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@mcs.anl.gov>
Reply-To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins@lcrc.anl.gov>
Date: Friday, March 27, 2015 at 11:01 AM
To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins@lcrc.anl.gov>
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@cels.anl.gov>
Reply-To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins@lcrc.anl.gov>
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 7:53 PM
To: LCRC Allocations Admins <allocations-admins@lcrc.anl.gov>
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
________________________________________
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@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
________________________________________
[allocations-admins-bounces@lcrc.anl.gov] on behalf of Bair, Raymond A.
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 mailing list
_______________________________________________
allocations-admins mailing list