Cpu sizing vs latency analysis fts edr latency simulation
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 17

CPU Sizing vs. Latency Analysis FTS EDR Latency Simulation PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 119 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

CPU Sizing vs. Latency Analysis FTS EDR Latency Simulation. 5 March 2008 Doug Shannon. Contents. FTS Latency – Simulation & Analyses IDPS NPP Status ATDS/FTS Simulation Overview Example Simulation Results ATDS/FTS Demo FTS HRD/LRD Latency Requirements:

Download Presentation

CPU Sizing vs. Latency Analysis FTS EDR Latency Simulation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Cpu sizing vs latency analysis fts edr latency simulation

CPU Sizing vs. Latency Analysis FTSEDRLatency Simulation

5 March 2008

Doug Shannon


Contents

Contents

  • FTS Latency – Simulation & Analyses

    • IDPS NPP Status

    • ATDS/FTS Simulation Overview

    • Example Simulation Results

    • ATDS/FTS Demo

  • FTS HRD/LRD Latency Requirements:

    • SYS013230 The LRD Field Terminal software, when installed on NPOESS representative hardware, shall produce Imagery EDRs within 2 minutes and all other EDRs specified in Appendix G within 15 minutes of receipt of mission data. Class 2

    • SYS013235 The HRD Field Terminal software, when installed on NPOESS representative hardware, shall produce Imagery EDRs within 2 minutes and all other EDRs specified in Appendix E, except for EDRs 40.3.1.4, 40.4.10, 40.7.5, and 40.7.8, within 15 minutes of receipt of mission data. Class 2


Idps npp status

IDPS NPP Status

  • IDPS NPP Build 1.5

    • 1 orbit NPP processing (101 mins) – 53 mins

      • Meets EDR latencies (117.2 mins for 140 mins requirement)

      • Major speedups in DMS performance

      • Algorithm development & integration “95%complete”

    • Future Builds 1.5.x.1 (3Q 08), B1.5.x.2 (2Q 09).

      • OMPS, NHF, combined Albedo, Bright Pixel

      • Move LSA Granulation out of VIIRS SDR (1.5.x.1) to improve IMG latency

    • ATDS/FTS getting new benchmarks on B1.5 algorithms

      • Faster processing?

      • Less algorithm sensitivity to scene content?


Algorithm timing dependency simulation field terminal latency analyses

Algorithm Timing & Dependency Simulation Field Terminal Latency Analyses

  • ATDS supports NPP, NPOESS/NPP & NPOESS performance analyses

  • FTS latency simulations differences:

    • Receives C1/C2 LRD or HRD in real time; no stored data

      • Sensors collect at 9.1 & 5.0 Mbps (average day/night)

    • Various FTS locations and weather/terrain conditions

    • Smaller EDR granules (NPP 85.7sec & NPOESS 42.9sec)

    • Processing Architecture -

      • Split SDR - generate IMG sooner, after SDR Cal/Geo, before granulation

      • Pre-load SDR static ancil/aux tiles (TBD) to reduce latency

      • Assume no/minimal cross-granule dependency


Viirs cross granule latency tiers

VIIRS Cross-Granule Latency Tiers

+3

SDR

+2

+4

+5

+1

+3

+4

+2

+3

+4

+5


Fts simulation e g omaha 2 day 19 passes with npoess s c

FTS Simulation (e.g. Omaha):2 day 19 Passes with NPOESS S/C

Contact Durations:

Max 13.1 mins

Avg 10.5 mins

Min 2 mins?

<4mins 2.3%

13301730

FTS Contacts with NPOESS S/C

(1440 minutes = 1 days)


Orbital position defines dynamic scene content in sensor data

Scene in VIIRS View

Ocean

Cloudy

Snow/Ice

Orbital Position Defines Dynamic Scene Content in Sensor Data

Orbital Position defines Sensor Nadir

NCEP Weather Data Base

Dynamic Processing


Impact of weather terrain on fts data

Impact of Weather/Terrain on FTS Data

  • Algorithm loading for Clear-Ocean is heaviest,21% over average.

  • NCEP weather DB for Spring 2003

    • 90-100% ocean – 41%

    • 90-100% clear – 8%

    • Clear & Ocean – 3%

  • User can’t select his weather/terrain

    • ATSD can analyze user FTS locations & helpsize for field conditions

>90% Clear

>90% ocean


Algorithm timing dependency simulator fts idps and algorithm models

Algorithm, Timing & Dependency Simulator:FTS IDPS and Algorithm Models

S/W

Science Algorithms

H/W


Example atds simulation results omaha fts scenario

Example ATDS Simulation results – Omaha FTS scenario

  • Peak demand (17 CPUs) not equal to CPU requirement.

    • 2.6 GHz CPUs

  • CPU resources driven by contact length & S/C sensors.

    • No ATMS & CrIS on C2


Example atds simulation results omaha fts scenario1

Example ATDS Simulation results – Omaha FTS scenario

  • EDR latencies are dynamic as scene content varies

    • Shows last VIIRS EDR for multiple granules


Example atds simulation results omaha fts scenario2

Example ATDS Simulation results – Omaha FTS scenario

  • Latencies varied 1.5 – 7.7 mins

    • Imagery latency ~3.3 mins

FTS IMG


On going atds fts trades

On-going ATDS/FTS Trades

  • Variable number of CPUs & processor speeds

  • Smaller VIIRS/CrIMSS granules

    • Science implications for processing areas and adjacency.

  • Weather/Terrain impact on IDPS Latency

    • Various FTS locations

    • Various weather & terrain conditions

  • SDR architectural trades

  • Selectable EDR configurations

    • HRD vs LRD algorithms

    • Generate high priority top EDRs only

    • Generate Imagery only


Viirs hrd vs lrd algorithm processing

VIIRS HRD vs LRD Algorithm Processing

11%

10%

2%

0.3%

14%/10

2%

26%

9%

1%

5%

5%


Summary

Summary

  • Due to algorithm scene sensitivity, highly variable weather/terrain are significant factors for latency and CPUs required.

    • Some new IDPS benchmarks show less than expected sensitivity.

  • Ongoing IDPS algorithm optimization are improving FTS latencies.

    • Improvements to IDPS Infrastructure (DMS) are very good but don’t apply directly to FTS.

  • We continue to add fidelity to our ATDS simulations, bounding nominal performance against worst-case scenarios in order to quantify system processor needs.


Backups

Backups

  • 2005 back-to-back S/C contacts and gap analysis


Back to back s c contacts

Gap Time Between Contacts

Max gap is 2.1 orbits at equator

Analyzed STK 1330/1730/2130 contact data

Back-to-back S/C Contacts

  • Overlapping S/C contacts don’t occur due to spacecraft orbital phasing.

  • Smallest gap of 10.2 minutes has minimal impact to FTS latency.

  • Above 60N there is a large increase in contacts and EDRs.

60N


  • Login