Skip to content

GitLab

  • Projects
  • Groups
  • Snippets
  • Help
    • Loading...
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
  • Sign in
bilby
bilby
  • Project overview
    • Project overview
    • Details
    • Activity
    • Releases
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
    • Locked Files
  • Issues 27
    • Issues 27
    • List
    • Boards
    • Labels
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
    • Iterations
  • Merge Requests 9
    • Merge Requests 9
  • Requirements
    • Requirements
    • List
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
    • Test Cases
  • Operations
    • Operations
    • Incidents
    • Environments
  • Packages & Registries
    • Packages & Registries
    • Container Registry
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • CI/CD
    • Code Review
    • Insights
    • Issue
    • Repository
    • Value Stream
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Members
    • Members
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • lscsoft
  • bilbybilby
  • Issues
  • #278

Closed
Open
Created Jan 22, 2019 by Peter Couvares@pfcDeveloper

ensure that Bilby can run on large-scale computing resources beyond the LIGO Data Grid

There are an increasing number of dedicated LVC and external shared computing resources available via the Open Science Grid (e.g., dedicated LVC: Virgo computing centers, Georgia Tech Tier-3 cluster's, LSU's SMIC allocation, CIT/LLO/LHO clusters, etc.; and shared: OSG opportunistic cycles, XSEDE allocations, commercial cloud CPUs, etc.). Bilby should be designed to be able to use them.

Concretely this means: not relying on shared filesystems but rather using explicit Condor file i/o; understanding and being explicit about runtime CPU, memory, and disk requirements rather than assuming an unspecified system configuration; and managing runtime software/library/package dependencies via LDG Singularity containers (ideal), CVMFS (good), and/or self-contained packaging/deployment (also good but harder).

@james-clark, @pfc, Josh Willis, and others are available to help consult and debug.

Edited Feb 18, 2019 by Gregory Ashton
Assignee
Assign to
1.0.0
Milestone
1.0.0
Assign milestone
Time tracking
None
Due date
None