CyberShake Study 21.12 - Revision history

Scottcal: /* Data Products */

2022-08-17T19:29:35Z

Data Products

2022-04-13T20:41:14Z

Data Products

2022-04-13T20:39:26Z

Data Products

2022-04-13T20:03:06Z

Data Products

2022-04-13T19:31:14Z

2022-04-12T21:54:20Z

ERF

2022-02-10T22:26:59Z

Technical and Scientific Updates

2022-02-02T19:14:58Z

Application-level Metrics

2022-02-02T18:57:40Z

Application-level Metrics

2022-01-26T05:52:27Z

Performance Metrics

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:29, 17 August 2022
Line 8:		Line 8:

	== Data Products ==		== Data Products ==
		+
		+	In general, the Study 21.12b maps are preferred, unless showing the effect of changing RSQSim frictional parameters.

	Hazard maps for this study are available [http://opensha.usc.edu/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_21_12_rsqsim_4983_skip65k_1hz/ here].		Hazard maps for this study are available [http://opensha.usc.edu/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_21_12_rsqsim_4983_skip65k_1hz/ here].

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:41, 13 April 2022
Line 14:		Line 14:

	Results from Study 21.12b are available [http://opensha.usc.edu/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_21_12_rsqsim_5413/ here].		Results from Study 21.12b are available [http://opensha.usc.edu/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_21_12_rsqsim_5413/ here].
		+
		+	Comparisons of Study 21.12b and Study 15.4 are available [http://opensha.usc.edu/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_21_12_rsqsim_5413/multi_study_hazard_maps/resources/ here].

	== Science Goals ==		== Science Goals ==

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 == Data Products ==
-Hazard maps for this study are available [http://opensha.usc.edu/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_21_12_rsqsim_4983_skip65k_1hz/ here].  Comparisons of Study 21.12 and Study 15.4 are available [http://opensha.usc.edu/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_21_12_rsqsim_4983_skip65k_1hz/multi_study_hazard_maps/resources/ here].
+Hazard maps for this study are available [http://opensha.usc.edu/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_21_12_rsqsim_4983_skip65k_1hz/ here].
 == Science Goals ==

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 == Data Products ==
-Hazard maps for this study are available [http://opensha.usc.edu/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_21_12_rsqsim_4983_skip65k_1hz/ here].
+Hazard maps for this study are available [http://opensha.usc.edu/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_21_12_rsqsim_4983_skip65k_1hz/ here].  Comparisons of Study 21.12 and Study 15.4 are available [http://opensha.usc.edu/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_21_12_rsqsim_4983_skip65k_1hz/multi_study_hazard_maps/resources/ here].
 == Science Goals ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:31, 13 April 2022
Line 8:		Line 8:

	== Data Products ==		== Data Products ==
		+
		+	Hazard maps for this study are available [http://opensha.usc.edu/ftp/kmilner/markdown/cybershake-analysis/study_21_12_rsqsim_4983_skip65k_1hz/ here].

	== Science Goals ==		== Science Goals ==

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 *All events have equal probability, 1/715k
-Additional details are available on the [http://opensha.usc.edu/ftp/kmilner/markdown/rsqsim-analysis/catalogs/rundir4983_stitched/#bruce-4983-stitched catalog's metadata page], and the catalog and input fault geometry files can be [https://zenodo.org/record/5542222 downloaded from zeonodo]. This is the catalog used in [https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article/111/2/898/593757/Toward-Physics-Based-Nonergodic-PSHA-A-Prototype Milner et al., 2021], which used 0.5 Hz CyberShake simulations performed in May, 2020.
+Additional details are available on the [http://opensha.usc.edu/ftp/kmilner/markdown/rsqsim-analysis/catalogs/rundir4983_stitched/#bruce-4983-stitched catalog's metadata page], and the catalog and input fault geometry files can be [https://zenodo.org/record/5542222 downloaded from zenodo]. This is the catalog used in [https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article/111/2/898/593757/Toward-Physics-Based-Nonergodic-PSHA-A-Prototype Milner et al., 2021], which used 0.5 Hz CyberShake simulations performed in May, 2020.
 == Sites ==

@@ Line 146: / Line 146: @@
 *When calculating Qs in the SGT header generation code, a default Qs of 25 was always used.  This has been changed to Qs=0.05Vs.
 *We have turned off the adjustment of mu and lambda.
-*FP was increased from 0.5 to 1.0.
+*FP was increased from 0.5 to 1.0. <-- <b>This was not picked up correctly by the wrapper, so 0.5 was still used.</b>
 *We modified the lambda and mu calculations in AWP to use the original media parameter values from the velocity mesh rather than the FP-modified ones when calculating strains, to be consistent with RWG.

@@ Line 362: / Line 362: @@
 * Total data generated: ?
-** ? TB SGTs generated (? GB per single SGT)
+** 72 TB SGTs generated (220 GB per single SGT)
-** ? TB intermediate data generated
+** 165 TB intermediate data generated
-** ? TB output data (102,893,156 files)
+** 1.9 TB output data (102,893,156 files)
 Delay per job (using a 7-day, no-restarts cutoff: ? workflows, ? jobs) was mean: ? sec, median: ?, min: ?, max: ?, sd: ?

@@ Line 350: / Line 350: @@
 * 65469.9 node-hrs used (2749735.8 core-hrs)
 * 209.2 node-hrs per site (8785.1 core-hrs).  This is 80% more than our original estimate, and 50% more than the stress test showed.
-* On average, ? jobs running, with a max of ?
+* On average, 2.5 jobs running, with a max of 36
-* Average of ? nodes used, with a maximum of ? (? cores, ?% of Summit).
+* Average of 102 nodes used, with a maximum of 2128 (89376 cores/12462 GPUs, 46.2% of Summit)
-* ? workflows run
+* 670 workflows run
 ** ? successful
 *** ? SGT