Writing a Successful XSEDE Proposal

1. Writing a Successful XSEDE Proposal Ken Hackworth XSEDE Allocations Coordinator

2. Outline • References & Terms • Main Document and guidelines for XSEDE Research (XRAC) Request • Research Objectives • Computational Methodology (and Applications/Codes to be used) • Application Efficiencies • Computational Research Plan • Justification for SUs (TB) requested • Additional considerations

3. Outline continued: • Other Documents (*Progress Report and Publications for Renewals) • Review Criteria • Overview of Proposal (Request) Types and Actions • XSEDE Awards (Allocations) • XSEDE Systems (Resources) • Procedures for submitting Allocation request

4. The Lingo • Startup Development/testing/ porting/benchmarking • Education Classroom, Training • Research Program (usually funded) • PI Principal Investigator • POPSPartnerships Online Proposal System • XRACXSEDE Resource Allocations Committee • SU Service Unit = 1 Core-hour Allocation Request Types 3 Types of XSEDE Projects

5. “Traditional” v. Community • XRAC proposals are accepted in four general categories of research activities • Single Principal Investigator • Large research Collaborations (e.g., MILC consortium) • Community Consortiums (e.g., NEES) • Community Services (e.g., XSEDE Gateways) • The general requirements for proposals of all four types remain largely the same. • Whether requesting compute, storage, visualization, or advanced support or some combination

6. General Proposal Outline • Research Objectives • Computational methodology (Applications/Codes) • Application efficiencies • Computational Research Plan • Justification for SUs(TB) requested • Additional considerations Note: Sections III and IV are often integrated.

7. I. Research Objectives • Traditional proposals • Describe the research activities to be pursued • Community proposals • Describe the classes of research activities that the proposed effort will support. • Keep it short: You only need enough detail to support the methods and computational plan being proposed. • TIP—Reviewers don’t want to read the proposal you submitted to NSF/NIH/etc., but they need to see if you have merit-reviewed (grant) funding.

8. II. Computational Methods (and Applications/Codes used) • Very similar between traditional and community proposals. • For compute requests • Describe the Applications and components you will use. • Describe the methods/algorithms employed in your computational research • Describe code development/features/advances ‘home-grown’ codes. • For storage requests • Provide description of data to be stored (organization, formats, collection mechanisms, permissions granted or received) • Describe the amount and expected growth of data to be stored.

9. III. Application Efficiencies • Very similar between traditional and community proposals. • For compute requests • Explain why you chose specific resources for your applications. • Provide performance and scaling details on problems and test cases similar to those being pursued. (What is the appropriate scale for your problem?) • Ideally, provide performance and scaling data collected by you for the specific resource(s) you are requesting. • For storage requests • Explain the efficiency of your storage algorithms and protocols. • Describe and estimate the expected costs of scaling to larger data setsand a larger number of clients.

10. IV. Computational Research Plan • Traditional proposals • Explicitly describe the problem cases you will examine • BAD: “…a dozen or so important proteins under various conditions…” • GOOD: “…7 proteins [listed here; include scientific importance of these selections somewhere, too]. Each protein will require [X] number of runs, varying [x] parameters [listed here] [in very specific and scientifically meaningful ways]…” • Science Gateway proposals • Explicitly describe the typical use-case(s) that the gateway supports and the type of runs that you expect users to make • Describe how you will help ensure that the community will make scientifically meaningful runs (if applicable) • BAD: “…the gateway lets users run NAMD on XSEDE resources…” • BETTER: “…users will run NAMD jobs on [biological systems like this]…” • BETTER STILL: “…the gateway allows users to run NAMD jobs on up to 128 processors on problem sizes limited [in some fashion]…”

11. V. Justification of SUs, TBs • Traditional, Research proposals • If you’ve done sections II, III and IV well, this section should be a straightforward math problem • For each research problem, calculate the SUs required based on runs (base units) defined in IV and the timings in section III, broken out appropriately by resource • Reasonable scaling estimates from test-case timing runs to full-scale production runs are acceptable. • Clear presentation here will allow reviewers to award time or storage in a rational fashion • Analogous calculations should apply for storage requests

