1 / 14

CyberShake Study 2.3 Readiness Review

CyberShake Study 2.3 Readiness Review. Study 2.3 Overview. Compare codes and velocity models RWG V3.0.3 vs AWP-ODC-SGT CVM-S 4 vs CVM-H 11.9 Different version of CVM-H than previous runs Adds San Bernardino, Santa Maria basins 286 Southern California sites 0.5 Hz

wbaldridge
Download Presentation

CyberShake Study 2.3 Readiness Review

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CyberShake Study 2.3 Readiness Review

  2. Study 2.3 Overview • Compare codes and velocity models • RWG V3.0.3 vs AWP-ODC-SGT • CVM-S 4 vs CVM-H 11.9 • Different version of CVM-H than previous runs • Adds San Bernardino, Santa Maria basins • 286 Southern California sites • 0.5 Hz • Deterministic post-processing only

  3. Proposed Study sites

  4. SGT Computational Requirements • SGTs on Blue Waters • Computational time: 8.4 M SUs • RWG: 16k SUs/site x 286 sites = 4.6 M SUs • AWP: 13.5k Sus/site x 286 sites = 3.8 M SUs • 22.35 M SU allocation, 22 M SUs remaining • Storage: 44.7 TB • 160 GB/site x 286 sites = 44.7 TB

  5. PP computational requirements • Post-processing on Stampede • Computational time: • 4000 SUs/site x 286 sites = 1.1 M SUs • 4.1 M SU allocation, 3.9 M remaining • Storage: 44.7 TB input, 13 TB output • 44.7 TB of SGT inputs; will need to rotate out • Seismograms: 46 GB/site x 286 sites = 12.8 TB • PSA files: 0.8 GB/site x 286 sites = 0.2 TB

  6. Long-term storage • 44.7 TB SGTs: • To be archived to tape (NCSA? TACC? Somewhere else?) • 13 TB Seismograms, PSA data • Have been using SCEC storage - scec-04? • 5.5 TB workflow logs • Can compress after mining for stats • CyberShake database • 1.4 B entries, 330 GB data (scaling issues?)

  7. Verification work • 4 sites (WNGC, USC, PAS, SBSM) • RWG V3.0.3, CVM-S • RWG V3.0.3, CVM-H • AWP, CVM-S • AWP, CVM-H • Plotted with previously calculated RWG V3 • Expect RWG V3 slightly higher than the others

  8. WNGC CVM-S CVM-H RWG V3.0.3 - Green AWP - Purple RWG V3 - Orange

  9. USC CVM-S CVM-H RWG V3.0.3 - Green AWP - Purple RWG V3 - Orange

  10. PAS CVM-S CVM-H RWG V3.0.3 - Green AWP - Purple RWG V3 - Orange

  11. SBSM CVM-S CVM-H RWG V3.0.3 - Green AWP - Purple RWG V3 - Orange

  12. SBSM Velocity Profile

  13. Estimated Duration • Limiting factors: • Blue Waters queue time • Uncertain how many sites in parallel • Blue Waters → Stampede transfer • 100 MB/sec seems sustainable from tests, but could get much worse • 50 sites/day; unlikely to reach • Estimated completion by end of June

  14. Risks • Stampede becomes busier • Post-processing still probably shorter than SGTs • CyberShake database unable to handle data • Would need to create other DBs, distributed DB, change technologies

More Related