itaps-parallel ITAPS tutorial submission for SC08

[Mark Shephard]

This works also. I just think we have to make parallel pretty central to it.

Devine, Karen D wrote:
> Here is just a thought -- not a requirement -- on Mark's suggestion.
> 
> Another option to increase the emphasis on parallelism would be to *not*
> call parallelism out only with specific bullets but, rather, incorporate
> parallelism into many of the existing bullets.  That is, we could make it a
> pervasive, integral part of the entire tutorial, rather than only a separate
> item.  For example, part two of the outline could be something like the
> following:
> 
> 2.  ITAPS data model (lecture format)
> a. Core data types: Meshes, Partitions, Geometry, and Fields
> /** here would include both the mesh data type and the underlying parallel
> partition model.  **/
> b. Basic Building blocks: Parts, Entities, Entity Sets, Tags
> c. Managing the relationships between core data types
> 
> Part four could be something like:
> 
> 4. ITAPS interfaces (lecture format)
> a. Design philosophy and basic tenets
> a2. Accessing global (or meta) information
> /** here would include both serial and parallel interface, e.g., both
> getNumEnts and getNumEntsAll, as well as partition interface functions; or
> the partition interface functions e.g., getNumParts, could be a separate
> bullet. **/
> b. Accessing local information using arrays and iterators
> c. Modifying the underlying parallel database
> /** here would include adding entities locally as well as off-processor. **/
> d. Parallel operations /** here would include communication/ghosting
> interfaces **/
> e. Language interoperability through the C interface and through SIDL/Babel
> 
> 
> BTW, Lori, thanks for putting the proposal together.  Vitus and I think it
> is very good!
> 
> Karen
> 
> 
> On 4/9/08 1:08 PM, "Mark Shephard" <shephard at scorec.rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>