Difference between revisions of "ET Workshop 2015/new developments"
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
## visualization  | ## visualization  | ||
## simulation management, simfactory  | ## 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.    | + | ##* Ian Hinder describes situation of simfactory2 and work on simfactory3 (Hinder, Wardell, Schnetter).  | 
| − | ##* desire to include management of simulation data    | + | ## *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  | # Performance in optimization and usability  | ||
## AMR, scaling, adaptiveness  | ## AMR, scaling, adaptiveness  | ||
##* reduce focus on home grown solution for GR only  | ##* reduce focus on home grown solution for GR only  | ||
| − | ##* discuss benefits of Chombo and GRChombo. Ian Hawke mentions bad experience  | + | ##* discuss benefits of Chombo and GRChombo. Ian Hawke mentions bad experience with these frameworks in relativity.  | 
| − | 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 46: | Line 46: | ||
# 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. (CINECA  | + | #* PRACE ony funds big ones, smaller ones through national agencies. (CINECA offers class C allocations for this)  | 
| − | offers class C allocations for this)  | ||
Revision as of 06:47, 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
 - visualization
 - 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
- more examples, better documentation (hypothetical "science with ET", Carpet)
 - scientific programmers
 
 
 - AMR, scaling, adaptiveness
 - 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)