12. V. Justification of SUs, TBs • Community (gateway-type) proposals • The first big trick: Calculating SUs when you don’t know the precise runs to be made a priori. • renewIn Year 2 and beyond • Start with an estimate of total usage based on prior year’s usage patterns and estimate for coming year’s usage patterns. • From this information, along with data from sections IV and III, you can come up with a tabulation of SU estimates. • Year 1 requires bootstrapping • Pick conservative values (and justify them) for the size of the community and runs to be made, and calculate SUs. • TIP—Start modestly. If you have ~0 users, don’t expect the reviewers to believe that you will get thousands (or even hundreds) next year. • Analogous calculations for TBs of storage needed

13. VI. Additional Review Considerations • Ability to complete the work plan described(more significant for larger requests) • Sufficient merit-reviewed funding • Staff, both number and experience • Local computing environment • Special Needs • Other access to HPC resources • (e.g., Campus centers, DOE centers, etc.)

14. VI. Additional Considerations Community (gateway) proposals these components can provide key details: • Community Support and Management Plan • Describe the gateway interface — in terms of how it helps community burn SUs or access TBs. • Describe plans for growing the user community, “graduating” users to Research allocation awards, regulating “gateway hogs” • Progress report • The actual user community and usage patterns • Manuscripts thanking this service, or list articles referencing XSEDE. • Local computing environment • Other HPC resources

15. Renewals require a Progress Report • For Research Project Renewal and Supplement Requests • Summary of Scientific Discoveries • Accomplishments of Computation Plan • Usage • Achievements of the Computations (more detail than summary). • Specify the number of publications, conferences, reportsthat result from XSEDE support. • Contributions to other research efforts. (experimental/computational/instrumental, etc.).

16. Other Documents: Required: • CVs for PIs and Co-PIs (2 pages) • List of Publications resulting from the XSEDE allocation Optional: • Code Performance & Scaling (If it won’t fit in Main Doc.) • Special Requirements • References (If they won’t fit in Main Doc.) • Other

17. Proposal Review Criteria • Methodology For compute requests, the choice of applications, methods, algorithms and techniques to be employed to accomplish the stated objectives should be reasonably justified. While the accomplishment of the stated objectives in support of the science is important, it is incumbent on proposers to consider the methods available to them and to use that which is best suited. (For storage requests, the data usage, access methods, algorithms and techniques to be employed to accomplish the stated research objectives should be reasonably justified. For shared collections, proposers must describe the public or community access methods to be provided.) • State Appropriateness of Computations for Scientific Simulations The computations must provide a precise representation of the physical phenomena to be investigated. They must also employ the correct methodologies and simulation parameters (step size, time scale, etc.) to obtain accurate and meaningful results. • Describe the Efficiency in Usage of Resources The resources selected must be used as efficiently as is reasonably possible. To meet this criterion for compute resources, performance and parallel scaling data should be provided for all applications to be used along with a discussion of optimization and/or parallelization work to be done to improve the applications.(For storage resources, information on required performance and expected access patterns should be provided for all data and collections to be stored and used along with a discussion of work done or planned to improve the efficiency of the data use.) • Computational Research Plan Explain computational steps to accomplish science. Give details of computational costs. (Justification)

18. XSEDE Projects An XSEDEProject is like a bank account for allocations. • It is permanent, only one per PI. • It holds a year’s worth of allocation (on 1 or more systems) • PI’s request an allocation renewal each year thereafter. • An Allocation awarded to a New Request creates an XSEDE Project. A PI’s Computational Projects evolve over the years. • Computational Projects begin, end and extend. • In subsequent years successful Renewal Requests provide allocations for new Computational Projects under the same XSEDE Project. Your XSEDE Project remains the same. • A Renewal Requests is just like New Request, but must contain a Progress Report of last year’s Computational Projects and list of publications from past year’s allocation.

