Allocation Policies and Proposal Best Practices

1. Allocation Policies and Proposal Best Practices David L. Hart, TeraGrid Area Director, UFP/CS dhart@sdsc.edu Presenter: Kent Milfeld

2. Documents This presentation: Allocation_Proposal_Advice(2).ppt Quick Start Guide: TOPS_Quickstart_Guide(12).doc Examples Proposals: ALiu.pdfMColvin.pdf Slides & docs at www.tacc.utexas.edu/~milfeld/pops

3. The Lingo • POPS Partnerships Online Proposal System • SU Service Unit = 1 CPU-hour • DAC Development Allocations Committee • MRAC Medium Resource AllocationsCommittee • LRAC Large Resource Allocations Committee • Roaming TeraGrid (Wide) Roaming (Access)

4. The Process: Getting Started https://pops-submit.teragrid.org/ ** • 10 Minutes to an Allocation • Go to POPS ** • Create a POPS user ID. • Login. • Select “New” proposal type. • Select “0-30,000.” • Click on appropriate DAC meeting. • Fill out PI Info, Proposal Info, and Resource Request screens. • Upload PI’s CV. • Press “Final Submission.” • Start-up Allocations (DAC Awards) • Accepted, reviewed, awarded on a continual basis • Up to 30,000 SUs, 5 TB disk, 25 TB tape • Best for • Code development, testing • Gathering performance data for MRAC/LRAC proposals • Classroom instruction • Small-scale computation Look for changes to the startup allocations process soon!

5. Requires a written proposal Reviewed by experts in same Field of Science 3 months from deadline to award availability LRAC >500,000 SUs(>25 TB disk, >100 TB tape) Reviewed semi-annually Awards begin April 1, Oct. 1 The Process: MRAC or LRAC Look for changes soon to the MRAC/LRAC process, too! • MRAC • Limit:500,000 SUs • (25 TB disk, 100 TB tape) • Reviewed quarterly • Awards begin Jan. 1, April 1, July 1, Oct. 1

6. The Awards • One per PI (generally) • 1-year duration, or multi-year • Unused SUs are forfeited at the end of an award period • Progress report required annually as part of renewal proposals and multi-year awards • Add users to a grant via TeraGrid User Portal

7. Proposal Types • New First MRAC or LRAC proposal • Renewal • Subsequent project requests • Supplements Request additional resources during a 12-month allocation period Not for DACs! Reviewed by MRAC/LRAC members. • Justifications PI may submit a rebuttal when proposal is not fully awarded. For addressing specific omissions (not to salvage horrible proposals) • Extensions Can extend award period an additional 6 months for cause No additional resources! • Project Reports It is necessary to submit a Progress Report for approval of the next year’s allocation for Multi-year awards.

8. The Options Asking for Help help@teragrid.org Multi-year Awards Possible, but not recommended for new PIs Only Progress Reports required in subsequent years Advances UP to 10% of MRAC/LRAC request can be provided in advance

9. The Resources: Compute www.teragrid.org/userinfo/hardware/resources.php ** Resource Units are SUs TeraGrid Resources Catalog ** Select: One or more resource(s) Or Select: TeraGrid Roaming Allocation across variety of machines. Some Vis system allow computing Ranger System, TACC DAC are available on a few specific systems, or as TeraGrid Roaming.

10. The Resources: Storage • Resource Units in TBs • For long-term/large disk and tape space • Policies now formalized across TeraGrid • But--all compute allocations still include some default tape storage

11. The Resources: Advanced Support Program (ASP) • Dedicated, but limited, TeraGrid staff assistance • MRAC/LRAC reviewers rate need for ASP • Extra info required for proposals, see: http://www.teragrid.org/userinfo/asp.php

12. The Proposal: POPS https://pops-submit.teragrid.org/ • Straightforward (mostly) • Once you get to the Web-based data entry forms • Latest changes • Supporting grant information • You can now login to POPS with your TeraGrid Portal login • Coming soon • Better TeraGrid portal integration

13. The Proposal: Proposal Document(s) • The real key to a successful review • Adhere to page limits! • Justify allocation request. • There are examples. • But now, some tips and advice… http://www.teragrid.org/userinfo/access/allocations.php

14. “Traditional” v. Community • MRAC/LRAC proposals are accepted in four general categories of research activities • Single principal investigator • Large research collaborations (e.g., MILC consortium) • Community Consortiums (e.g., NEES) • Community Services (e.g., TeraGrid Gateways) • The general requirements for proposals of all four types remain largely the same. • Whether requesting compute, storage, advanced support or some combination

