2_DATADISK• CYFRONET-LCG2_DATADISK• DESY-HH_DATADISK• DESY-ZN_DATADISK• HEPHY-UIBK_DATADISK• IN2P3-LPC_DATADISK• INFN-FRASCATI_DATADISK• INFN-MILANO-ATLASC_DATADISK• INFN-NAPOLI-ATLAS_DATADISK• ITEP_DATADISK• JINR-LCG2_DATADISK• LIP-LISBON_DATADISK• LRZ-LMU_DATADISK• MPPMU_DATADISK• MWT2_DATADISK• NET2_DATADISK• NIKHEF-ELPROD_DATADISK• OU_OCHEP_SWT2_DATADISK• PRAGUELCG2_DATADISK• RO-02-NIPNE_DATADISK• RO-07-NIPNE_DATADISK• RO-16-UAIC_DATADISK• RRC-KI_DATADISK• RU-MOSCOW-FIAN-LCG2_DATADISK• RU-MOSCOW-SINP-LCG2_DATADISK• RU-PNPI_DATADISK• RU-PROTVINO-IHEP_DATADISK• SFU-LCG2_DATADISK• SLACXRD_DATADISK• SWT2_CPB_DATADISK• TAIWAN-LCG2_DATADISK• TOKYO-LCG2_DATADISK• TRIUMF-LCG2_DATADISK• UKI-LT2-UCL-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-NORTHGRID-SHEF-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-SCOTGRID-GLASGOW_DATADISK• UKI-SOUTHGRID-BHAM-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-SOUTHGRID-RALPP_DATADISK• UNI-FREIBURG_DATADISK

large: 1GB ~down less than 50%but data points < 10• AUSTRALIA-ATLAS_DATADISK• CSTCDIE_DATADISK• ILLINOISHEP_DATADISK• IL-TAU-HEP_DATADISK• ITEP_DATADISK• JINR-LCG2_DATADISK• OU_OCHEP_SWT2_DATADISK• RO-02-NIPNE_DATADISK• RO-14-ITIM_DATADISK• RO-16-UAIC_DATADISK• RU-MOSCOW-FIAN-LCG2_DATADISK• RU-MOSCOW-SINP-LCG2_DATADISK• RU-PNPI_DATADISK• RU-PROTVINO-IHEP_DATADISK• SE-SNIC-T2_DATADISK• TECHNION-HEP_DATADISK• TOKYO-LCG2_DATADISK• TR-10-ULAKBIM_DATADISK• WEIZMANN-LCG2_DATADISK

Only far sites are categorized as bad connectivity group. All sites in France except for the IN2P3-LPC indicates good connectivity (see next page).

Sites listed in right hand side are excluded from the good connectivity group due to the lack of data points. Small number of data points must be originating from the timeout in the DDM sonar.


medium: 100MB ~ 1GB• AGLT2_DATADISK• BEIJING-LCG2_DATADISK• CA-VICTORIA-WESTGRID-T2_DATADISK• CERN-PROD_DATADISK• CSCS-LCG2_DATADISK• CSTCDIE_DATADISK• FZK-LCG2_DATADISK• GOEGRID_DATADISK• GRIF-IRFU_DATADISK• GRIF-LPNHE_DATADISK• IFAE_DATADISK• IFIC-LCG2_DATADISK• ILLINOISHEP_DATADISK• IL-TAU-HEP_DATADISK• IN2P3-CC_DATADISK• IN2P3-CPPM_DATADISK• IN2P3-LAPP_DATADISK• IN2P3-LPSC_DATADISK• INFN-ROMA1_DATADISK• INFN-T1_DATADISK• LIP-COIMBRA_DATADISK• NCG-INGRID-PT_DATADISK• NDGF-T1_DATADISK• PIC_DATADISK• RAL-LCG2_DATADISK• RO-14-ITIM_DATADISK• SARA-MATRIX_DATADISK• SE-SNIC-T2_DATADISK• TECHNION-HEP_DATADISK• TR-10-ULAKBIM_DATADISK• UAM-LCG2_DATADISK• UKI-LT2-QMUL_DATADISK• UKI-LT2-RHUL_DATADISK• UKI-NORTHGRID-LANCS-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-NORTHGRID-LIV-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-NORTHGRID-MAN-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-SCOTGRID-ECDF_DATADISK• UKI-SOUTHGRID-CAM-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-SOUTHGRID-OX-HEP_DATADISK• WEIZMANN-LCG2_DATADISK• WUPPERTALPROD_DATADISK