19. Eligibility • Principal investigator (PI) must be a researcher or educator at a U.S.-based institution, including federal research labs or commercial organizations, (Commercial requests must guarantee that their results are publically available, and work must be in collaboration with an open science organization.) • A postdoctoral researcher is eligible to be a PI. • A qualified advisor may apply for an allocation for his or her class; but a high school, undergraduate or graduate student may not be a PI.

20. Overview: Research Request portal.xsede.org AllocationsSubmit/Review Request ** • Web forms: Investigator, Grants, Resource Request,… • Requires Main Doc. = “proposal” (pdf upload) & CV • Reviewed by experts in same Field of Science • 2.5 months from deadline to award availability • Details: • Allocation Size: Unlimited • Reviewed: Quarterly • Deadlines: 15th of October, January, April, July • Awards Begin: 1st of January, April, July, October

21. Overview: Startup/Education Requests portal.xsede.org AllocationsSubmit/Review Request ** • Web forms: Investigator, Resource Request,… • Requires only an abstract and CV • Reviewed by a XSEDE Staff (Startup Allocations Committee) • 2 weeks from submission to award availability • For code devel / performance eval / small-scaling computations / classroom & training instruction • Details: • Request limit: 200,000 SUs total or combination of all resources requested • Reviewed: within 2 weeks of submission • Deadlines: None • Awards Begin: within 2 weeks of submission

22. Proposal Document(s) https://www.xsede.org/web/xup/allocation-policies** Key to a successful review: • Adhere to page limits! • “Justify” allocation request. • CV (s) required for all requests. • Abstract for startup/education request • (in forms, or as a PDF document) • Proposal “Main Document” for Research request(renewals/supplements) Pg. limit: DOES INCLUDE FIGURES & TABLES.

23. The Award = Allocation • One per PI (generally) • 1-year duration • Unused SUs are forfeited at the end of an award period • Progress report required for renewal requests. • Add users to a grant via XSEDE User Portal 4 quarters = 1 yr allocation period Advance Award Time to renew Submission Review

24. The Resources: Compute https://www.xsede.org/resources/overview HPC Systems: (Kraken, Ranger, Lonestar, Steele, Trestles, Blacklight, Keeneland, Quarry, Gordon) Advanced VIS Systems: (Longhorn, Nautilus, Spur) HTC Systems: (Condor and OSG) Storage Systems: (local resource storage)

25. The Resources: Extended Collaborative Support(ECS) • Dedicated, but limited, XSEDE staff assistance (request FTE months) • 5 Questions which are part of resource request section of application • Reviewers rate need for ECS (0-3) https://www.xsede.org/ecss

26. The Process: Steps • Assess Systems: https://www.xsede.org/resources/overview • Determine Type of Project • Login: portal.xsede.org AllocationsSubmit/Review Request **(“Create portal login” if first time.) • Select Action (New, Renewal, Suppl/Just/Prog/Ext/Trans/Adv) • Select project Type (Research; Startup/Edu < 200K SUs) • Fill in forms: PI/Co-PI Info, Proposal Info, Supporting Grants, Resource Request (alloc. request/machine). • Upload proposal document(s): (Main Doc., CVs, etc.). • Update at anytime and “Save to date” • Click “Final Submission” when finished (but can still change)

27. Login at portal.xsede.org

28. Example Form: New Project

29. Example Form: PI entry page

30. Example Form: PI entry page, populating with Portal information Clicking on this box will auto-populate this page with your portal information

31. Example proposal submission: Title, Abstract, FOS and Keywords

32. Example proposal submission: Supporting grants

33. Example proposal submission: Resource request page

34. Example proposal submission: Resources request page (continued)

35. Example proposal submission: Document upload page

36. Example proposal submission: Document upload (continued) Check mark confirms I have uploaded CV

37. Example proposal submission: Saving and Final Submission

38. Example proposal submission: Saving and Final Submission

39. Example proposal submission: Successful submission

40. Pending Request

41. Approved Request

42. Interesting Facts • ~600 research requests per year • ~800 other requests • ~3.5B SUs requested(3.2B are research requests) • ~1.8B SUs awarded(1.6B are research awards)

43. Questions? Asking for Help help@xsede.org