itaps-parallel ITAPS tutorial submission for SC08

[Tim Tautges]

Comments:

Abstract:

- "particularly as architectures move toward the petascale" - this may 
be sacrilege, but this might be a good place to plant a flag and say 
"particularly as applications move toward component-based designs" or 
something like that.

Goals and Target Audience:
- The statement about scientists generally having an application in hand 
from which they want to access services is a bit too strong, IMO - we 
should also target those wanting to assemble such codes, e.g. the 
groundwater and GNEP types.

Prerequisites: might want to mention that cd drive may be acceptable too.

Relevance:

A little wordsmithing on this paragraph; my replacement:

The advent of petascale computing will enable increasingly complex,
realistic simulations of PDE- based applications. Numerous software
tools are used to help manage the complexity of these simulations,
including computer-aided design systems used to represent the geometry
of the computational domain, advanced mesh generation tools to
discretize those domains, solution adaptive methods (AMR) to improve
the accuracy and efficiency of simulation techniques, and parallel
tools such as dynamic partitioning to ease implementation on today's
computer architectures.  However, managing the complexity of
interactions between these services, in parallel, is becoming
increasingly difficult, leaving developers little time to focus on the
science of their applications.  The ITAPS center focuses on providing
tools to fill specific technology gaps, along with underlying
interfaces providing interoperability between these tools and
mesh-based applications.  Mesh- and geometry-based tools which enable
PDE simulation continue a trend towards high-performance libraries
started by solvers, and we believe these tools will have similar
influence on application scientist productivity.  We will demonstrate
this using examples from applications ranging from accelerator and
fusion modeling to nuclear reactor and groundwater flow simulations.
These examples will show how scientists are leveraging ITAPS
technologies to increase their simulation accuracy, allow them to
operate more effectively on complex computational domains, or reduce
the total time to solution.


2. ITAPS data model:
  "... introduce the ITAPS data model and its three core data types:
mesh geometry,  and fields. " -> "... introduce the ITAPS data model and 
the three core ITAPS interfaces for mesh, geometry, and fields."

3 (svcs & tools), 4 (interfaces): I'd vote for switching the order here, 
making sure to make the interfaces section short enough to not interrupt 
the flow too much.  I don't think it'll make as much sense talking about 
the two basic models in 3 before discussing 4.  Tough call, though.

5 (using ITAPS): if you look at the Goals & Target Audience section, you 
stress existing applications before new ones.  Given that, I'd switch 
the order of experiences in this section.  It's probably more intuitive 
for us to think about building a new application like reactor modeling, 
but the apps people will want to hear about biting off a smaller chunk 
first.

Hands-on exercises: mention that they'll be dispersed through 1-5 at 
appropriate times, to reinforce concepts.

Coordination of presentation:
- mention largely positive reviews from Scidac07
- mention that examples from tutorials are used for testing and 
available directly with ITAPS interfaces

Description of ... Exercises:
Content:
- After mention of Hello ITAPS, might also want to mention that this 
will verify installation of basic iMesh installation on attendee 
machines, and maybe mention that ITAPS participants will be available to 
help in this process.
- replace mention of geometry/relations with smoothing (MSQ) service; I 
think installation of a geometry package will be too involved, and I'm 
not sure the OCC version of CGM will be bulletproof enough by then (I 
would consider making this one of the advanced exercises in this 
tutorial, I just don't want to position it so prominently).  I suggest 
moving #4 to #6 and moving 5-6 down to 4-5.

Development Plans - is this section a paste-o?


Presentation Approach: "The most effective approach to a hands­on 
session is to provide the students with a complete set of written 
instructions and let them work at their own pace" - I'd change to "The 
most effective approach to a tutorial is to mix presentation and handson 
materials, providing students with a complete set of presentation 
materials and allowing them to work at their own pace".  This might 
conflict with the notion of shortening the tutorial to .5 day, though.

Facilities: Need to find out if any are available from SC08, maybe from 
vendors (e.g. sanitized laptops with some standard linux installation). 
  Should also make sure to encourage attendees to bring own linux 
laptops and try installing tools there, so they can take them home with 
them.

Detailed outline: I feel fairly strongly that results would be better if 
we mixed lectures and exercises.  Could put a note at the end saying 
we'd remove handson stuff if only 1/2 day were available.  For ITAPS, I 
think a full-day tutorial would be MUCH more effective at evangelizing, 
and traction-wise this might be a good time to push for that (e.g. 
attention we're getting from TRILINOS).

That's all I have :).

- tim






Lori A. Diachin wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> Here's a draft of the submission for SC08.  Please take a careful look 
> at what I'm proposing as there may be more work here than anyone is 
> willing to sign on for.   Also, I tried to reorganize it to some extent 
> based on our discussions in Atlanta, but couldn't find a good way to 
> make it work - I'm open to suggestions.
> This is due on Monday, April 14, so please provide your input by 
> Thursday of this week.  I'm also open to having a telecon to discuss 
> this on Thursday if folks are available.
> 
> I also need 3 volunteers for the actual presentation and your two page 
> vitaes - including short courses taught.  Any takers?
> 
> Thanks,
> Lori
> 
> Here's what I need to submit:
> 
> Upload your tutorial proposal as a single file in either PDF. Your 
> proposal should include the following sections, each labeled as such and 
> beginning on a new page:
> 
>   1. Abstract (150 word maximum).
>   2. Detailed description (2 pages maximum) containing:
>          * tutorial goals - specifically how attendees will benefit;
>          * targeted audience;
>          * content level (% beginner, % intermediate, % advanced);
>          * audience prerequisites;
>          * why the topic is relevant to SC attendees;
>          * general description of tutorial content;
>          * if your presenters are from different institutions, how you
>            will ensure cohesive tutorial content;
>          * if your tutorial has been presented previously, how you will
>            update it for SC.
>   3. Description of Demo or Exercises for hands-on tutorials, if
>      applicable. (1 page maximum). Include description of any hardware
>      needed and how you will provide it.
>   4. Detailed Outline of the tutorial (1 page maximum in outline form).
>   5. Resume or Curriculum Vitae for each presenter (4 presenters
>      maximum, 2-pages maximum each). Make sure this includes a list of
>      short courses the presenter has taught.
> 
> 

-- 
================================================================
"You will keep in perfect peace him whose mind is
   steadfast, because he trusts in you."               Isaiah 26:3

              Tim Tautges            Argonne National Laboratory
          (tautges at mcs.anl.gov)      (telecommuting from UW-Madison)
          phone: (608) 263-8485      1500 Engineering Dr.
            fax: (608) 263-4499      Madison, WI 53706