Versionen im Vergleich

Schlüssel

  • Diese Zeile wurde hinzugefügt.
  • Diese Zeile wurde entfernt.
  • Formatierung wurde geändert.
Kommentar: zurückgeholt von v. 92

...

Depending on the /wiki/spaces/PUB/pages/425995, the main proposal has to satisfy a prescribed layout:

Proposal type

Whitelist status
To gain whitelist status one needs to upload the proposal and acceptance of one of the funding institutions BMBF, DFG, EU, NHR, or GCS.
(*)Proposal layoutIncluded content

Initial

no
layout sample
  • scientific part
  • technical part
yes

layout sample
  • technical part

Follow-up

yes or no
layout sample
  • scientific part (brief update) and reference to the initial proposal
  • technical part


(*) To gain whitelist status one needs to upload the proposal and acceptance of one of the funding institutions BMBF, DFG, EU, NHR, or GCS 

Generally, please avoid:
  • Imprecise or incomprehensible estimation of requested computational resources (especially core-hours); for example, missing arguments to justify a certain number of N runs instead of a smaller number. One page is our recommended minimum.
  • No proof, that the software to be used is suitable and efficient for parallel execution (and parallel I/O) on our current HPC systems architecture. Recycling a scalability demo by a third party is meaningless, without showing that your planned production run is fully comparable to it (algorithm selection within the software, I/O pattern, machine architecture, problem size per core).
  • The overall aim and/or motivation behind the project is unclear.
  • The applicant lacks HPC/Unix skills and an experienced co-applicant is missing.
  • Insufficiency of the applicant's local resources is not indicated.
  • The NHR and/or HLRN was not mentioned in relevant publications.
  • Cut & paste of previous proposals.

...