large: 1GB ~and data points > 10• AGLT2_DATADISK• BNL-OSG2_DATADISK• CA-VICTORIA-WESTGRID-T2_DATADISK• CERN-PROD_DATADISK• CSCS-LCG2_DATADISK• DESY-ZN_DATADISK• FZK-LCG2_DATADISK• GOEGRID_DATADISK• GRIF-IRFU_DATADISK• GRIF-LPNHE_DATADISK• IFAE_DATADISK• IFIC-LCG2_DATADISK• IN2P3-CC_DATADISK• IN2P3-CPPM_DATADISK• IN2P3-LAPP_DATADISK• IN2P3-LPC_DATADISK• IN2P3-LPSC_DATADISK• INFN-FRASCATI_DATADISK• INFN-NAPOLI-ATLAS_DATADISK• INFN-ROMA1_DATADISK• INFN-T1_DATADISK• LIP-COIMBRA_DATADISK• MWT2_DATADISK• NCG-INGRID-PT_DATADISK• NDGF-T1_DATADISK• NIKHEF-ELPROD_DATADISK• PIC_DATADISK• RAL-LCG2_DATADISK• RO-07-NIPNE_DATADISK• SARA-MATRIX_DATADISK• TAIWAN-LCG2_DATADISK• UAM-LCG2_DATADISK• UKI-LT2-QMUL_DATADISK• UKI-LT2-RHUL_DATADISK• UKI-NORTHGRID-LANCS-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-SCOTGRID-ECDF_DATADISK• UKI-SOUTHGRID-CAM-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-SOUTHGRID-OX-HEP_DATADISK• WUPPERTALPROD_DATADISK

Sites (● down less than 50%)

small: 0 ~ 100MB• AGLT2_DATADISK• CA-VICTORIA-WESTGRID-T2_DATADISK• CERN-PROD_DATADISK• CSCS-LCG2_DATADISK• CSTCDIE_DATADISK• CYFRONET-LCG2_DATADISK• GOEGRID_DATADISK• GRIF-IRFU_DATADISK• GRIF-LPNHE_DATADISK• HEPHY-UIBK_DATADISK• IFAE_DATADISK• IFIC-LCG2_DATADISK• ILLINOISHEP_DATADISK• IL-TAU-HEP_DATADISK• IN2P3-CC_DATADISK• IN2P3-CPPM_DATADISK• IN2P3-LAPP_DATADISK• IN2P3-LPC_DATADISK• IN2P3-LPSC_DATADISK• INFN-FRASCATI_DATADISK• INFN-MILANO-ATLASC_DATADISK• INFN-NAPOLI-ATLAS_DATADISK• INFN-ROMA1_DATADISK• INFN-T1_DATADISK• LIP-COIMBRA_DATADISK• LIP-LISBON_DATADISK• LRZ-LMU_DATADISK• MPPMU_DATADISK• MWT2_DATADISK• NCG-INGRID-PT_DATADISK• NDGF-T1_DATADISK• NIKHEF-ELPROD_DATADISK• PIC_DATADISK• PRAGUELCG2_DATADISK• RAL-LCG2_DATADISK• RO-07-NIPNE_DATADISK• RO-14-ITIM_DATADISK• RO-16-UAIC_DATADISK• RU-MOSCOW-FIAN-LCG2_DATADISK• RU-MOSCOW-SINP-LCG2_DATADISK• RU-PROTVINO-IHEP_DATADISK• SARA-MATRIX_DATADISK• SE-SNIC-T2_DATADISK• TECHNION-HEP_DATADISK• TR-10-ULAKBIM_DATADISK

