1 / 92

INUNDATION TESTBED PI MEETING: LSU FVCOM Progress

INUNDATION TESTBED PI MEETING: LSU FVCOM Progress. Chunyan Li (with ACKNOWLEDGEMENT to UMASS Team and Dr. Zheng ) Louisiana State University. Computer Resource Usage. LONI computers: Queen Bee - 668 Compute Nodes 50.7 TFlops Peak Performance

stew
Download Presentation

INUNDATION TESTBED PI MEETING: LSU FVCOM Progress

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. INUNDATION TESTBED PI MEETING: LSU FVCOM Progress Chunyan Li (with ACKNOWLEDGEMENT to UMASS Team and Dr. Zheng) Louisiana State University

  2. Computer Resource Usage LONI computers: Queen Bee - 668 Compute Nodes 50.7 TFlops Peak Performance Two 2.33 GHz Quad Core Xeon 64-bit Processors 8 GB Ram 10 Gb/sec Infniband network interface 10/100/1000 Ethernet network interface Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 Painter- 128 compute node cluster 4.77 TFlops Peak Performance Two 2.33 GHz Quad Core Xeon 64-bit Processors A Dell Linux cluster housed at Louisiana Tech University 10 Gb/sec Infniband network interface 10/100/1000 Ethernet network interface Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 Louie … Poseidon …

  3. Total used 166003 SUs With ~ 80% used for this project 270K SU More LONI allocations Requested

  4. Cases that have been run – • 2D tide only: • dtE = 2 sec. • 2008.8.1 – 2008.10.1 • nodes=32:ppn=8  256 CPUs • finished in 12:47:33 (12.7925 hr.) walltime • 61 days of simulation •  12.7925 hr./61 day =12.5828 min./day • 2a. 2D tide only new run • 2008.7.1 – 2008.11.1 • nodes=16:ppn=8  128 CPUs • Start saving Aug. 1: 93 days of simulation • ran from 2/27, 5:02:43 AM to 2/28, 14:49:39 • a total of 1.4076 days •  1.4076 days /92 days = 22.03 min/day

  5. Cases that have been run – 2b. 2D tide only new run: dtE = 2 sec. 2008.7.1 – 2008.11.1 nodes=16:ppn=8  128 CPUs finished in 45:14:52 (45.2478 hr.) walltime 123 days of simulation  45.2478 hr./123 day =22.07 min./day Scaling: doubling CPUs  22.07/12.5828=1.75

  6. Cases that have been run (continued) – 4. 2D tide + hurricane surge: dtE = 2 sec. 2008.9.6 – 2008.9.16 nodes=16:ppn=8  128 CPUs 5. 2D wave only 2008.9.6 – 2008.9.16 nodes=32:ppn=8  256 CPUs

  7. Cases that have been run (continued) – 6. 3D tide only (new): dtE = 1 sec. 2008.7.1 – 2008.11.1 nodes=48:ppn=8  384 CPUs ~ Finished in 3 days 3 hr.  75 hr./day  ~ 0.625 hr./day 7. 3D tide + hurricane surge nodes=16:ppn=8  128 CPUs 2008.9.6 – 2008.9.16 (10 days) ~ Finished in 16 hr.  1.6 hr./day Scaling: 384/128=3, tripling CPUs 1.6/0.625=2.56

  8. Our own data Li, C., E. Weeks, B. W. Blanchard, 2010, Storm surge induced flux through multiple tidal passes during Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 87 (2010) 517–525. Observations for Hurricane storm surges by Hurricanes Gustav and Ike

  9. Rate of water flux in m3/s and the 40-hour low-pass filtered time series. Rigolets Li, C., E. Weeks, B. W. Blanchard, 2010, Storm surge induced flux through multiple tidal passes during Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 87 (2010) 517–525. Chef Menteure Industrial Canal Observations for Hurricane storm surges by Hurricanes Gustav and Ike

  10. Wavcis data

  11. Results from Initial Run of the 2D Model: no tidal potential

  12. Results from Initial Run of the 2D Model

  13. Results from Initial Run of the 2D Model

  14. Results from Initial Run of the 2D Model

  15. Results from Initial Run of the 2D Model

  16. Results from Initial Run of the 2D Model

  17. Results from Initial Run of the 2D Model

  18. Results from Initial Run of the 2D Model

  19. Results from Initial Run of the 2D Model

  20. Results from Initial Run of the 2D Model

  21. Results from Initial Run of the 2D Model

  22. Results from Initial Run of the 2D Model

  23. Results from Initial Run of the 2D Model

  24. Results from Initial Run of the 2D Model

  25. Results from Initial Run of the 2D Model

  26. Results from Initial Run of the 2D Model

  27. data1 = t8724698; data2 = t8726724; data3 = t8727333; data4 = t8727520; data5 = t8729210; data6 = t8729678; data7 = t8735180; data8 = t8737048; data9 = t8737373; data10= t8741041; data11= t8741196; data12= t8741533; data13= t8742221; data14= t8743281; data15= t8744117; data16= t8745557; data17= t8747437; data18= t8747766; data19= t8760551; data20= t8760922; data21= t8760943; data22= t8761305; data23= t8761720; data24= t8761724; data25= t8761927; data26= t8762075; data27= t8762372; data28= t8764025; data29= t8764044; data30= t8764227; data31= t8764311; data32=t8765251; data33=t8766072; data34=t8767816; data35=t8767961; data36=t8768094; data37=t8770475; data38=t8770520; data39=t8770559; data40=t8770570; data41=t8770613; data42=t8770743; data43= t8770777; data44= t8770933; data45= t8770971; data46=t8771013; data47= t8771450; data48= t8771510; data49= t8772447; data50= t8773037; data51= t8773701; data52=t8774513; data53=t8774770; data54=t8775188; data55=t8775237; data56=t8775283; data57=t8775296; data58=t8775792; data59=t8775870; Node numbers in the order of the numbers

  28. %========================================================= % DATE: FEB. 11, 2011 % NOTE: THE JULIAN DATE WAS DEFINED % BY THE "MODIFIED JULIAN DAY" STARTING FROM % 1858, 11, 17, 0:00 % % It can be verified by datenum(2008, 8,1)-t0-time(1) = 0 % See below for definition of t0. %========================================================== t0 = datenum(1858,11,17); dt = t0+time(1) - datenum(2008, 1,1); time1 = time - time(1); times = (0:length(zetas1)-1)*1/24 - dt; % delta t = 1 hour Note: station 25 is New Canal station, which did not seem to have predicted data on NOAA’s web site.

  29. Results from New Run of the 2D Model: w/ Tidal Potential

  30. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  31. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  32. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  33. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  34. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  35. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  36. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  37. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  38. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  39. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  40. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  41. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  42. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  43. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  44. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  45. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  46. Results from New Run of the 2D Model Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  47. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  48. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  49. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

  50. Results from New Run of the 2D Model

More Related