March 2015 - Allocations-admins - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet
by Aithal, Shashikant M. 29 Mar '15

29 Mar '15

Ray: This is a well-worded note. Hopefully, it will serve its purpose. Shashi ________________________________________ From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov [allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. [rbair(a)anl.gov] Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2015 2:35 PM To: LCRC Allocations Admins Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet My note ... On 3/29/15, 12:22 PM, "Bair, Raymond A." <rbair(a)anl.gov> wrote: >Dear Sibendu, > >Looking at the FY2015 LCRC usage of Blues (10/1-3/25), many of your >industry projects are using Blues quite a lot. I believe that we agreed >that they would be run on Fusion. Please pass the word to your team to >use Fusion. If there is some special need for Blues time, please let us >know so we can discuss. The normal Blues projects are being significantly >cut back April-September because demand is so high. > >Regards, > >Ray > > Blues Hours >Denso_simulations 38244 Saha >biodiesel-combustion 242620 Som >cavitation-modeling 224677 Som >LES-Engine 118544 Som >LES-sprays 315096 Som >gm_gasexchange 224270 Som >dual-fuel-sprays 59054 Wang > > On 3/29/15, 1:14 PM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> wrote: >Ray: > >It is likely that Sibendu (and his post-docs) do not know that they are >not supposed to use Blues for industry projects. A gentle reminder that >stricter enforcement is being put in place on account of the load on >Blues should be helpful. We can send him a list of projects marked as >industry, if need be. > >Thanks, > >Shashi >________________________________________ >From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >[rbair(a)anl.gov] >Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2015 12:23 PM >To: LCRC Allocations Admins >Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >spreadsheet > >I made a tally of the Blues usage and sent a note to Sibendu about all the >industry projects. > >Ray > >----------------------------------------- >Ray Bair >Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences >Argonne National Laboratory > and the University of Chicago >TCS Building 240, Room 4122 >9700 South Cass Avenue >Argonne, IL 60439 >email: rbair(at)anl.gov >Phone: (630)252-5751 > > > > > >On 3/28/15, 7:40 AM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> wrote: > >>The priority of the following projects should be changed >>CFD-TPM >>Associated Funding: Strategic-LDRD >>Priority should be 1 instead of 3 >> >> cfd_enginemodeling >> Associated Funding: DOE Office of Vehicle Technologies >>Priority is 2 - should be 3 (like all other projects of this PI under the >>same associated funding - unless there is a reason for the higher >>priority). >> >>_________________________________ >>From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >>[rbair(a)anl.gov] >>Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 11:27 AM >>To: LCRC Allocations Admins >>Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >>spreadsheet >> >>I agree that we should do something to better to inform the committee. >>Many aspects can be improved,including distribution of time among >>organizations, visualizing time requests, etc. We also need to get rid >>of >>that too-complicated spreadsheet. Talking with Ti, I think we can build >>better tools once the userbase2 conversion is complete. Lets target the >>first FY16 allocation meeting to roll out some new capabilities. >> >>Ray >> >>----------------------------------------- >>Ray Bair >>Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences >>Argonne National Laboratory >> and the University of Chicago >>TCS Building 240, Room 4122 >>9700 South Cass Avenue >>Argonne, IL 60439 >>email: rbair(at)anl.gov >>Phone: (630)252-5751 >> >> >> >> >> >>On 3/26/15, 7:53 PM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> >>>I don't think the allocation committee should shy away from coming up >>>with a policy to address this matter. Since every directorate is >>>represented in the committee and the allocation process is open and >>>transparent, there should be no reason why we should not try to >>>implement >>>some fairness doctrine. We could have an excel spreadsheet which shows >>>the various directorates (and the divisions) and their total requested >>>time for this half-yearly allocation - if there is disproportionate >>>usage >>>we let the committee see the disparity and judge for themselves. If >>>some >>>DD/ALD feels aggrieved, they can always make an appeal to the committee >>>and justify why they should get preferential treatment. One could argue >>>that cutting back on time for smaller projects could stifle burgeoning >>>projects and prevent them from becoming the next "strategic" lab >>>initiative. >>> >>>Shashi >>>________________________________________ >>>From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>>[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >>>[rbair(a)anl.gov] >>>Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 5:39 PM >>>To: LCRC Allocations Admins >>>Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >>>spreadsheet >>> >>>We judge each project by its individual merit. While there is a certain >>>appeal to trying to balance utilization among groups, it would foment >>>squabbles. Coming up with group or division or directorate shares >>>depends >>>on coming up with a fair metric. All the metrics (I can think of) for >>>computing the shares are controversial. Some might say that a >>>directorate's/division's/group's share should be proportional to the >>>overhead they bring to the Lab, since LCRC is funded by overhead. >>>Others >>>might want a measure of how much computing their researchers are funded >>>to >>>do, e.g., programmatic and LDRD funds. Then people would argue that >>>some >>>have other computing resources and should lose share. It gets messy >>>fast. >>> >>>On the other hand, pushing some projects onto Fusion is a plausible >>>idea. >>>It would be good to propose two scenarios (1) without pushing projects >>>to >>>Fusion, and (2) with pushing projects to Fusion. If we provide >>>SprayFlameLES with 500K instead of the requested 2.85M, then we have >>>8.7M >>>hours more to allocate on Fusion, enough to make up the difference. If >>>we >>>do this we need to tell certain projects to run only on Fusion, and we >>>will need a list of suggested projects before the meeting starts. Who >>>could easily move? Most LCRC staff projects would need to be on the >>>list. >>> >>>Ray >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On 3/26/15, 4:21 PM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Ray: >>>> >>>>I think, we should take a closer look at groups who use large >>>>allocations >>>>and scale them back more severely, or we don't leave Fusion exclusively >>>>for industry projects but open it up to everyone. >>>> >>>>Shashi >>>>________________________________________ >>>>From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>>>[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >>>>[rbair(a)anl.gov] >>>>Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 4:06 PM >>>>To: LCRC Allocations Admins >>>>Subject: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >>>>spreadsheet >>>> >>>>All of the formulas for sums (row 162) are incorrect. The correct >>>>total >>>>for column AE (New Decisions) was 34,597,000 not 20,797,000! >>>> >>>>The value in cell A3 is incorrect. Should be 2015. (Makes no >>>>difference >>>>since 2014 and 2015 are not leap years.) >>>> >>>>Most of the industry projects are listed twice, on both the Data page >>>>and >>>>the Industry page. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> biodiesel-combustion >>>> >>>> >>>> CAT-engine-modeling >>>> >>>> >>>> cavitation-modeling >>>> >>>> >>>> dual-fuel-sprays >>>> >>>> >>>> LES-Engine >>>> >>>> >>>> LES-sprays >>>> >>>>We should also move the new project spray-flame-les to Industry (2.85M >>>>request). Correct? >>>> >>>>What should we do now? I have suggestions bsed on past practice. See >>>>attached spreadsheet for numbers. >>>> >>>>Reducing ApsRenewalLattice to 2M, and OPV to 500K. >>>> >>>>Doing the above changes the total to 27,497,000. Now 26% >>>>over-allocated. >>>> >>>>If we keep the priority 0-2 projects as they are, and scale the rest >>>>down >>>>to no less than 100K (for the 2nd half), then the scale factor is 71%. >>>> >>>>See attached spreadsheet. >>>> >>>>My revised total, percent allocation (relative to 100%), and scale >>>>factor >>>>are at the bottom of column AE >>>> >>>> >>>>Comments and suggestions? >>>> >>>>Ray >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>----------------------------------------- >>>>Ray Bair >>>>Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences >>>>Argonne National Laboratory >>>> and the University of Chicago >>>>TCS Building 240, Room 4122 >>>>9700 South Cass Avenue >>>>Argonne, IL 60439 >>>>email: rbair(at)anl.gov >>>>Phone: (630)252-5751 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>allocations-admins mailing list >>>>allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>>>https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>allocations-admins mailing list >>>allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>>https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins >>>_______________________________________________ >>>allocations-admins mailing list >>>allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>>https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins >> >>_______________________________________________ >>allocations-admins mailing list >>allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins >>_______________________________________________ >>allocations-admins mailing list >>allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins > >_______________________________________________ >allocations-admins mailing list >allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins >_______________________________________________ >allocations-admins mailing list >allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins _______________________________________________ allocations-admins mailing list allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins

