Hello all,

We absolutely must freeze the disk spreadsheet effective immediately in
order to finish our cost estimates.  My sense is that we are close enough
and so I am locking the database file in the archive as of now, it will
remain frozen until our 8/24 baseline at least.

Thanks to all who contributed to this.  On to CPUs!

Jeff

> From: Jacek Becla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
> Reply-To: LSST Data Management <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:26:32 -0700
> To: LSST Data Management <[email protected]>
> Subject: [LSST-data] new updates to database storage and disk io estimates
> 
> Keywords: DataAccWG
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I made rather significant change in the estimates:
> we were forgetting that Deep Detection will run
> _for each band_ (which means many more Sources...).
> Building this into the model resulted in:
> - number of Sources increased ~300%
> - db size increased ~130% to 378 TB after the first year
> - disk io: number of disks increased ~x2 to 3,922
> - size of RAM needed per processing center shot up
>   from 6 to 19 TB, without this memory we are talking
>   about 1 billion (yes, Billion) disks :=)
> 
> The updated docs are in Docushare, Collection-413.
> 
> BTW, all numbers were discussed with Tim and Kem
> and approved by Tim.
> 
> 
> Jacek
> 
> 
> Jacek Becla wrote:
>> Keywords: DataAccWG
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I refreshed the db storage and disk io estimate documents
>> in Docushare, I believe these versions are very close
>> to the final now.
>> 
>> The changes include:
>> 
>> storage (size up by 1%):
>>  - added 1% var galaxies
>> 
>> disk io (number of disks up by 14%, 1,834 now):
>>  - added reverse estimates (how many queries we can
>>    handle for given number of disks)
>>  - fixed issue related to clustering galaxies
>>    (now that we have much fewer galaxies than stars
>>    the model should reflect worse hit ratio for galaxies,
>>    and it was not)
>> 
>> 
>> Jacek
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Jacek Becla wrote:
>>> Keywords: DataAccWG
>>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I published in docushare the latest version of database
>>> storage estimates and disk io estimates (Collection-413)
>>> It includes latest numbers/assumptions provided by Tim,
>>> and the changes discussed/approved at the database
>>> telecon (Jul 12).
>>> 
>>> In summary, we now expect
>>>  - to have 164 TB of data after the first year (down from 600)
>>>  - to need 1.6 K disks for the assumed query load (down from 4 K)
>>> 
>>> Note that:
>>> 
>>> 1) there is still a small debate over the galaxy numbers
>>> for DR20 ("should be more like 18 billion"), and the star
>>> numbers ("should be the 10 billion from the r-band counts"),
>>> so further updates are likely.
>>> 
>>> 2) We are still working on details regarding which table
>>> should be used by which query (DIASource vs Source). This
>>> can change disk io (reduce it - now I am using Source)
>>> 
>>> 3) I introduced small data duplication by extracting 6 rows
>>> from the Source table into a separate table in order to reduce
>>> disk io for the near-neighbor query by 85% (which reduced
>>> overall disk requirement by half). That should be ok given
>>> we asked for 150% of data size for this sort of
>>> "persistent overheads" (and are now "using" 8 TB out of 53 TB
>>> in DR1, or 15%)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> One worry that I have is that the estimates are now for
>>> DR1 and in DR1 the Source table is "tiny" (if one can call
>>> 40-billion-row table "tiny") comparing to what we will
>>> have to deal with later (for example in release 5
>>> it is 10x bigger). The used DR number is selected based on
>>> number of objects in Object Catalog: we need 10 billion and
>>> DR1 has over 22 already.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jacek
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LSST-data mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://www.lsstmail.org/mailman/listinfo/lsst-data
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> LSST-data mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://www.lsstmail.org/mailman/listinfo/lsst-data
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LSST-data mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.lsstmail.org/mailman/listinfo/lsst-data
> 

_______________________________________________
LSST-data mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.lsstmail.org/mailman/listinfo/lsst-data

Reply via email to