[Users] Regarding configuration of workstation

[Indrani Banerjee]

Dear Roland,

Thank you very much for your detailed response.
I am chiefly interested in running binary black hole simulations.
It turns out that I can only purchase a workstation with my project money.
However, as you suggest I will try and get an account in a cluster
eventually.
In case I face any difficulty at that time I will get back to you.

Thanks and best regards,
Indrani
**********************************************
Indrani Banerjee
Assistant Professor
Department of Physics & Astronomy,
National Institute of Technology, Rourkela
Odisha-769008, India
email: banerjeein at nitrkl.ac.in,
indrani.physics1 at gmail.com
**********************************************


On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 8:06 PM Roland Haas <rhaas at illinois.edu> wrote:

> Dear Indrani,
>
> Sorry for the long delay. We had discussed you question already in last
> week's Einstein Toolkit call.
>
> Unfortunately there is no direct answer that one can provide.
>
> The size of the workstation is very much dependent on the intended use,
> large differences existing for example between purely vacuum and
> simulations including matter. The latter usually being at least twice
> as expensive compute time and memory wise.
>
> Generically a single workstation is not really enough for production
> type work, since you usually need to either run many smaller
> simulations (so a single workstation is not enough) or one large
> simulation (in which case it won't fit on the workstation).
>
> Usually a workstation would be used for development and testing. For
> development you would require only a "typical" workstation and 16GB of
> RAM would be enough. For testing, one with large memory (>64GB) can be
> useful to test code (fits memory-wise0 but will be slow due to only a
> single CPU socket. I use my own workstation (96GB, 12 slow cores), for
> this.
>
> You can take a look at the gallery examples:
>
> BBH:
> http://einsteintoolkit.org/gallery/bbh/index.html
> 98GB, somewhat reasonable resolution but "real" ones could well be
> about 2 times more expensive memory wise
>
> BNS:
> http://einsteintoolkit.org/gallery/bns/index.html
> 8.8GB for the BNS example but it is *way* too low resolution. Normally
> the resolution across the star should be about 150m (about 0.1Msun) but
> currently is 416m (0.28) so 2.8 times too coarse. This will make the
> "real" run use ~20 times more memory (so ~128GB or so).
>
> For actual data production accessing a small cluster is usually best.
> Either on campus or via a national or international institution. I do
> not know what the situation in your location is like. In the US / EU
> one would usually try ACCESS / PRACE startup allocations first.
>
> Yours,
> Roland
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I am planning to buy a workstation from my project. Can anyone suggest
> what
> > should be its minimal configuration so that I can install Einstein
> Toolkit
> > in it and use it to generate numerical waveforms?
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> > With best regards,
> > Indrani
> > **********************************************
> > Indrani Banerjee
> > Assistant Professor
> > Department of Physics & Astronomy,
> > National Institute of Technology, Rourkela
> > Odisha-769008, India
> > email: banerjeein at nitrkl.ac.in,
> > indrani.physics1 at gmail.com
> > **********************************************
>
>
>
> --
> My email is as private as my paper mail. I therefore support encrypting
> and signing email messages. Get my PGP key from http://keys.gnupg.net.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20221007/2942d825/attachment.html