Difference between revisions of "WRF on the Cloud"
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
* Memory optimized machines performed better than compute optimized for CAMx | * Memory optimized machines performed better than compute optimized for CAMx | ||
* Storage | * Storage | ||
+ | ** Don't want to use local because it will need to be moved/migrated | ||
+ | ** Put the data on a storage appliance (S3) while running, and then push off to longer term storage | ||
+ | ** Glacier is archived and need to submit access through the console, response times listed as 1-5 minutes | ||
+ | * Storage (Azure) | ||
+ | ** Fast and slower lake storage for offline | ||
+ | ** Managed disks for online | ||
+ | * Transfer (estimate based on 5.8 Gb) | ||
+ | ** Internet transfer will cost ~ $928 for 5.5 Gb | ||
+ | ** Snowball 10 days to get data off a disk, costs $200 for entire WRF run (smallest was 50 Tb) | ||
+ | * Transfer Azure | ||
+ | ** Online transfer | ||
+ | ** Databox option (like snowball) |
Revision as of 21:29, 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
- Don't want to use local because it will need to be moved/migrated
- Put the data on a storage appliance (S3) while running, and then push off to longer term storage
- Glacier is archived and need to submit access through the console, response times listed as 1-5 minutes
- Storage (Azure)
- Fast and slower lake storage for offline
- Managed disks for online
- Transfer (estimate based on 5.8 Gb)
- Internet transfer will cost ~ $928 for 5.5 Gb
- Snowball 10 days to get data off a disk, costs $200 for entire WRF run (smallest was 50 Tb)
- Transfer Azure
- Online transfer
- Databox option (like snowball)