Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Prabhat, Mr

Publications and source records attributed to Prabhat, Mr.

The Atmospheric River Tracking Method Intercomparison Project (ARTMIP): Quantifying Uncertainties in Atmospheric River Climatology

Atmospheric rivers (ARs) are now widely known for their association with high-impact weather events and long-term water supply in many regions. Researchers within the scientific community have developed numerous methods to identify and track of ARs—a necessary step for analyses on gridded data sets, and objective attribution of impacts to ARs. These different methods have been developed to answer specific research questions and hence use different criteria (e.g., geometry, threshold values of key variables, and time dependence). Furthermore, these methods are often employed using different reanalysis data sets, time periods, and regions of interest. The goal of the Atmospheric River Tracking Method Intercomparison Project (ARTMIP) is to understand and quantify uncertainties in AR science that arise due to differences in these methods. This paper presents results for key AR-related metrics based on 20+ different AR identification and tracking methods applied to Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications Version 2 reanalysis data from January 1980 through June 2017. We show that AR frequency, duration, and seasonality exhibit a wide range of results, while the meridional distribution of these metrics along selected coastal (but not interior) transects are quite similar across methods. Furthermore, methods are grouped into criteria-based clusters, within which the range of results is reduced. AR case studies and an evaluation of individual method deviation from an all-method mean highlight advantages/disadvantages of certain approaches. For example, methods with less (more) restrictive criteria identify more (less) ARs and AR-related impacts. Finally, this paper concludes with a discussion and recommendations for those conducting AR-related research to consider.

Rutz, Jonathan J.↗

A multi-platform evaluation of the randomized CX low-rank matrix factorization in Spark

We investigate the performance and scalability of the randomized CX low-rank matrix factorization and demonstrate its applicability through the analysis of a 1TB mass spectrometry imaging (MSI) dataset, using Apache Spark on an Amazon EC2 cluster, a Cray XC40 system, and an experimental Cray cluster. We implemented this factorization both as a parallelized C implementation with hand-tuned optimizations and in Scala using the Apache Spark high-level cluster computing framework. We obtained consistent performance across the three platforms: using Spark we were able to process the 1TB size dataset in under 30 minutes with 960 cores on all systems, with the fastest times obtained on the experimental Cray cluster. In comparison, the C implementation was 21X faster on the Amazon EC2 system, due to careful cache optimizations, bandwidth-friendly access of matrices and vector computation using SIMD units. We report these results and their implications on the hardware and software issues arising in supporting data-centric workloads in parallel and distributed environments.

Gittens, Alex↗

Matrix Factorizations at Scale: a Comparison of Scientific Data Analytics in Spark and C+MPI Using Three Case Studies

We explore the trade-offs of performing linear algebra using Apache Spark, compared to traditional C and MPI implementations on HPC platforms. Spark is designed for data analytics on cluster computing platforms with access to local disks and is optimized for data-parallel tasks. We examine three widely-used and important matrix factorizations: NMF (for physical plausibility), PCA (for its ubiquity) and CX (for data interpretability). We apply these methods to 1.6TB particle physics, 2.2TB and 16TB climate modeling and 1.1TB bioimaging data. The data matrices are tall-and-skinny which enable the algorithms to map conveniently into Spark’s data parallel model. We perform scaling experiments on up to 1600 Cray XC40 nodes, describe the sources of slowdowns, and provide tuning guidance to obtain high performance.

Gittens, Alex↗

Data Elevator

Data Elavator allows extensive optimizations, such as overlapping read and write operations, choosing I/O modes, and aligning buffer boundaries. Is as much as 4.2X faster than Cray DataWarp, the start-of-art software for burst buffer, and 4X faster than directly writing to PFS.

Wu, Kesheng↗