1 0

Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet
by Bair, Raymond A. 29 Mar '15

29 Mar '15

My note ... On 3/29/15, 12:22 PM, "Bair, Raymond A." <rbair(a)anl.gov> wrote: >Dear Sibendu, > >Looking at the FY2015 LCRC usage of Blues (10/1-3/25), many of your >industry projects are using Blues quite a lot. I believe that we agreed >that they would be run on Fusion. Please pass the word to your team to >use Fusion. If there is some special need for Blues time, please let us >know so we can discuss. The normal Blues projects are being significantly >cut back April-September because demand is so high. > >Regards, > >Ray > > Blues Hours >Denso_simulations 38244 Saha >biodiesel-combustion 242620 Som >cavitation-modeling 224677 Som >LES-Engine 118544 Som >LES-sprays 315096 Som >gm_gasexchange 224270 Som >dual-fuel-sprays 59054 Wang > > On 3/29/15, 1:14 PM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> wrote: >Ray: > >It is likely that Sibendu (and his post-docs) do not know that they are >not supposed to use Blues for industry projects. A gentle reminder that >stricter enforcement is being put in place on account of the load on >Blues should be helpful. We can send him a list of projects marked as >industry, if need be. > >Thanks, > >Shashi >________________________________________ >From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >[rbair(a)anl.gov] >Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2015 12:23 PM >To: LCRC Allocations Admins >Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >spreadsheet > >I made a tally of the Blues usage and sent a note to Sibendu about all the >industry projects. > >Ray > >----------------------------------------- >Ray Bair >Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences >Argonne National Laboratory > and the University of Chicago >TCS Building 240, Room 4122 >9700 South Cass Avenue >Argonne, IL 60439 >email: rbair(at)anl.gov >Phone: (630)252-5751 > > > > > >On 3/28/15, 7:40 AM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> wrote: > >>The priority of the following projects should be changed >>CFD-TPM >>Associated Funding: Strategic-LDRD >>Priority should be 1 instead of 3 >> >> cfd_enginemodeling >> Associated Funding: DOE Office of Vehicle Technologies >>Priority is 2 - should be 3 (like all other projects of this PI under the >>same associated funding - unless there is a reason for the higher >>priority). >> >>_________________________________ >>From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >>[rbair(a)anl.gov] >>Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 11:27 AM >>To: LCRC Allocations Admins >>Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >>spreadsheet >> >>I agree that we should do something to better to inform the committee. >>Many aspects can be improved,including distribution of time among >>organizations, visualizing time requests, etc. We also need to get rid >>of >>that too-complicated spreadsheet. Talking with Ti, I think we can build >>better tools once the userbase2 conversion is complete. Lets target the >>first FY16 allocation meeting to roll out some new capabilities. >> >>Ray >> >>----------------------------------------- >>Ray Bair >>Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences >>Argonne National Laboratory >> and the University of Chicago >>TCS Building 240, Room 4122 >>9700 South Cass Avenue >>Argonne, IL 60439 >>email: rbair(at)anl.gov >>Phone: (630)252-5751 >> >> >> >> >> >>On 3/26/15, 7:53 PM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> >>>I don't think the allocation committee should shy away from coming up >>>with a policy to address this matter. Since every directorate is >>>represented in the committee and the allocation process is open and >>>transparent, there should be no reason why we should not try to >>>implement >>>some fairness doctrine. We could have an excel spreadsheet which shows >>>the various directorates (and the divisions) and their total requested >>>time for this half-yearly allocation - if there is disproportionate >>>usage >>>we let the committee see the disparity and judge for themselves. If >>>some >>>DD/ALD feels aggrieved, they can always make an appeal to the committee >>>and justify why they should get preferential treatment. One could argue >>>that cutting back on time for smaller projects could stifle burgeoning >>>projects and prevent them from becoming the next "strategic" lab >>>initiative. >>> >>>Shashi >>>________________________________________ >>>From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>>[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >>>[rbair(a)anl.gov] >>>Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 5:39 PM >>>To: LCRC Allocations Admins >>>Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >>>spreadsheet >>> >>>We judge each project by its individual merit. While there is a certain >>>appeal to trying to balance utilization among groups, it would foment >>>squabbles. Coming up with group or division or directorate shares >>>depends >>>on coming up with a fair metric. All the metrics (I can think of) for >>>computing the shares are controversial. Some might say that a >>>directorate's/division's/group's share should be proportional to the >>>overhead they bring to the Lab, since LCRC is funded by overhead. >>>Others >>>might want a measure of how much computing their researchers are funded >>>to >>>do, e.g., programmatic and LDRD funds. Then people would argue that >>>some >>>have other computing resources and should lose share. It gets messy >>>fast. >>> >>>On the other hand, pushing some projects onto Fusion is a plausible >>>idea. >>>It would be good to propose two scenarios (1) without pushing projects >>>to >>>Fusion, and (2) with pushing projects to Fusion. If we provide >>>SprayFlameLES with 500K instead of the requested 2.85M, then we have >>>8.7M >>>hours more to allocate on Fusion, enough to make up the difference. If >>>we >>>do this we need to tell certain projects to run only on Fusion, and we >>>will need a list of suggested projects before the meeting starts. Who >>>could easily move? Most LCRC staff projects would need to be on the >>>list. >>> >>>Ray >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On 3/26/15, 4:21 PM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Ray: >>>> >>>>I think, we should take a closer look at groups who use large >>>>allocations >>>>and scale them back more severely, or we don't leave Fusion exclusively >>>>for industry projects but open it up to everyone. >>>> >>>>Shashi >>>>________________________________________ >>>>From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>>>[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >>>>[rbair(a)anl.gov] >>>>Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 4:06 PM >>>>To: LCRC Allocations Admins >>>>Subject: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >>>>spreadsheet >>>> >>>>All of the formulas for sums (row 162) are incorrect. The correct >>>>total >>>>for column AE (New Decisions) was 34,597,000 not 20,797,000! >>>> >>>>The value in cell A3 is incorrect. Should be 2015. (Makes no >>>>difference >>>>since 2014 and 2015 are not leap years.) >>>> >>>>Most of the industry projects are listed twice, on both the Data page >>>>and >>>>the Industry page. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> biodiesel-combustion >>>> >>>> >>>> CAT-engine-modeling >>>> >>>> >>>> cavitation-modeling >>>> >>>> >>>> dual-fuel-sprays >>>> >>>> >>>> LES-Engine >>>> >>>> >>>> LES-sprays >>>> >>>>We should also move the new project spray-flame-les to Industry (2.85M >>>>request). Correct? >>>> >>>>What should we do now? I have suggestions bsed on past practice. See >>>>attached spreadsheet for numbers. >>>> >>>>Reducing ApsRenewalLattice to 2M, and OPV to 500K. >>>> >>>>Doing the above changes the total to 27,497,000. Now 26% >>>>over-allocated. >>>> >>>>If we keep the priority 0-2 projects as they are, and scale the rest >>>>down >>>>to no less than 100K (for the 2nd half), then the scale factor is 71%. >>>> >>>>See attached spreadsheet. >>>> >>>>My revised total, percent allocation (relative to 100%), and scale >>>>factor >>>>are at the bottom of column AE >>>> >>>> >>>>Comments and suggestions? >>>> >>>>Ray >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>----------------------------------------- >>>>Ray Bair >>>>Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences >>>>Argonne National Laboratory >>>> and the University of Chicago >>>>TCS Building 240, Room 4122 >>>>9700 South Cass Avenue >>>>Argonne, IL 60439 >>>>email: rbair(at)anl.gov >>>>Phone: (630)252-5751 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>allocations-admins mailing list >>>>allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>>>https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>allocations-admins mailing list >>>allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>>https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins >>>_______________________________________________ >>>allocations-admins mailing list >>>allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>>https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins >> >>_______________________________________________ >>allocations-admins mailing list >>allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins >>_______________________________________________ >>allocations-admins mailing list >>allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins > >_______________________________________________ >allocations-admins mailing list >allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins >_______________________________________________ >allocations-admins mailing list >allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins

