PAC09 - List of Authors (Allen, B.)

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Allen, B.

Paper	Title	Page
FR5REP034	Reliability in the LCLS Era at SLAC	4844
	U. Wienands, B. Allen, W.S. Colocho, R.A. Erickson, M. Stanek SLAC, Menlo Park, California
	Funding: Work supported by US DOE For LCLS, an uptime of 95% of the scheduled beam time is aimed for. This is a challenging goal for a linac-driven facility, exceeding typical up time during PEP-II running by a significant amount. During the 2008 and the 2009 LCLS beam-commissioninng runs we have been gathering and analysing statistics to identify the worst offenders as far as downtime is concerned. In 2008, an overall hardware uptime of 90% was achieved, indicating the need to decrease our downtime by a factor of two. One approach to focus the effort has been to identify those faults that cause the worst performance for a system in a given time period and focus on these. Another one is to compare our MTTR performance with that of other facilities thus identifying where our processes might be improved. In this paper we will show how we track our performance and examples of the benefit of addressing identified reliability issues.

Paper

Title

Page

FR5REP034

Reliability in the LCLS Era at SLAC

4844

U. Wienands, B. Allen, W.S. Colocho, R.A. Erickson, M. Stanek
SLAC, Menlo Park, California

Funding: Work supported by US DOE

For LCLS, an uptime of 95% of the scheduled beam time is aimed for. This is a challenging goal for a linac-driven facility, exceeding typical up time during PEP-II running by a significant amount. During the 2008 and the 2009 LCLS beam-commissioninng runs we have been gathering and analysing statistics to identify the worst offenders as far as downtime is concerned. In 2008, an overall hardware uptime of 90% was achieved, indicating the need to decrease our downtime by a factor of two. One approach to focus the effort has been to identify those faults that cause the worst performance for a system in a given time period and focus on these. Another one is to compare our MTTR performance with that of other facilities thus identifying where our processes might be improved. In this paper we will show how we track our performance and examples of the benefit of addressing identified reliability issues.