• UAM-LCG2_DATADISK• UKI-LT2-QMUL_DATADISK• UKI-LT2-RHUL_DATADISK• UKI-LT2-UCL-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-NORTHGRID-LANCS-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-NORTHGRID-LIV-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-NORTHGRID-MAN-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-NORTHGRID-SHEF-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-SCOTGRID-ECDF_DATADISK• UKI-SCOTGRID-GLASGOW_DATADISK• UKI-SOUTHGRID-BHAM-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-SOUTHGRID-CAM-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-SOUTHGRID-OX-HEP_DATADISK• UKI-SOUTHGRID-RALPP_DATADISK• UNI-FREIBURG_DATADISK• WEIZMANN-LCG2_DATADISK• WUPPERTALPROD_DATADISK


Summary

For the transfer from IN2P3-LPC to TOKYO, there are no significant changes in historical viewpoint. The transfer rate itself is not so bad, but the stability is not so good. It seems there is a dependence on several file servers to be used. Settings and parameters for data transfer in all file servers need to be confirmed. I will contact with site admin. of IN2P3-LPC.

For the transfer from GRIF-LAL to TOKYO, a dependence of file server is seen especially for two newer file servers in the 1GB file transfer case. However, there are no difference in settings and parameters for all servers according to the site admin. of GRIF-LAL. The throughput from GRIF-LAL have been dropped down for relatively far sites after Dec. 20, 2011 obviously. I don’t know whether it is a result of some network optimization or not. One of the possibilities of the reduction is LHCONE in France.


New site status boad

This SSB shows the throughput by “DDM sonar” and “perfSONAR” in one line, and it makes it possible to compare easily both data.

http://dashb-atlas-ssb.cern.ch/dashboard/request.py/siteview#currentView=Sonar&find[pSC][0][sS]=|cnTOKYO&find[pSC][0][bR]=false&find[pSC][1][sS]=&find[pSC][1][bR]=false&find[pSC][2][sS]=&find[pSC][2][bR]=false&find[pSC][3][sS]=&find[pSC][3][bR]=false&find[pSC][4][sS]=&find[pSC][4][bR]=false&find[pSC][5][sS]=&find[pSC][5][bR]=false&find[pSC][6][sS]=&find[pSC][6][bR]=false&find[pSC][7][sS]=&find[pSC][7][bR]=false&find[pSC][8][sS]=&find[pSC][8][bR]=false&find[pSC][9][sS]=&find[pSC][9][bR]=false&find[pSC][10][sS]=&find[pSC][10][bR]=false&find[pSC][11][sS]=&find[pSC][11][bR]=false&find[pSC][12][sS]=&find[pSC][12][bR]=false&find[pSC][13][sS]=&find[pSC][13][bR]=false&find[pSC][14][sS]=|nen/a&find[pSC][14][bR]=false&find[pSC][15][sS]=&find[pSC][15][bR]=false&find[pSC][16][sS]=&find[pSC][16][bR]=false&find[pSC][17][sS]=&find[pSC][17][bR]=false&find[pSC][18][sS]=&find[pSC][18][bR]=false&find[pSC][19][sS]=&find[pSC][19][bR]=false&find[sS]=and&find[bR]=true&highlight=false

DDM Sonar perfSONAR


Average Throughput from perfSONARperfSONAR: AvgThr [MB/s]

Sona

r Ave

rage

Byt

e Ra

te L

arge

File

sDD

M S

onar

: Avg

BRL

[MB/

s]

● To TOKYO● From TOKYO

TOKYO-LCG2 vs.

AGLT2BNL-OSG2CA-SCINET-T2CERN-PRODDESY-HHFZK-LCG2GRIF-LALINFN-NAPOLI-ATLASLRZ-LMUPICPRAGUELCG2SARA-MATRIXTAIWAN-LCG2TRIUMF-LCG2

FZKTAIWAN

Jun. 18, 2012 15:00 UTC

An example to check the site connectivity

Data points are extracted from the new SSB.

Basically they have a good correlation each other except for the no data points about the DDM sonar (0 value).

The low value of perfSONAR throughput for FZK is due to the measurement via the firewall in FZK.

Since a point for TAIWAN→TOKYO seems to deviate from the correlation band, the data transfer throughput might be not so good in spite of the good network connectivity.

For GRIF-LAL, the data points indicating slow value are not included due to the timeout presumably for the case of large file transfer.

GRIF-LAL

GRIF-LAL

Documents

An analysis of data transfer issues From GRIF‐LAL and IN2P3‐LPC to TOKYO