1 0

Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet
by Aithal, Shashikant M. 29 Mar '15

29 Mar '15

Ray: It is likely that Sibendu (and his post-docs) do not know that they are not supposed to use Blues for industry projects. A gentle reminder that stricter enforcement is being put in place on account of the load on Blues should be helpful. We can send him a list of projects marked as industry, if need be. Thanks, Shashi ________________________________________ From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov [allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. [rbair(a)anl.gov] Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2015 12:23 PM To: LCRC Allocations Admins Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet I made a tally of the Blues usage and sent a note to Sibendu about all the industry projects. Ray ----------------------------------------- Ray Bair Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Chicago TCS Building 240, Room 4122 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 email: rbair(at)anl.gov Phone: (630)252-5751 On 3/28/15, 7:40 AM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> wrote: >The priority of the following projects should be changed >CFD-TPM >Associated Funding: Strategic-LDRD >Priority should be 1 instead of 3 > > cfd_enginemodeling > Associated Funding: DOE Office of Vehicle Technologies >Priority is 2 - should be 3 (like all other projects of this PI under the >same associated funding - unless there is a reason for the higher >priority). > >_________________________________ >From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >[rbair(a)anl.gov] >Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 11:27 AM >To: LCRC Allocations Admins >Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >spreadsheet > >I agree that we should do something to better to inform the committee. >Many aspects can be improved,including distribution of time among >organizations, visualizing time requests, etc. We also need to get rid of >that too-complicated spreadsheet. Talking with Ti, I think we can build >better tools once the userbase2 conversion is complete. Lets target the >first FY16 allocation meeting to roll out some new capabilities. > >Ray > >----------------------------------------- >Ray Bair >Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences >Argonne National Laboratory > and the University of Chicago >TCS Building 240, Room 4122 >9700 South Cass Avenue >Argonne, IL 60439 >email: rbair(at)anl.gov >Phone: (630)252-5751 > > > > > >On 3/26/15, 7:53 PM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> wrote: > >> >>I don't think the allocation committee should shy away from coming up >>with a policy to address this matter. Since every directorate is >>represented in the committee and the allocation process is open and >>transparent, there should be no reason why we should not try to implement >>some fairness doctrine. We could have an excel spreadsheet which shows >>the various directorates (and the divisions) and their total requested >>time for this half-yearly allocation - if there is disproportionate usage >>we let the committee see the disparity and judge for themselves. If some >>DD/ALD feels aggrieved, they can always make an appeal to the committee >>and justify why they should get preferential treatment. One could argue >>that cutting back on time for smaller projects could stifle burgeoning >>projects and prevent them from becoming the next "strategic" lab >>initiative. >> >>Shashi >>________________________________________ >>From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >>[rbair(a)anl.gov] >>Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 5:39 PM >>To: LCRC Allocations Admins >>Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >>spreadsheet >> >>We judge each project by its individual merit. While there is a certain >>appeal to trying to balance utilization among groups, it would foment >>squabbles. Coming up with group or division or directorate shares >>depends >>on coming up with a fair metric. All the metrics (I can think of) for >>computing the shares are controversial. Some might say that a >>directorate's/division's/group's share should be proportional to the >>overhead they bring to the Lab, since LCRC is funded by overhead. Others >>might want a measure of how much computing their researchers are funded >>to >>do, e.g., programmatic and LDRD funds. Then people would argue that some >>have other computing resources and should lose share. It gets messy >>fast. >> >>On the other hand, pushing some projects onto Fusion is a plausible idea. >>It would be good to propose two scenarios (1) without pushing projects to >>Fusion, and (2) with pushing projects to Fusion. If we provide >>SprayFlameLES with 500K instead of the requested 2.85M, then we have 8.7M >>hours more to allocate on Fusion, enough to make up the difference. If >>we >>do this we need to tell certain projects to run only on Fusion, and we >>will need a list of suggested projects before the meeting starts. Who >>could easily move? Most LCRC staff projects would need to be on the >>list. >> >>Ray >> >> >> >> >>On 3/26/15, 4:21 PM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> wrote: >> >>>Ray: >>> >>>I think, we should take a closer look at groups who use large >>>allocations >>>and scale them back more severely, or we don't leave Fusion exclusively >>>for industry projects but open it up to everyone. >>> >>>Shashi >>>________________________________________ >>>From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>>[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >>>[rbair(a)anl.gov] >>>Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 4:06 PM >>>To: LCRC Allocations Admins >>>Subject: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >>>spreadsheet >>> >>>All of the formulas for sums (row 162) are incorrect. The correct total >>>for column AE (New Decisions) was 34,597,000 not 20,797,000! >>> >>>The value in cell A3 is incorrect. Should be 2015. (Makes no difference >>>since 2014 and 2015 are not leap years.) >>> >>>Most of the industry projects are listed twice, on both the Data page >>>and >>>the Industry page. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> biodiesel-combustion >>> >>> >>> CAT-engine-modeling >>> >>> >>> cavitation-modeling >>> >>> >>> dual-fuel-sprays >>> >>> >>> LES-Engine >>> >>> >>> LES-sprays >>> >>>We should also move the new project spray-flame-les to Industry (2.85M >>>request). Correct? >>> >>>What should we do now? I have suggestions bsed on past practice. See >>>attached spreadsheet for numbers. >>> >>>Reducing ApsRenewalLattice to 2M, and OPV to 500K. >>> >>>Doing the above changes the total to 27,497,000. Now 26% >>>over-allocated. >>> >>>If we keep the priority 0-2 projects as they are, and scale the rest >>>down >>>to no less than 100K (for the 2nd half), then the scale factor is 71%. >>> >>>See attached spreadsheet. >>> >>>My revised total, percent allocation (relative to 100%), and scale >>>factor >>>are at the bottom of column AE >>> >>> >>>Comments and suggestions? >>> >>>Ray >>> >>> >>> >>>----------------------------------------- >>>Ray Bair >>>Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences >>>Argonne National Laboratory >>> and the University of Chicago >>>TCS Building 240, Room 4122 >>>9700 South Cass Avenue >>>Argonne, IL 60439 >>>email: rbair(at)anl.gov >>>Phone: (630)252-5751 >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>allocations-admins mailing list >>>allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>>https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins >> >>_______________________________________________ >>allocations-admins mailing list >>allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins >>_______________________________________________ >>allocations-admins mailing list >>allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins > >_______________________________________________ >allocations-admins mailing list >allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins >_______________________________________________ >allocations-admins mailing list >allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins _______________________________________________ allocations-admins mailing list allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins

