The Proposal Process,Best Practices & Policies

Kent MilfeldTeraGrid Allocations Coordinator

help@teragrid.orgwww.tacc.utexas.edu/~milfeld/pops/allocation_Proposal_Advice(9).ppt

An open scientific discovery infrastructure for an integrated, persistent computation resource.

Outline

• Terms• Overview of Proposal Types• Procedures• Resources• Awards• Entering Requests into POPS

(Intent, Type, Forms, Document)

• Request Document and guidelinesI. Research ObjectivesII. Codes and methods to be usedIII. Computational planIV. Justification for SUs (TB) requestedV. Additional considerations

• Review Criteria

The Lingo

• Startup Development/testing/porting/benchmarking

• Education Classroom, Training• Research Program (usually funded)

• PI Principal Investigator• POPS Partnerships Online Proposal System • RAC Resource Allocations Committee• SU Service Unit = 1 CPU-hour• Roaming TeraGrid (Wide) Roaming (Access)

Think: How much, how long, and how do I use resources

Allocation Request Types

Eligibility

• Principal investigator (PI) must be a researcher or educator at a U.S.-based institution, including federal research labs or commercial organizations, (Although additional information may be needed from researchers

not affiliated with academic or non-profit research institutions.)

• A postdoctoral researcher is eligible to serve as 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.

Overview: Research Request

• Web forms: Investigator, Grants, Resource Request,…

• Requires a written “proposal” (pdf upload)• Reviewed by experts in same Field of Science• 3 months from deadline to award availability• For Research Projects

• Proposals/AllocationsLimit: UnlimitedReviewed : QuarterlyDeadlines: 15th of October, Jan., April, JulyAwards begin: 1st of January, April, July, October

https://pops-submit.teragrid.org/ **

Overview: Startup/Education Requests

• Web forms: Investigator, Resource Request,…

• Requires only an abstract• Reviewed by a TG Staff (Startup Allocations Committee)

• 2 weeks from submission to award availability• For code devel / performance eval / small-scaling computations /

classroom & training instruction

• Requests/Allocations

Limit: 200,000 SUs (less for systems <100TFLOPS)

Reviewed : AnytimeAwards begin: 2 weeks after submission

https://pops-submit.teragrid.org/ **

The Process: Steps

• Review Systems: www.teragrid.org/userinfo/hardware/resources.php

• Determine Type of Project• Login: https://pops-submit.teragrid.org (“Create POPS login” if first

time.) • Select Intent (New, Renewal, Suppl/Justif/Progress/Ext)• Select project Type (Research > 200K SUs > Startup)• Fill in forms: PI/Co-PI Info, Proposal Info, Supporting

Grants, Resource Request (alloc. request/machine).• Upload proposal document (for Research reqeust),

and CV for all requests.• (Update at anytime and “Save to date”)• Press “Final Submission” when finished.

• Review Systems: www.teragrid.org/userinfo/hardware/resources.php

• Determine Type of Project• Login: https://pops-submit.teragrid.org (“Create POPS login” if first

time.) • Select Intent (New, Renewal, Suppl/Justif/Progress/Ext)• Select project Type (Research > 200K SUs > Startup)• Fill in forms: PI/Co-PI Info, Proposal Info, Supporting

Grants, Resource Request (alloc. request/machine).• Upload proposal document (for Research reqeust),

and CV for all requests.• (Update at anytime and “Save to date”)• Press “Final Submission” when finished.

The Resources: Compute

TeraGrid Resources Catalog **Select: One or more resources or TeraGrid Roaming (Allocation across variety of systems)

www.teragrid.org/userinfo/hardware/resources.php **

Startup/Education allocations are available on all systems, or as TeraGrid Roaming.

SMPBlue/GeneClustersPools (condor)

Ranger System, TACC

The Resources: Storage

• All compute allocations still include some default tape storage

• Long-Term Allocable Storage: GPFS-WANNCSA Proj. Wrk Space

IU Data Capacitor IU HPSS (Tape) ArchiveNCSA Tape StorageSDSC Tape Storage

• Data CollectionsIU Database/CollectionsNCSA Database (+Service)SDSC Database/Collections

The Resources: Visualization

• Purdue TeraDRE• 48-node Purdue Condor Pool subcluster• NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT GPUs (Gelato)

• TACC SPUR• 8 Sun Fire x4000 series• 32 NVIDIA FX5600 GPUs, 128 cores• Access to Ranger queues and file systems

• UC/ANL• 96 node, dual Intel Xeon• 1 Nvidia GeFORCE 660GT ABP card/node• Access to GPFS-WAN

The Awards

• One per PI (generally)• 1-year duration, or multi-year• Unused SUs are forfeited at

the end of an award period• Progress report required

annually in renewal requests.• Progress report required

yearly in multi-year awards• Add users to a grant via

TeraGrid User Portal

Proposal “Intent”

• NewFirst Research or Startup/Education allocation Request

• RenewalSubsequent allocation Requests

Others:• Supplements

Request additional resources during a 12-month allocation periodNot for Startups! Reviewed by RAC (Resource Allocation Committee members).

