Large allocations of WNA resources are considered on a semi-annual basis. The next deadline for submissions is December 23, 2016.
Note: Small allocations (those asking for 200,000 core-hours or less on Cheyenne) require only an abstract of the work to be conducted.
Requesters must use the online Large Allocation Request Form available to submit their requests. In addition to answering the questions on the form, a Request Summary document (pdf format) must be attached at the end of the Large Allocation Request Form in the space provided. The rest of these instructions describe how to prepare the Request Summary document. Evaluation criteria can be found here.
The Request Summary document should provide a self-contained description of your project and allocation request. The Request Summary may be no more than five (5) pages for Sections A–D below; Sections E–H should be included in the same document and are permitted an additional five pages. The five-page limit is mandatory for all requests, and it is strongly recommended that you follow the template below to assist the panel in locating required information within your request.
The WRAP evaluation criteria document provides further detail considerations used by the review panel in identifying meritorious requests. A recent successful request is available at: http://www2.cisl.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/CHAP_Request_Sample_2011.pdf
The overview of the project should include:
The science objectives should be briefly described. This section should give sufficient information for understanding the computational plan in section E; it is not necessary to justify the science objectives as they must have already passed external review. The bulk of the Request Summary should focus on Section E.
The ways that the allocation request will
should be briefly described.
Discussion of your planned computational experiments and the resources needed to conduct the work is the focus of this section. Computational Experiments. Please cover the following topics:
Numerical Approach. The numerical approach(es) or model should be briefly described. If a standard community model is being used, simply explain why it is appropriate for the scientific objectives and include a reference to a published description of the model or method. If a community model is being modified, include a description of the modification sufficient to explain any changes in the computational cost of the model and explain why modifications are necessary for the scientific objectives. For a non-standard or non-community model, the numerical description should briefly describe the approximations and other methods proposed to obtain valid solutions to the problem.
Computational Experiments. Describe the computational experiments needed to address the Science Objectives. The description should clearly indicate the number and type of experiments and how they relate to the scientific objectives. Be sure to justify the model configuration choices such as grid size, time steps, simulated time span, ensemble size, and parameter choices. References on the selection of the ensemble size are strongly encouraged. Without an adequate justification of the model configuration the Panel may reduce or deny your computing request.
Code Performance. Documentation on program code performance (e.g., timings, performance monitoring tools) should be included; you may refer to a web page detailing code performance. Describe how flexible your code is in the number of processors it can use and why you may choose a particular number. The WRAP will evaluate the likelihood that a request can scale up its production runs based on this information. Information on the portability of the code to other platforms may also be very useful to the WRAP; requestors are strongly encouraged to provide this information about the code and the team’s knowledge/use of other HPC computers similar to Cheyenne.
Resource Requirements. Provide a table summarizing the resources required for each experimental configuration and the complete set of computational experiments. This should include the number of core-hours needed and, if required, the terabytes of data destined for the High-performance storage system (HPSS). The table should be accompanied by a narrative that elaborates on how you arrived at the numbers in the table and describes any needs for project disk space or data analysis and visualization resources as detailed below.
HPC. The table should give the core-hours per simulated year or appropriate time period and the total core-hours needed for each experimental configuration as well as the total core-hours for the request. Describe how you arrived at the number of core-hours for each proposed computational experiment. If not provided elsewhere, details on how HPC resource requirements are estimated MUST be included to help reviewers evaluate whether the resources sought are justified and will be used efficiently.
HPSS Archive. If your data storage in the HPSS archive during the life of this project will be less than 20 TB, stating “<20 TB” is sufficient and no detailed justification is required. Otherwise, in the table showing core-hours include a column for the terabytes of HPSS space required for each experimental configuration and include the total terabytes stored. Projects with larger anticipated archival storage needs should include a description of how the estimate was calculated. If this request is a continuation of a previous request on the same project, please include any current data stored in HPSS in your calculations of total data for the project.
Project File Space. Large projects can request dedicated long-term, large-scale disk space on the GLADE resource. The justification for Glade project space should describe how the requested size was arrived at, why other available resources (such as /glade/scratch, /glade/user, and HPSS) are not well suited for the project's needs and how the request ted project space will benefit or accelerate the project. Project file spaces should be for needs greater than 1 TB. Projects do not need to request or justify access to Glade’s scratch or user file spaces, which are available to all users.
Data Analysis and Visualization. Describe any need for DAV. clusters (Geyser and Caldera) to analyze or visualize your results. For standard interactive access to these clusters, the number of users expected to use the DAV clusters will serve as sufficient justification for up to 5,000 core-hours per user. Projects with more extensive plans for use of the clusters (e.g., long-duration, multi-node batch runs) should consider justifying their needs in a manner similar to their HPC requests.
Multi-year plan. If applicable, provide a breakdown showing the project’s projected use of core-hours and, if applicable, terabytes to be stored in HPSS during each year of the allocation. Tie this to the planned computational experiments completed or partially completed each year.
Special Requirements. Please specify any resource requirements that you feel may affect your ability to complete the proposed computational experiments.
Sections F through H contain additional supporting information and should together be no more than five pages.
F. Data Management Plan. Consistent with NSF’s new requirement that all proposals include a Data Management Plan, please summarize your plan for managing the data resulting from this computational work. This section can be used to provide additional justification for the scientific need, to describe plans for sharing the project’s data, and to summarize any anticipated long-term storage needs beyond the lifetime of the supporting award. A well-justified data management plan is critical because of the size of Yellowstone and the potential for large-scale Cheyenne projects to produce extensive data output.
G. References. Please limit to those directly related to the proposed project.
H. Figures and captions. Optional. Figures may be embedded within the main body of the Request Summary; embedded figures will count against the 5-page limit. Figures and charts at the end of the Request Summary will not count against the 5-page limit.
I. Accomplishment Report. (Up to 2 pages; these will not count against the 5-page limit) The Accomplishment Report should encompass computations performed using NWSC resources by the PI or Project Lead. Clearly distinguish accomplishments on this NWSC project (i.e., for prior NWSC use associated with the same project) and accomplishments from all past use of NWSC resources. Related work performed on NWSC resources by other members of a larger research group may be described, if relevant to this request. Briefly describe the calculations and scientific accomplishments that were completed. Include publications submitted or published that resulted from use of NWSC resources. List graduate students who used these computational resources and if these resources supported their thesis research. If so, please include the thesis title(s).
J. Powerpoint presentation (3-4 slides). All continuing projects or projects led by a faculty with a previous large allocation must include a short presentation that highlights the scientific results from previous allocations.