1 0

Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet
by Bair, Raymond A. 29 Mar '15

29 Mar '15

I made a tally of the Blues usage and sent a note to Sibendu about all the industry projects. Ray ----------------------------------------- Ray Bair Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Chicago TCS Building 240, Room 4122 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 email: rbair(at)anl.gov Phone: (630)252-5751 On 3/28/15, 7:40 AM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> wrote: >The priority of the following projects should be changed >CFD-TPM >Associated Funding: Strategic-LDRD >Priority should be 1 instead of 3 > > cfd_enginemodeling > Associated Funding: DOE Office of Vehicle Technologies >Priority is 2 - should be 3 (like all other projects of this PI under the >same associated funding - unless there is a reason for the higher >priority). > >_________________________________ >From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >[rbair(a)anl.gov] >Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 11:27 AM >To: LCRC Allocations Admins >Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >spreadsheet > >I agree that we should do something to better to inform the committee. >Many aspects can be improved,including distribution of time among >organizations, visualizing time requests, etc. We also need to get rid of >that too-complicated spreadsheet. Talking with Ti, I think we can build >better tools once the userbase2 conversion is complete. Lets target the >first FY16 allocation meeting to roll out some new capabilities. > >Ray > >----------------------------------------- >Ray Bair >Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences >Argonne National Laboratory > and the University of Chicago >TCS Building 240, Room 4122 >9700 South Cass Avenue >Argonne, IL 60439 >email: rbair(at)anl.gov >Phone: (630)252-5751 > > > > > >On 3/26/15, 7:53 PM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> wrote: > >> >>I don't think the allocation committee should shy away from coming up >>with a policy to address this matter. Since every directorate is >>represented in the committee and the allocation process is open and >>transparent, there should be no reason why we should not try to implement >>some fairness doctrine. We could have an excel spreadsheet which shows >>the various directorates (and the divisions) and their total requested >>time for this half-yearly allocation - if there is disproportionate usage >>we let the committee see the disparity and judge for themselves. If some >>DD/ALD feels aggrieved, they can always make an appeal to the committee >>and justify why they should get preferential treatment. One could argue >>that cutting back on time for smaller projects could stifle burgeoning >>projects and prevent them from becoming the next "strategic" lab >>initiative. >> >>Shashi >>________________________________________ >>From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >>[rbair(a)anl.gov] >>Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 5:39 PM >>To: LCRC Allocations Admins >>Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >>spreadsheet >> >>We judge each project by its individual merit. While there is a certain >>appeal to trying to balance utilization among groups, it would foment >>squabbles. Coming up with group or division or directorate shares >>depends >>on coming up with a fair metric. All the metrics (I can think of) for >>computing the shares are controversial. Some might say that a >>directorate's/division's/group's share should be proportional to the >>overhead they bring to the Lab, since LCRC is funded by overhead. Others >>might want a measure of how much computing their researchers are funded >>to >>do, e.g., programmatic and LDRD funds. Then people would argue that some >>have other computing resources and should lose share. It gets messy >>fast. >> >>On the other hand, pushing some projects onto Fusion is a plausible idea. >>It would be good to propose two scenarios (1) without pushing projects to >>Fusion, and (2) with pushing projects to Fusion. If we provide >>SprayFlameLES with 500K instead of the requested 2.85M, then we have 8.7M >>hours more to allocate on Fusion, enough to make up the difference. If >>we >>do this we need to tell certain projects to run only on Fusion, and we >>will need a list of suggested projects before the meeting starts. Who >>could easily move? Most LCRC staff projects would need to be on the >>list. >> >>Ray >> >> >> >> >>On 3/26/15, 4:21 PM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> wrote: >> >>>Ray: >>> >>>I think, we should take a closer look at groups who use large >>>allocations >>>and scale them back more severely, or we don't leave Fusion exclusively >>>for industry projects but open it up to everyone. >>> >>>Shashi >>>________________________________________ >>>From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>>[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >>>[rbair(a)anl.gov] >>>Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 4:06 PM >>>To: LCRC Allocations Admins >>>Subject: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >>>spreadsheet >>> >>>All of the formulas for sums (row 162) are incorrect. The correct total >>>for column AE (New Decisions) was 34,597,000 not 20,797,000! >>> >>>The value in cell A3 is incorrect. Should be 2015. (Makes no difference >>>since 2014 and 2015 are not leap years.) >>> >>>Most of the industry projects are listed twice, on both the Data page >>>and >>>the Industry page. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> biodiesel-combustion >>> >>> >>> CAT-engine-modeling >>> >>> >>> cavitation-modeling >>> >>> >>> dual-fuel-sprays >>> >>> >>> LES-Engine >>> >>> >>> LES-sprays >>> >>>We should also move the new project spray-flame-les to Industry (2.85M >>>request). Correct? >>> >>>What should we do now? I have suggestions bsed on past practice. See >>>attached spreadsheet for numbers. >>> >>>Reducing ApsRenewalLattice to 2M, and OPV to 500K. >>> >>>Doing the above changes the total to 27,497,000. Now 26% >>>over-allocated. >>> >>>If we keep the priority 0-2 projects as they are, and scale the rest >>>down >>>to no less than 100K (for the 2nd half), then the scale factor is 71%. >>> >>>See attached spreadsheet. >>> >>>My revised total, percent allocation (relative to 100%), and scale >>>factor >>>are at the bottom of column AE >>> >>> >>>Comments and suggestions? >>> >>>Ray >>> >>> >>> >>>----------------------------------------- >>>Ray Bair >>>Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences >>>Argonne National Laboratory >>> and the University of Chicago >>>TCS Building 240, Room 4122 >>>9700 South Cass Avenue >>>Argonne, IL 60439 >>>email: rbair(at)anl.gov >>>Phone: (630)252-5751 >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>allocations-admins mailing list >>>allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>>https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins >> >>_______________________________________________ >>allocations-admins mailing list >>allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins >>_______________________________________________ >>allocations-admins mailing list >>allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins > >_______________________________________________ >allocations-admins mailing list >allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins >_______________________________________________ >allocations-admins mailing list >allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins

