1. CPU Sizing vs. Latency Analysis FTS EDR Latency Simulation 5 March 2008 Doug Shannon

2. FTS DRO Mar 05, 2008 2 Contents FTS Latency – Simulation & Analyses –IDPS NPP Status –ATDS/FTS Simulation Overview –Example Simulation Results –ATDS/FTS Demo FTS HRD/LRD Latency Requirements: –SYS013230 The LRD Field Terminal software, when installed on NPOESS representative hardware, shall produce Imagery EDRs within 2 minutes and all other EDRs specified in Appendix G within 15 minutes of receipt of mission data. Class 2 –SYS013235 The HRD Field Terminal software, when installed on NPOESS representative hardware, shall produce Imagery EDRs within 2 minutes and all other EDRs specified in Appendix E, except for EDRs 40.3.1.4, 40.4.10, 40.7.5, and 40.7.8, within 15 minutes of receipt of mission data. Class 2

3. FTS DRO Mar 05, 2008 3 IDPS NPP Status IDPS NPP Build 1.5 –1 orbit NPP processing (101 mins) – 53 mins Meets EDR latencies (117.2 mins for 140 mins requirement) Major speedups in DMS performance Algorithm development & integration “ 95% complete ” –Future Builds 1.5.x.1 (3Q 08), B1.5.x.2 (2Q 09). OMPS, NHF, combined Albedo, Bright Pixel Move LSA Granulation out of VIIRS SDR (1.5.x.1) to improve IMG latency –ATDS/FTS getting new benchmarks on B1.5 algorithms Faster processing? Less algorithm sensitivity to scene content?

4. FTS DRO Mar 05, 2008 4 Algorithm Timing & Dependency Simulation Field Terminal Latency Analyses ATDS supports NPP, NPOESS/NPP & NPOESS performance analyses FTS latency simulations differences: –Receives C1/C2 LRD or HRD in real time; no stored data Sensors collect at 9.1 & 5.0 Mbps (average day/night) –Various FTS locations and weather/terrain conditions –Smaller EDR granules (NPP 85.7sec & NPOESS 42.9sec) –Processing Architecture - Split SDR - generate IMG sooner, after SDR Cal/Geo, before granulation Pre-load SDR static ancil/aux tiles (TBD) to reduce latency Assume no/minimal cross-granule dependency

5. FTS DRO Mar 05, 2008 5 VIIRS Cross-Granule Latency Tiers +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +4 +3 +5 SDR

6. FTS DRO Mar 05, 2008 6 FTS Simulation (e.g. Omaha): 2 day 19 Passes with NPOESS S/C 13301730 FTS Contacts with NPOESS S/C (1440 minutes = 1 days) Contact Durations: Max 13.1 mins Avg 10.5 mins Min 2 mins? <4mins 2.3%

7. FTS DRO Mar 05, 2008 7 Orbital Position Defines Dynamic Scene Content in Sensor Data Orbital Position defines Sensor NadirNCEP Weather Data Base Scene in VIIRS View Ocean Cloudy Snow/Ice Dynamic Processing

8. FTS DRO Mar 05, 2008 8 Impact of Weather/Terrain on FTS Data Algorithm loading for Clear-Ocean is heaviest, 21% over average. NCEP weather DB for Spring 2003 –90-100% ocean – 41% –90-100% clear – 8% –Clear & Ocean – 3% User can ’ t select his weather/terrain –ATSD can analyze user FTS locations & help size for field conditions >90% Clear >90% ocean

9. FTS DRO Mar 05, 2008 9 Algorithm, Timing & Dependency Simulator: FTS IDPS and Algorithm Models S/W H/W Science Algorithms

10. FTS DRO Mar 05, 2008 10 Peak demand (17 CPUs) not equal to CPU requirement. –2.6 GHz CPUs CPU resources driven by contact length & S/C sensors. –No ATMS & CrIS on C2 Example ATDS Simulation results – Omaha FTS scenario

11. FTS DRO Mar 05, 2008 11 EDR latencies are dynamic as scene content varies –Shows last VIIRS EDR for multiple granules Example ATDS Simulation results – Omaha FTS scenario

12. FTS DRO Mar 05, 2008 12 Latencies varied 1.5 – 7.7 mins –Imagery latency ~3.3 mins Example ATDS Simulation results – Omaha FTS scenario FTS IMG

13. FTS DRO Mar 05, 2008 13 On-going ATDS/FTS Trades Variable number of CPUs & processor speeds Smaller VIIRS/CrIMSS granules –Science implications for processing areas and adjacency. Weather/Terrain impact on IDPS Latency –Various FTS locations –Various weather & terrain conditions SDR architectural trades Selectable EDR configurations –HRD vs LRD algorithms –Generate high priority top EDRs only –Generate Imagery only

14. FTS DRO Mar 05, 2008 14 VIIRS HRD vs LRD Algorithm Processing 26% 0.3% 5% 9% 2% 14%/10 11% 10% 5% 2% 1%

15. FTS DRO Mar 05, 2008 15 Summary Due to algorithm scene sensitivity, highly variable weather/terrain are significant factors for latency and CPUs required. –Some new IDPS benchmarks show less than expected sensitivity. Ongoing IDPS algorithm optimization are improving FTS latencies. –Improvements to IDPS Infrastructure (DMS) are very good but don ’ t apply directly to FTS. We continue to add fidelity to our ATDS simulations, bounding nominal performance against worst-case scenarios in order to quantify system processor needs.

16. FTS DRO Mar 05, 2008 16 Backups 2005 back-to-back S/C contacts and gap analysis

17. FTS DRO Mar 05, 2008 17 Overlapping S/C contacts don ’ t occur due to spacecraft orbital phasing. Smallest gap of 10.2 minutes has minimal impact to FTS latency. Above 60N there is a large increase in contacts and EDRs. Back-to-back S/C Contacts Max gap is 2.1 orbits at equator Gap Time Between Contacts Analyzed STK 1330/1730/2130 contact data 60N