15. Proposal Review Criteria • Methodology For compute requests, the choice of applications, methods, algorithms and techniques to be employed to accomplish the stated objectives should be reasonably justified. For storage requests, the data usage, access methods, algorithms and techniques to be employed to accomplish the stated research objectives should be reasonably justified. For shared collections, proposers must describe the public or community access methods to be provided. While the accomplishment of the stated objectives in support of the science is important, it is incumbent on proposers to consider the methods available to them and to use that which is best suited. • Appropriate Computations for Scientific Simulations The computations must provide a precise representation of the physical phenomena to be investigated. They must also employ the correct methodologies and simulation parameters (step size, time scale, etc.) to obtain accurate and meaningful results. • Efficient Use of Resources The resources selected must be used as efficiently as is reasonably possible. To meet this criterion for compute resources, performance and parallel scaling data should be provided for all applications to be used along with a discussion of optimization and/or parallelization work to be done to improve the applications. For storage resources, information on required performance and expected access patterns should be provided for all data and collections to be stored and used along with a discussion of work done or planned to improve the efficiency of the data use.

16. Additional Review Considerations • Prior progress • From prior year allocation, DAC award, or work done locally • Ability to complete the work plan described(more significant for larger requests) • Sufficient merit-reviewed funding • Staff, both number and experience • Local computing environment • Other access to HPC resources • (e.g., Campus centers, DOE centers, etc.)

17. General Proposal Outline • Research Objectives • Codes and methods to be used • Computational plan • Justification for SUs (TB-yrs) requested • Additional considerations Note: Sections III and IV are often integrated.

18. I. Research Objectives • Traditional proposals • Describe the research activities to be pursued • Community proposals • Describe the classes of research activities that the proposed effort will support. • Keep it short: You only need enough detail to support the methods and computational plan being proposed. • TIP—Reviewers don’t want to read the proposal you submitted to NSF/NIH/etc., but they will notice whether you have merit-reviewed (grant) funding.

19. II. Codes, Data, and Methods • Very similar between traditional and community proposals. • For compute requests • More significant if using ‘home-grown’ codes. • Provide performance and scaling details on problems and test cases similar to those being pursued. • Ideally, provide performance and scaling data collected by you for the specific resource(s) you are requesting • For storage requests • Provide description of data to be stored (organization, formats, collection mechanisms, permissions granted or received) • Describe the amount and expected growth of data to be stored.

20. III. Computational Plan • Traditional proposals • Explicitly describe the problem cases you will examine • BAD: “…a dozen or so important proteins under various conditions…” • GOOD: “…7 proteins [listed here; include scientific importance of these selections somewhere, too]. Each protein will require [X] number of runs, varying [x] parameters [listed here] [in very specific and scientifically meaningful ways]…” • Community proposals • Explicitly describe the typical use-case(s) that the gateway supports and the type of runs that you expect users to make • Describe how you will help ensure that the community will make scientifically meaningful runs (if applicable) • BAD: “…the gateway lets users run NAMD on TeraGrid resources…” • BETTER: “…users will run NAMD jobs on [biological systems like this]…” • BETTER STILL: “…the gateway allows users to run NAMD jobs on up to 128 processors on problem sizes limited [in some fashion]…”

21. IV. Justification of SUs, TBs • Traditional proposals • If you’ve done sections II and III well, this section should be a straightforward math problem • For each research problem, calculate the SUs required based on runs (base units) defined in III and the timings in section II, broken out appropriately by resource • Reasonable scaling estimates from test-case timing runs to full-scale production runs are acceptable. • Clear presentation here will allow reviewers to award time or storage in a rational fashion • Analogous calculations should apply for storage requests

22. IV. Justification of SUs, TBs • Community proposals • The first big trick: Calculating SUs when you don’t know the precise runs to be made a priori. • In Year 2 and beyond • Start with an estimate of total usage based on prior year’s usage patterns and estimate for coming year’s usage patterns (justify in Section V). • From this information, along with data from sections II and III, you can come up with a tabulation of SU estimates. • Year 1 requires bootstrapping • Pick conservative values (and justify them) for the size of the community and runs to be made, and calculate SUs. • TIP—Start modestly. If you have ~0 users, don’t expect the reviewers to believe that you will get thousands (or even hundreds) next year. • Analogous calculations for TBs of storage needed

23. V. Additional Considerations • For traditional proposals, these are not controversial • Local computing environment • Other supercomputing resources • Prior Progress • Experience/staffing

24. V. Additional Considerations • For community proposals, these components can provide key details: • Community Support and Management Plan • Describe the gateway interface — in terms of how it helps community burn SUs or access TBs. • Describe plans for growing the user community, “graduating” users to MRAC awards, regulating “gateway hogs” • Progress report • The actual user community and usage patterns • Manuscripts produced thanks to this service. • Local computing environment • Other HPC resources

25. Questions? http://www.teragrid.org/userinfo/access/allocations.php http://teragrid.org/userinfo/access/accounts.php help@teragrid.org