1 0

Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet
by Aithal, Shashikant M. 28 Mar '15

28 Mar '15

The priority of the following projects should be changed CFD-TPM Associated Funding: Strategic-LDRD Priority should be 1 instead of 3 cfd_enginemodeling Associated Funding: DOE – Office of Vehicle Technologies Priority is 2 - should be 3 (like all other projects of this PI under the same associated funding - unless there is a reason for the higher priority). _________________________________ From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov [allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. [rbair(a)anl.gov] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 11:27 AM To: LCRC Allocations Admins Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet I agree that we should do something to better to inform the committee. Many aspects can be improved,including distribution of time among organizations, visualizing time requests, etc. We also need to get rid of that too-complicated spreadsheet. Talking with Ti, I think we can build better tools once the userbase2 conversion is complete. Lets target the first FY16 allocation meeting to roll out some new capabilities. Ray ----------------------------------------- Ray Bair Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Chicago TCS Building 240, Room 4122 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 email: rbair(at)anl.gov Phone: (630)252-5751 On 3/26/15, 7:53 PM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> wrote: > >I don't think the allocation committee should shy away from coming up >with a policy to address this matter. Since every directorate is >represented in the committee and the allocation process is open and >transparent, there should be no reason why we should not try to implement >some fairness doctrine. We could have an excel spreadsheet which shows >the various directorates (and the divisions) and their total requested >time for this half-yearly allocation - if there is disproportionate usage >we let the committee see the disparity and judge for themselves. If some >DD/ALD feels aggrieved, they can always make an appeal to the committee >and justify why they should get preferential treatment. One could argue >that cutting back on time for smaller projects could stifle burgeoning >projects and prevent them from becoming the next "strategic" lab >initiative. > >Shashi >________________________________________ >From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >[rbair(a)anl.gov] >Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 5:39 PM >To: LCRC Allocations Admins >Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >spreadsheet > >We judge each project by its individual merit. While there is a certain >appeal to trying to balance utilization among groups, it would foment >squabbles. Coming up with group or division or directorate shares depends >on coming up with a fair metric. All the metrics (I can think of) for >computing the shares are controversial. Some might say that a >directorate's/division's/group's share should be proportional to the >overhead they bring to the Lab, since LCRC is funded by overhead. Others >might want a measure of how much computing their researchers are funded to >do, e.g., programmatic and LDRD funds. Then people would argue that some >have other computing resources and should lose share. It gets messy fast. > >On the other hand, pushing some projects onto Fusion is a plausible idea. >It would be good to propose two scenarios (1) without pushing projects to >Fusion, and (2) with pushing projects to Fusion. If we provide >SprayFlameLES with 500K instead of the requested 2.85M, then we have 8.7M >hours more to allocate on Fusion, enough to make up the difference. If we >do this we need to tell certain projects to run only on Fusion, and we >will need a list of suggested projects before the meeting starts. Who >could easily move? Most LCRC staff projects would need to be on the list. > >Ray > > > > >On 3/26/15, 4:21 PM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> wrote: > >>Ray: >> >>I think, we should take a closer look at groups who use large allocations >>and scale them back more severely, or we don't leave Fusion exclusively >>for industry projects but open it up to everyone. >> >>Shashi >>________________________________________ >>From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >>[rbair(a)anl.gov] >>Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 4:06 PM >>To: LCRC Allocations Admins >>Subject: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >>spreadsheet >> >>All of the formulas for sums (row 162) are incorrect. The correct total >>for column AE (New Decisions) was 34,597,000 not 20,797,000! >> >>The value in cell A3 is incorrect. Should be 2015. (Makes no difference >>since 2014 and 2015 are not leap years.) >> >>Most of the industry projects are listed twice, on both the Data page and >>the Industry page. >> >> >> >> >> biodiesel-combustion >> >> >> CAT-engine-modeling >> >> >> cavitation-modeling >> >> >> dual-fuel-sprays >> >> >> LES-Engine >> >> >> LES-sprays >> >>We should also move the new project spray-flame-les to Industry (2.85M >>request). Correct? >> >>What should we do now? I have suggestions bsed on past practice. See >>attached spreadsheet for numbers. >> >>Reducing ApsRenewalLattice to 2M, and OPV to 500K. >> >>Doing the above changes the total to 27,497,000. Now 26% over-allocated. >> >>If we keep the priority 0-2 projects as they are, and scale the rest down >>to no less than 100K (for the 2nd half), then the scale factor is 71%. >> >>See attached spreadsheet. >> >>My revised total, percent allocation (relative to 100%), and scale factor >>are at the bottom of column AE >> >> >>Comments and suggestions? >> >>Ray >> >> >> >>----------------------------------------- >>Ray Bair >>Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences >>Argonne National Laboratory >> and the University of Chicago >>TCS Building 240, Room 4122 >>9700 South Cass Avenue >>Argonne, IL 60439 >>email: rbair(at)anl.gov >>Phone: (630)252-5751 >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>allocations-admins mailing list >>allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins > >_______________________________________________ >allocations-admins mailing list >allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins >_______________________________________________ >allocations-admins mailing list >allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins _______________________________________________ allocations-admins mailing list allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins

1 0

Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet
by Leggett, Torrance I. 27 Mar '15

