Difference between revisions of "ET Workshop 2015/new developments"
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
# Managing and reproducing data  | # Managing and reproducing data  | ||
## postprocessing  | ## postprocessing  | ||
| − | # Performance  | + | ## simulation  | 
| − | ## AMR  | + | ## simulation management, simfactory  | 
| + | ##* Ian Hinder describes situation of simfactory2 and work on simfactory3 (Hinder, Wardell, Schnetter). Ian Hawke mentions the possibility of other workflow management systems that exist and have a wide user base.   | ||
| + | ##* desire to include management of simulation data   | ||
| + | # Performance in optimization and usability  | ||
| + | ## AMR, scaling, adaptiveness  | ||
| + | ##* reduce focus on home grown solution for GR only  | ||
| + | ##* discuss benefits of Chombo and GRChombo. Ian Hawke mentions bad experience  | ||
| + | with these frameworks in relativity.  | ||
## Usability  | ## Usability  | ||
##* more examples, better documentation (hypothetical "science with ET", Carpet)  | ##* more examples, better documentation (hypothetical "science with ET", Carpet)  | ||
| Line 36: | Line 43: | ||
##* now there are multiple hydro codes that are public  | ##* now there are multiple hydro codes that are public  | ||
# ET maintenance  | # ET maintenance  | ||
| − | ## tickets  | + | ## tickets (weekly telecon?)  | 
# computer time for infrastructure development in Europe  | # computer time for infrastructure development in Europe  | ||
#* PRACE only gives prepartory access to test on the given machine but not to develop  | #* PRACE only gives prepartory access to test on the given machine but not to develop  | ||
| − | #* PRACE ony funds big ones, smaller ones through national agencies  | + | #* PRACE ony funds big ones, smaller ones through national agencies. (CINECA  | 
| + | offers class C allocations for this)  | ||
Revision as of 04:33, 13 August 2015
usability:
- documentation wanted, not just code but also on how to do things
 - larger set of gallery examples
 - lack of complete documentation. Some part are well documented (Cactus flesh) but newer features are mostly undocumented, for example the tags
 - want some high level documentation
 - suggestion to also have a correctness checking framework
 - non-working examples are included in the toolkit. Example parfiles should be commented to make them easier to understand.
 - higher level "Einstein Toolkit" user guide.
 
- Managing and reproducing data
- postprocessing
 - simulation
 - simulation management, simfactory
- Ian Hinder describes situation of simfactory2 and work on simfactory3 (Hinder, Wardell, Schnetter). Ian Hawke mentions the possibility of other workflow management systems that exist and have a wide user base.
 - desire to include management of simulation data
 
 
 - Performance in optimization and usability
- AMR, scaling, adaptiveness
- reduce focus on home grown solution for GR only
 - discuss benefits of Chombo and GRChombo. Ian Hawke mentions bad experience
 
 
 - AMR, scaling, adaptiveness
 
with these frameworks in relativity.
- Usability
- more examples, better documentation (hypothetical "science with ET", Carpet)
 - scientific programmers
 
 
- Usability
 - Code correctness
- Cactus-aware correctness testing framework. Ideally with set of a simulation and analysis tests, may e much more heavyweight than testsuite.
 - HPC correctness test
 - Updating private codes to agree with ET developments
 
 - Community practises
- backwards compatibility. Strict compatibility hurts usefulness.
 - Cactus may have been to conservative mainaining compatibility
 - IF things broke we were not good about announcing this or providing useful error messages at runtime
 - hard to provide runtime information or code. Need a method to deprecate code and parameters with escalating warnings/errors/aborts as the deprecated feature becomes older.
 
 - Physics modules
- better interfaces, evolution agnostic analysis, metadata
 - adopt standards (preferably public ones, or from neighbouring fields)
 - initial data: provide more? Better documentation for initial data thorns?
 - GRHydro development:
- cleanup
 - coordinate
 
 - more standards for hydro
- provide metadata with ID thorns
 - agree on exactly on what is provided
 - now there are multiple hydro codes that are public
 
 
 - ET maintenance
- tickets (weekly telecon?)
 
 - computer time for infrastructure development in Europe
- PRACE only gives prepartory access to test on the given machine but not to develop
 - PRACE ony funds big ones, smaller ones through national agencies. (CINECA
 
 
offers class C allocations for this)