• JustificationsPI may submit a rebuttal when proposal is not fully awarded.For addressing specific omissions (not to salvage horrible proposals)

• ExtensionsCan extend award period an additional 6 months, with reasonable justificationNo additional resources!

• Project ReportsIt is necessary to submit a Progress Report for approval of the next year’s allocation for Multi-year awards.

Proposal Type (level)• New

• Renewal, Supplement, Justification, Report, Extension and Transfer• Select Proposal first, then type/level:

Proposal Forms

• Straightforward (mostly)• Once you get to the Web-based

data entry forms• Latest changes

• Supporting grant information• You can now login to POPS with

your TeraGrid Portal login• Coming soon

• Better TeraGrid portal integration

https://pops-submit.teragrid.org/

Proposal Document(s)

Key to a successful review:• Adhere to page limits!• Justify allocation request.• There are examples. **

http://www.teragrid.org/userinfo/access/allocations.php **

Does not include figures and references.

• CV required for all requests.• Abstract for startup/education

• (in forms, or as pdf document)• Proposal Document for Research

request are required.

The Options• Asking for Help

help@teragrid.org• Multi-year Awards

Possible, but not recommended for new PIsOnly Progress Reports required in subsequent years

• AdvancesUP to 20% of Research request can be provided in advance

The Resources: Advanced Support Program (ASP)

• Dedicated, but limited, TeraGrid staff assistance (request FTE months)

• At RAC meeting reviewers rate need for ASP (0-3)

• Extra info required in proposal, see URL.

http://www.teragrid.org/userinfo/asp.php

“Traditional” v. Community

• MRAC 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., TeraGrid 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

General Proposal Outline

I. Research ObjectivesII. Codes and methods to be usedIII. Computational planIV. Justification for SUs (TB) requestedV. Additional considerations

Note: Sections III and IV are often integrated.

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 will notice whether you have merit-reviewed (grant) funding.

II. Codes, Data, and Methods

• Very similar between traditional and community proposals.

• For compute requests• More significant if using ‘home-grown’ codes. • Provide performance and scaling details on problems and test cases

similar to those being pursued.• Ideally, provide performance and scaling data collected by you for the

specific resource(s) you are requesting

• 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.

III. Computational 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]…”

• Community 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 TeraGrid 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]…”

IV. Justification of SUs, TBs

• Traditional proposals• If you’ve done sections II and III well, this section should

be a straightforward math problem• For each research problem, calculate the SUs required

based on runs (base units) defined in III and the timings in section II, 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

IV. Justification of SUs, TBs

• Community proposals• The first big trick: Calculating SUs when you don’t know the precise

runs to be made a priori.• In 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 (justify in Section V).

• From this information, along with data from sections II 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

V. Additional Review Considerations

Prior progress• From prior year allocation, Startup award, or work done

locally

Ability to complete the work plan described(more significant for larger requests)• Sufficient merit-reviewed funding• Staff, both number and experience

Local computing environmentOther access to HPC resources

• (e.g., Campus centers, DOE centers, etc.)

V. Additional Considerations

• For community 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 alloc. awards, regulating “gateway hogs”

• Progress report• The actual user community and usage patterns• Manuscripts produced thanks to this service.

• Local computing environment• Other HPC resources

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 SimulationsThe 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 ResourcesThe 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.)

Questions?

http://www.teragrid.org/userinfo/access/allocations.phphttp://teragrid.org/userinfo/access/accounts.phphelp@teragrid.org

www.teragrid.org/userinfo/hardware/resources.php https://pops-submit.teragrid.org/http://www.teragrid.org/userinfo/asp.php

Example Proposals at:http://www.teragrid.org/userinfo/access/allocations.phphttp://www.tacc.utexas.edu/~milfeld/pops/Aliu.pdfhttp://www.tacc.utexas.edu/~milfeld/pops/MColvin.pdf