27 Mar '15

Probably so. From: <Bair>, "Raymond A." <rbair(a)anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, March 27, 2015 at 1:52 PM To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet Should we move the meeting across the hall so we have a projector? ----------------------------------------- Ray Bair Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Chicago TCS Building 240, Room 4122 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 email: rbair(at)anl.gov Phone: (630)252-5751 From: <Leggett>, "Torrance I." <leggett(a)mcs.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, March 27, 2015 at 1:39 PM To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet I just uploaded a new version that fixes much of the broken calculations. I can explain in more detail what's difference in the meeting. From: <Leggett>, Ti Leggett <leggett(a)mcs.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, March 27, 2015 at 11:01 AM To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet I've uploaded the revised spreadsheet with changes to OPV, ApsRenewalLattice, and nano-soft-assembly as well as a scaling factor. It doesn't include the new projects but I can add them if needed. https://wiki.lcrc.anl.gov/wiki/Projects/AllocationCommittee/20150314 From: <Aithal>, "Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 7:53 PM To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet I don't think the allocation committee should shy away from coming up with a policy to address this matter. Since every directorate is represented in the committee and the allocation process is open and transparent, there should be no reason why we should not try to implement some fairness doctrine. We could have an excel spreadsheet which shows the various directorates (and the divisions) and their total requested time for this half-yearly allocation - if there is disproportionate usage we let the committee see the disparity and judge for themselves. If some DD/ALD feels aggrieved, they can always make an appeal to the committee and justify why they should get preferential treatment. One could argue that cutting back on time for smaller projects could stifle burgeoning projects and prevent them from becoming the next "strategic" lab initiative. Shashi ________________________________________ From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]> [allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. [rbair(a)anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 5:39 PM To: LCRC Allocations Admins Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet We judge each project by its individual merit. While there is a certain appeal to trying to balance utilization among groups, it would foment squabbles. Coming up with group or division or directorate shares depends on coming up with a fair metric. All the metrics (I can think of) for computing the shares are controversial. Some might say that a directorate's/division's/group's share should be proportional to the overhead they bring to the Lab, since LCRC is funded by overhead. Others might want a measure of how much computing their researchers are funded to do, e.g., programmatic and LDRD funds. Then people would argue that some have other computing resources and should lose share. It gets messy fast. On the other hand, pushing some projects onto Fusion is a plausible idea. It would be good to propose two scenarios (1) without pushing projects to Fusion, and (2) with pushing projects to Fusion. If we provide SprayFlameLES with 500K instead of the requested 2.85M, then we have 8.7M hours more to allocate on Fusion, enough to make up the difference. If we do this we need to tell certain projects to run only on Fusion, and we will need a list of suggested projects before the meeting starts. Who could easily move? Most LCRC staff projects would need to be on the list. Ray On 3/26/15, 4:21 PM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Ray: I think, we should take a closer look at groups who use large allocations and scale them back more severely, or we don't leave Fusion exclusively for industry projects but open it up to everyone. Shashi ________________________________________ From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]> [allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. [rbair(a)anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 4:06 PM To: LCRC Allocations Admins Subject: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet All of the formulas for sums (row 162) are incorrect. The correct total for column AE (New Decisions) was 34,597,000 not 20,797,000! The value in cell A3 is incorrect. Should be 2015. (Makes no difference since 2014 and 2015 are not leap years.) Most of the industry projects are listed twice, on both the Data page and the Industry page. biodiesel-combustion CAT-engine-modeling cavitation-modeling dual-fuel-sprays LES-Engine LES-sprays We should also move the new project spray-flame-les to Industry (2.85M request). Correct? What should we do now? I have suggestions bsed on past practice. See attached spreadsheet for numbers. Reducing ApsRenewalLattice to 2M, and OPV to 500K. Doing the above changes the total to 27,497,000. Now 26% over-allocated. If we keep the priority 0-2 projects as they are, and scale the rest down to no less than 100K (for the 2nd half), then the scale factor is 71%. See attached spreadsheet. My revised total, percent allocation (relative to 100%), and scale factor are at the bottom of column AE Comments and suggestions? Ray ----------------------------------------- Ray Bair Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Chicago TCS Building 240, Room 4122 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 email: rbair(at)anl.gov Phone: (630)252-5751 _______________________________________________ allocations-admins mailing list allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins _______________________________________________ allocations-admins mailing list allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins _______________________________________________ allocations-admins mailing list allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins

1 0

Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet
by Bair, Raymond A. 27 Mar '15

27 Mar '15

Should we move the meeting across the hall so we have a projector? ----------------------------------------- Ray Bair Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Chicago TCS Building 240, Room 4122 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 email: rbair(at)anl.gov Phone: (630)252-5751 From: <Leggett>, "Torrance I." <leggett(a)mcs.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, March 27, 2015 at 1:39 PM To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet I just uploaded a new version that fixes much of the broken calculations. I can explain in more detail what's difference in the meeting. From: <Leggett>, Ti Leggett <leggett(a)mcs.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, March 27, 2015 at 11:01 AM To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet I've uploaded the revised spreadsheet with changes to OPV, ApsRenewalLattice, and nano-soft-assembly as well as a scaling factor. It doesn't include the new projects but I can add them if needed. https://wiki.lcrc.anl.gov/wiki/Projects/AllocationCommittee/20150314 From: <Aithal>, "Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 7:53 PM To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet I don't think the allocation committee should shy away from coming up with a policy to address this matter. Since every directorate is represented in the committee and the allocation process is open and transparent, there should be no reason why we should not try to implement some fairness doctrine. We could have an excel spreadsheet which shows the various directorates (and the divisions) and their total requested time for this half-yearly allocation - if there is disproportionate usage we let the committee see the disparity and judge for themselves. If some DD/ALD feels aggrieved, they can always make an appeal to the committee and justify why they should get preferential treatment. One could argue that cutting back on time for smaller projects could stifle burgeoning projects and prevent them from becoming the next "strategic" lab initiative. Shashi ________________________________________ From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]> [allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. [rbair(a)anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 5:39 PM To: LCRC Allocations Admins Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet We judge each project by its individual merit. While there is a certain appeal to trying to balance utilization among groups, it would foment squabbles. Coming up with group or division or directorate shares depends on coming up with a fair metric. All the metrics (I can think of) for computing the shares are controversial. Some might say that a directorate's/division's/group's share should be proportional to the overhead they bring to the Lab, since LCRC is funded by overhead. Others might want a measure of how much computing their researchers are funded to do, e.g., programmatic and LDRD funds. Then people would argue that some have other computing resources and should lose share. It gets messy fast. On the other hand, pushing some projects onto Fusion is a plausible idea. It would be good to propose two scenarios (1) without pushing projects to Fusion, and (2) with pushing projects to Fusion. If we provide SprayFlameLES with 500K instead of the requested 2.85M, then we have 8.7M hours more to allocate on Fusion, enough to make up the difference. If we do this we need to tell certain projects to run only on Fusion, and we will need a list of suggested projects before the meeting starts. Who could easily move? Most LCRC staff projects would need to be on the list. Ray On 3/26/15, 4:21 PM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Ray: I think, we should take a closer look at groups who use large allocations and scale them back more severely, or we don't leave Fusion exclusively for industry projects but open it up to everyone. Shashi ________________________________________ From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]> [allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. [rbair(a)anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 4:06 PM To: LCRC Allocations Admins Subject: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet All of the formulas for sums (row 162) are incorrect. The correct total for column AE (New Decisions) was 34,597,000 not 20,797,000! The value in cell A3 is incorrect. Should be 2015. (Makes no difference since 2014 and 2015 are not leap years.) Most of the industry projects are listed twice, on both the Data page and the Industry page. biodiesel-combustion CAT-engine-modeling cavitation-modeling dual-fuel-sprays LES-Engine LES-sprays We should also move the new project spray-flame-les to Industry (2.85M request). Correct? What should we do now? I have suggestions bsed on past practice. See attached spreadsheet for numbers. Reducing ApsRenewalLattice to 2M, and OPV to 500K. Doing the above changes the total to 27,497,000. Now 26% over-allocated. If we keep the priority 0-2 projects as they are, and scale the rest down to no less than 100K (for the 2nd half), then the scale factor is 71%. See attached spreadsheet. My revised total, percent allocation (relative to 100%), and scale factor are at the bottom of column AE Comments and suggestions? Ray ----------------------------------------- Ray Bair Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Chicago TCS Building 240, Room 4122 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 email: rbair(at)anl.gov Phone: (630)252-5751 _______________________________________________ allocations-admins mailing list allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins _______________________________________________ allocations-admins mailing list allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins _______________________________________________ allocations-admins mailing list allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins

1 0

Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet
by Leggett, Torrance I. 27 Mar '15

