itaps-parallel ITAPS tutorial submission for SC08

[Mark Shephard]

Lori,

The most concrete change would be to the Tutorial outline. Currently the 
only obviously parallel stuff is items d in two of the overall topic 
areas. For super computing I would suggest having one of the top level 
items being out overall approach to parallelism and the parallel interface.

Past that, I would just say emphasize more about parallel mesh and its 
importance various places in the discussions.

Mark

Lori A. Diachin wrote:
> Tim,
> 
> Thank you for your many excellent suggestions - I incorporated most of 
> them.  I think we need more discussion on how we will handle 'hands-on' 
> exercises.  I see Tim's point about mixing and matching lecture and 
> exercises - provides variety and breaks things up, early exercises 
> provide a solid foundation for later concepts, etc.  However, I share 
> Karen's concern regarding building/configuring tools - we can't 
> anticipate what sort of environment folks will bring with them, so at 
> the very least we need a back up plan.  I know that in the past others 
> have been unsuccessful in getting a uniform environment on site (e.g. 
> laptops of all one flavor) - which is why we may want to consider 
> providing something we control off-site w/ guest accounts.  For obvious 
> reasons this won't work at LLNL, but could it work at ANL or, perhaps, 
> RPI or UBC? 
> Can we consider a format that is lecture (2 hour), exercises (1 hour), 
> lunch, lecture (1-1.5 hours), exercises (1-1.5 hours), so that we have 
> lunch time to help mitigate unforeseen problems?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Mark - do you have specific suggestions on how you would increase the 
> emphasis on parallel?
> 
> The latest version is attached.  I haven't made many changes to the 
> hands-on discussion yet - those are pending this discussion.
> 
> Lori
> 
> 
> Tim Tautges wrote:
>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>