Difference between revisions of "WRF on the Cloud"
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
* Configurable WRF options to enable changing grids, simulation periods, physics options, and input data | * Configurable WRF options to enable changing grids, simulation periods, physics options, and input data | ||
* Flexible cloud deployment from a command line interface to initiate computing clusters and spawn WRF jobs in the cloud | * Flexible cloud deployment from a command line interface to initiate computing clusters and spawn WRF jobs in the cloud | ||
+ | |||
+ | Call Notes | ||
+ | * WRF Benchmarking (emulating WRF 2016 12/4/1.3 grids) costing for CPUs, RAM and Storage | ||
+ | * CPU: 8 Cores: 5.5 day run = 4 days; 24 Cores: 3 days | ||
+ | * RAM: ~22 Gb RAM/run (2.5 Gb/core) | ||
+ | * Storage: test netCDF4 and netCDF no compression; with compression saves a lot of space (1/3 of the output) relative to uncompressed NCF (~70% compression); need to link in the HDF and NC4 libraries with compression to downstream programs; estimate about 5.8 Tb for the year, goes to 16.9 without compression | ||
+ | |||
+ | Costing analysis | ||
+ | * Cluster management would launch a head node and compute nodes | ||
+ | * 77 chunks, 20 computers for 16 days | ||
+ | * Head node running constantly | ||
+ | * Compute nodes running over the length of project | ||
+ | * Can probably use 80 computers 4 days insteady of 20 in 16 days | ||
+ | * Memory optimized machines performed better than compute optimized for CAMx | ||
+ | * Storage |
Revision as of 21:21, 28 November 2018
LADCO is seeking to understand the best practices for submitting and managing multiprocessor computing jobs on a cloud computing platform. In particular, LADCO would like to develop a WRF production environment that utilizes cloud-based computing. The goal of this project is to prototype a WRF production environment on a public, on-demand high performance computing service in the cloud to create a WRF platform-as-a-service (PaaS) solution. The WRF PaaS must meet the following objectives:
- Configurable computing and storage to scale, as needed, to meet that needs of different WRF applications
- Configurable WRF options to enable changing grids, simulation periods, physics options, and input data
- Flexible cloud deployment from a command line interface to initiate computing clusters and spawn WRF jobs in the cloud
Call Notes
- WRF Benchmarking (emulating WRF 2016 12/4/1.3 grids) costing for CPUs, RAM and Storage
- CPU: 8 Cores: 5.5 day run = 4 days; 24 Cores: 3 days
- RAM: ~22 Gb RAM/run (2.5 Gb/core)
- Storage: test netCDF4 and netCDF no compression; with compression saves a lot of space (1/3 of the output) relative to uncompressed NCF (~70% compression); need to link in the HDF and NC4 libraries with compression to downstream programs; estimate about 5.8 Tb for the year, goes to 16.9 without compression
Costing analysis
- Cluster management would launch a head node and compute nodes
- 77 chunks, 20 computers for 16 days
- Head node running constantly
- Compute nodes running over the length of project
- Can probably use 80 computers 4 days insteady of 20 in 16 days
- Memory optimized machines performed better than compute optimized for CAMx
- Storage