27 Mar '15

I just uploaded a new version that fixes much of the broken calculations. I can explain in more detail what's difference in the meeting. From: <Leggett>, Ti Leggett <leggett(a)mcs.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, March 27, 2015 at 11:01 AM To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet I've uploaded the revised spreadsheet with changes to OPV, ApsRenewalLattice, and nano-soft-assembly as well as a scaling factor. It doesn't include the new projects but I can add them if needed. https://wiki.lcrc.anl.gov/wiki/Projects/AllocationCommittee/20150314 From: <Aithal>, "Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 7:53 PM To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet I don't think the allocation committee should shy away from coming up with a policy to address this matter. Since every directorate is represented in the committee and the allocation process is open and transparent, there should be no reason why we should not try to implement some fairness doctrine. We could have an excel spreadsheet which shows the various directorates (and the divisions) and their total requested time for this half-yearly allocation - if there is disproportionate usage we let the committee see the disparity and judge for themselves. If some DD/ALD feels aggrieved, they can always make an appeal to the committee and justify why they should get preferential treatment. One could argue that cutting back on time for smaller projects could stifle burgeoning projects and prevent them from becoming the next "strategic" lab initiative. Shashi ________________________________________ From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]> [allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. [rbair(a)anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 5:39 PM To: LCRC Allocations Admins Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet We judge each project by its individual merit. While there is a certain appeal to trying to balance utilization among groups, it would foment squabbles. Coming up with group or division or directorate shares depends on coming up with a fair metric. All the metrics (I can think of) for computing the shares are controversial. Some might say that a directorate's/division's/group's share should be proportional to the overhead they bring to the Lab, since LCRC is funded by overhead. Others might want a measure of how much computing their researchers are funded to do, e.g., programmatic and LDRD funds. Then people would argue that some have other computing resources and should lose share. It gets messy fast. On the other hand, pushing some projects onto Fusion is a plausible idea. It would be good to propose two scenarios (1) without pushing projects to Fusion, and (2) with pushing projects to Fusion. If we provide SprayFlameLES with 500K instead of the requested 2.85M, then we have 8.7M hours more to allocate on Fusion, enough to make up the difference. If we do this we need to tell certain projects to run only on Fusion, and we will need a list of suggested projects before the meeting starts. Who could easily move? Most LCRC staff projects would need to be on the list. Ray On 3/26/15, 4:21 PM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Ray: I think, we should take a closer look at groups who use large allocations and scale them back more severely, or we don't leave Fusion exclusively for industry projects but open it up to everyone. Shashi ________________________________________ From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]> [allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. [rbair(a)anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 4:06 PM To: LCRC Allocations Admins Subject: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet All of the formulas for sums (row 162) are incorrect. The correct total for column AE (New Decisions) was 34,597,000 not 20,797,000! The value in cell A3 is incorrect. Should be 2015. (Makes no difference since 2014 and 2015 are not leap years.) Most of the industry projects are listed twice, on both the Data page and the Industry page. biodiesel-combustion CAT-engine-modeling cavitation-modeling dual-fuel-sprays LES-Engine LES-sprays We should also move the new project spray-flame-les to Industry (2.85M request). Correct? What should we do now? I have suggestions bsed on past practice. See attached spreadsheet for numbers. Reducing ApsRenewalLattice to 2M, and OPV to 500K. Doing the above changes the total to 27,497,000. Now 26% over-allocated. If we keep the priority 0-2 projects as they are, and scale the rest down to no less than 100K (for the 2nd half), then the scale factor is 71%. See attached spreadsheet. My revised total, percent allocation (relative to 100%), and scale factor are at the bottom of column AE Comments and suggestions? Ray ----------------------------------------- Ray Bair Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Chicago TCS Building 240, Room 4122 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 email: rbair(at)anl.gov Phone: (630)252-5751 _______________________________________________ allocations-admins mailing list allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins _______________________________________________ allocations-admins mailing list allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins _______________________________________________ allocations-admins mailing list allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins

1 0

Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet
by Aithal, Shashikant M. 27 Mar '15

27 Mar '15

I ran some numbers on the core-hour utilization of the big groups in ES and NE ... Total core-hours on Fusion + Blues = 54.8M/year (300*8 + 310*16) * 24 * 365 * 0.85 Sibendu's group has requested 11.14 M core hours from 14 projects Riccardo has requested 1.3 M core-hours from 2 projects Justin has requested 3.1M in 3 projects. Based on these numbers, the EGS directorate has requested close to 28.5% of the available compute time. I have not added other ES & NE projects to this number. Sibendu's group at 11.14M stands at 20% of the machine-time! Not an equitable distribution of time at all. Shashi ________________________________________ From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov [allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. [rbair(a)anl.gov] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 11:27 AM To: LCRC Allocations Admins Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet I agree that we should do something to better to inform the committee. Many aspects can be improved,including distribution of time among organizations, visualizing time requests, etc. We also need to get rid of that too-complicated spreadsheet. Talking with Ti, I think we can build better tools once the userbase2 conversion is complete. Lets target the first FY16 allocation meeting to roll out some new capabilities. Ray ----------------------------------------- Ray Bair Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Chicago TCS Building 240, Room 4122 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 email: rbair(at)anl.gov Phone: (630)252-5751 On 3/26/15, 7:53 PM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> wrote: > >I don't think the allocation committee should shy away from coming up >with a policy to address this matter. Since every directorate is >represented in the committee and the allocation process is open and >transparent, there should be no reason why we should not try to implement >some fairness doctrine. We could have an excel spreadsheet which shows >the various directorates (and the divisions) and their total requested >time for this half-yearly allocation - if there is disproportionate usage >we let the committee see the disparity and judge for themselves. If some >DD/ALD feels aggrieved, they can always make an appeal to the committee >and justify why they should get preferential treatment. One could argue >that cutting back on time for smaller projects could stifle burgeoning >projects and prevent them from becoming the next "strategic" lab >initiative. > >Shashi >________________________________________ >From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >[rbair(a)anl.gov] >Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 5:39 PM >To: LCRC Allocations Admins >Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >spreadsheet > >We judge each project by its individual merit. While there is a certain >appeal to trying to balance utilization among groups, it would foment >squabbles. Coming up with group or division or directorate shares depends >on coming up with a fair metric. All the metrics (I can think of) for >computing the shares are controversial. Some might say that a >directorate's/division's/group's share should be proportional to the >overhead they bring to the Lab, since LCRC is funded by overhead. Others >might want a measure of how much computing their researchers are funded to >do, e.g., programmatic and LDRD funds. Then people would argue that some >have other computing resources and should lose share. It gets messy fast. > >On the other hand, pushing some projects onto Fusion is a plausible idea. >It would be good to propose two scenarios (1) without pushing projects to >Fusion, and (2) with pushing projects to Fusion. If we provide >SprayFlameLES with 500K instead of the requested 2.85M, then we have 8.7M >hours more to allocate on Fusion, enough to make up the difference. If we >do this we need to tell certain projects to run only on Fusion, and we >will need a list of suggested projects before the meeting starts. Who >could easily move? Most LCRC staff projects would need to be on the list. > >Ray > > > > >On 3/26/15, 4:21 PM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> wrote: > >>Ray: >> >>I think, we should take a closer look at groups who use large allocations >>and scale them back more severely, or we don't leave Fusion exclusively >>for industry projects but open it up to everyone. >> >>Shashi >>________________________________________ >>From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >>[rbair(a)anl.gov] >>Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 4:06 PM >>To: LCRC Allocations Admins >>Subject: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >>spreadsheet >> >>All of the formulas for sums (row 162) are incorrect. The correct total >>for column AE (New Decisions) was 34,597,000 not 20,797,000! >> >>The value in cell A3 is incorrect. Should be 2015. (Makes no difference >>since 2014 and 2015 are not leap years.) >> >>Most of the industry projects are listed twice, on both the Data page and >>the Industry page. >> >> >> >> >> biodiesel-combustion >> >> >> CAT-engine-modeling >> >> >> cavitation-modeling >> >> >> dual-fuel-sprays >> >> >> LES-Engine >> >> >> LES-sprays >> >>We should also move the new project spray-flame-les to Industry (2.85M >>request). Correct? >> >>What should we do now? I have suggestions bsed on past practice. See >>attached spreadsheet for numbers. >> >>Reducing ApsRenewalLattice to 2M, and OPV to 500K. >> >>Doing the above changes the total to 27,497,000. Now 26% over-allocated. >> >>If we keep the priority 0-2 projects as they are, and scale the rest down >>to no less than 100K (for the 2nd half), then the scale factor is 71%. >> >>See attached spreadsheet. >> >>My revised total, percent allocation (relative to 100%), and scale factor >>are at the bottom of column AE >> >> >>Comments and suggestions? >> >>Ray >> >> >> >>----------------------------------------- >>Ray Bair >>Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences >>Argonne National Laboratory >> and the University of Chicago >>TCS Building 240, Room 4122 >>9700 South Cass Avenue >>Argonne, IL 60439 >>email: rbair(at)anl.gov >>Phone: (630)252-5751 >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>allocations-admins mailing list >>allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins > >_______________________________________________ >allocations-admins mailing list >allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins >_______________________________________________ >allocations-admins mailing list >allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins _______________________________________________ allocations-admins mailing list allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins

1 0

Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations spreadsheet
by Bair, Raymond A. 27 Mar '15

27 Mar '15

I agree that we should do something to better to inform the committee. Many aspects can be improved,including distribution of time among organizations, visualizing time requests, etc. We also need to get rid of that too-complicated spreadsheet. Talking with Ti, I think we can build better tools once the userbase2 conversion is complete. Lets target the first FY16 allocation meeting to roll out some new capabilities. Ray ----------------------------------------- Ray Bair Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Chicago TCS Building 240, Room 4122 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 email: rbair(at)anl.gov Phone: (630)252-5751 On 3/26/15, 7:53 PM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> wrote: > >I don't think the allocation committee should shy away from coming up >with a policy to address this matter. Since every directorate is >represented in the committee and the allocation process is open and >transparent, there should be no reason why we should not try to implement >some fairness doctrine. We could have an excel spreadsheet which shows >the various directorates (and the divisions) and their total requested >time for this half-yearly allocation - if there is disproportionate usage >we let the committee see the disparity and judge for themselves. If some >DD/ALD feels aggrieved, they can always make an appeal to the committee >and justify why they should get preferential treatment. One could argue >that cutting back on time for smaller projects could stifle burgeoning >projects and prevent them from becoming the next "strategic" lab >initiative. > >Shashi >________________________________________ >From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >[rbair(a)anl.gov] >Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 5:39 PM >To: LCRC Allocations Admins >Subject: Re: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >spreadsheet > >We judge each project by its individual merit. While there is a certain >appeal to trying to balance utilization among groups, it would foment >squabbles. Coming up with group or division or directorate shares depends >on coming up with a fair metric. All the metrics (I can think of) for >computing the shares are controversial. Some might say that a >directorate's/division's/group's share should be proportional to the >overhead they bring to the Lab, since LCRC is funded by overhead. Others >might want a measure of how much computing their researchers are funded to >do, e.g., programmatic and LDRD funds. Then people would argue that some >have other computing resources and should lose share. It gets messy fast. > >On the other hand, pushing some projects onto Fusion is a plausible idea. >It would be good to propose two scenarios (1) without pushing projects to >Fusion, and (2) with pushing projects to Fusion. If we provide >SprayFlameLES with 500K instead of the requested 2.85M, then we have 8.7M >hours more to allocate on Fusion, enough to make up the difference. If we >do this we need to tell certain projects to run only on Fusion, and we >will need a list of suggested projects before the meeting starts. Who >could easily move? Most LCRC staff projects would need to be on the list. > >Ray > > > > >On 3/26/15, 4:21 PM, "Aithal, Shashikant M." <aithal(a)cels.anl.gov> wrote: > >>Ray: >> >>I think, we should take a closer look at groups who use large allocations >>and scale them back more severely, or we don't leave Fusion exclusively >>for industry projects but open it up to everyone. >> >>Shashi >>________________________________________ >>From: allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>[allocations-admins-bounces(a)lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A. >>[rbair(a)anl.gov] >>Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 4:06 PM >>To: LCRC Allocations Admins >>Subject: [allocations-admins] Problem with the revised allocations >>spreadsheet >> >>All of the formulas for sums (row 162) are incorrect. The correct total >>for column AE (New Decisions) was 34,597,000 not 20,797,000! >> >>The value in cell A3 is incorrect. Should be 2015. (Makes no difference >>since 2014 and 2015 are not leap years.) >> >>Most of the industry projects are listed twice, on both the Data page and >>the Industry page. >> >> >> >> >> biodiesel-combustion >> >> >> CAT-engine-modeling >> >> >> cavitation-modeling >> >> >> dual-fuel-sprays >> >> >> LES-Engine >> >> >> LES-sprays >> >>We should also move the new project spray-flame-les to Industry (2.85M >>request). Correct? >> >>What should we do now? I have suggestions bsed on past practice. See >>attached spreadsheet for numbers. >> >>Reducing ApsRenewalLattice to 2M, and OPV to 500K. >> >>Doing the above changes the total to 27,497,000. Now 26% over-allocated. >> >>If we keep the priority 0-2 projects as they are, and scale the rest down >>to no less than 100K (for the 2nd half), then the scale factor is 71%. >> >>See attached spreadsheet. >> >>My revised total, percent allocation (relative to 100%), and scale factor >>are at the bottom of column AE >> >> >>Comments and suggestions? >> >>Ray >> >> >> >>----------------------------------------- >>Ray Bair >>Computing, Environment, and Life Sciences >>Argonne National Laboratory >> and the University of Chicago >>TCS Building 240, Room 4122 >>9700 South Cass Avenue >>Argonne, IL 60439 >>email: rbair(at)anl.gov >>Phone: (630)252-5751 >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>allocations-admins mailing list >>allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >>https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins > >_______________________________________________ >allocations-admins mailing list >allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins >_______________________________________________ >allocations-admins mailing list >allocations-admins(a)lcrc.anl.gov >https://lists.lcrc.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/allocations-admins

1 0