No abstract

No abstract

Modeling the lifetime of a fused silica optic is described for a multiple beam, MJ-class laser system. This entails combining optic processing data along with laser shot data to account for complete history of optic processing and shot exposure. Integrating with online inspection data allows for the construction of a performance metric to describe how an optic performs with respect to the model. This methodology helps to validate the damage model as well as allows strategic planning and identifying potential hidden parameters that are affecting the optic's performance.

In this work we investigated the suitability of Hadoop MapReduce and Apache Spark for largescale computation of seismic waveform quality metrics by comparing their performance with that of a traditional distributed implementation. The Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) Data Management Center (DMC) provided 43 terabytes of broadband waveform data of which 5.1 TB of data were processed with the traditional architecture, and the full 43 TB were processed using MapReduce and Spark. Maximum performance of ~0.56 terabytes per hour was achieved using all 5 nodes of the traditional implementation. We noted that I/O dominated processing, and that I/O performance was deteriorating with the addition of the 5 th node. Data collected from this experiment provided the baseline against which the Hadoop results were compared. Next, we processed the full 43 TB dataset using both MapReduce and Apache Spark on our 18-node Hadoop cluster. These experiments were conducted multiple times with various subsets of the data so that we could build models to predict performance as a function of dataset size. We found that both MapReduce and Spark significantly outperformed the traditional reference implementation. At a dataset size of 5.1 terabytes, both Spark and MapReduce were about 15 times faster than the reference implementation. Furthermore, our performance models predict that for a dataset of 350 terabytes, Spark running on a 100-node cluster would be about 265 times faster than the reference implementation. We do not expect that the reference implementation deployed on a 100-node cluster would perform significantly better than on the 5-node cluster because the I/O performance cannot be made to scale. Finally, we note that although Big Data technologies clearly provide a way to process seismic waveform datasets in a high-performance and scalable manner, the technology is still rapidly changing, requires a high degree of investment in personnel, and will likely require significant changes in other parts of our infrastructure.Nevertheless, we anticipate that as the technology matures and third-party tool vendors make it easier to manage and operate clusters, Hadoop (or a successor) will play a large role in our seismic data processing.

No abstract