A NASA astronaut on STS-130 gives the ISS a Tech Refresh

BSSw.io blog article re-host

Continuous Technology Refreshment (CTR)

All teams have to do it. Now we have a name for it.

The practice of Continuous Technology Refreshment (CTR) is defined as the periodic upgrade or replacement of infrastructure to deliver continued reliability, improved speed, capacity, and/or new features. The term is used primarily in the IT world when replacing obsolete hardware. However, long-lived software projects often wind up having to engage in equivalent activity. Examples of CTR in scientific computing software include adoption of new language standards, integration of performance portability solutions, application of burst buffers in workflow, and new revision control systems. The longer lived and bigger a project is, the more involved technology refresh can be. Using recent work for a major release of VisIt, 3.0 Beta, we describe experiences and lessons learned refreshing several technologies

Wrangling binary content

Because of the lack of alternatives, the VisIt team wound up having to use its Subversion repo for general hosting of content, much of it binary, not really requiring revision control. This included pre-built release binaries and tar files, PowerPoint presentations, and data ensembles used in tutorials. Binary content is problematic for revision control systems. Over many years of development, this and other binary content used in testing grew in size, making working with the whole repo unwieldy. For example, branch creation could take more than an hour. In moving to GitHub, we configured our repository to use Git Large File Support (LFS) to better handle binary content. GitHub offers free LFS with 1 GB of storage and 1 GB/month bandwidth limits per repo. For $300 per year, we purchased upgraded LFS service with 300 GB of storage and 3 TB of bandwidth.

Revision control

Migrating a few branches of a small project from Subversion to GitHub is trivial. A Google search of migrate from subversion to git reveals many options. However, there are no tools for migrating many branches, tags, and releases of a large project with a long development history while also culling and/or LFS’ing unwieldy binary content (described above) such that the resulting GitHub repo captures all history and looks, more or less, as if all the development had originally occurred on GitHub. We developed and tested custom Python scripts to basically replay all the changes from the old Subversion repo into the new GitHub repo. The process takes hours. In addition, these scripts were tested, results examined, and repositories destroyed and re-created, several times before all the kinks in the process were worked out. The result is that key branches and tags as well as all release and development history are captured on GitHub in what one would expect to be the GitHub-native way. Furthermore, unwieldy binary content is properly LSF’d with only the revision history of essential binary content being captured. We reduced the size of the repository from several tens of gigabytes in Subversion to under half a gigabyte in Git.

Issue tracking

A key challenge in migrating issues was deciding upon a mapping from Redmine issue metadata (e.g., trackers, statuses, and custom fields) to reasonable GitHub equivalents and then automating the conversion with a script. To capture all issue history, we chose to migrate both open and resolved issues. We found that capturing Redmine comments as true GitHub conversations was not easily possible. All comments from a Redmine issue were poured into the initial GitHub issue. We also included all Redmine metadata in the initial GitHub issue as a hedge against unforeseen data loss. A final challenge was attachments. Fewer than 10% of the issues contained attachments. However, GitHub offered no way to automate adding attachments to issues. After migrating the issues themselves (which then defined a mapping between the old Redmine and new GitHub issue ids), we scripted the download of all Redmine attachments renaming the resulting files with their new GitHub ids. The team then engaged in an attach-a-palooza exercise where each member was assigned about 10% of the attachments to manually attach to the appropriate GitHub issues.


We migrated VisIt’s GUI User Manual from OpenOffice to Sphinx and ReadTheDocs. This task involved a conversion script to bootstrap the process generating an initial restructured text output. Then, the team engaged in 3-4 documentation sprints, each of length 2-3 hours, manually reviewing, fixing, reorganizing, and polishing the resulting .rst files. VisIt’s CLI (Python) User Manual existed as compilable C code in the form of Python docstrings. This design facilitates in-line help within Python (e.g., >>> help(myFunc)) but is otherwise not the best format for humans to compose documentation. We wrote a script to automate conversion of the C code Python docstrings to .rst files. We plan to reverse this in the near future, that is, craft the documentation in .rst and automate the creation of Python doc-strings from the .rst.

Other refreshments

When making big changes, it is a good idea to combine as many together as possible rather than dribble them out over numerous releases. As part of the 3.0 beta release, the VisIt team also refreshed from VTK-6 to VTK-8 which necessitated refreshing GL infrastructure as well, from .tar.gz to .7z, which reduced storage for binary test data by 50%. Later this year, we plan to refresh commit hooks (e.g., tab characters, abort() calls, file name case clashing, using statements in headers), do CI testing (we currently test only proper compilation), and move our web site and test dashboard to GitHub as well.


Most code teams find it necessary to engage in activities similar to those described here on a regular basis, often in response to changing development workflow needs. For example, in its 25+ year history, the PETSc project has refreshed revision control systems on four separate occasions. Each of these changes was motivated by the growing set of distributed developers collaborating on PETSc. The HPC software community has yet to adopt the term Continuous Technology Refreshment to characterize such activities. However, we hope this article demonstrates that CTR is an essential aspect of sustaining software. Although technology refresh efforts can be costly, the benefits are improved development workflow and reduced long-term costs.

Author bios

Mark Miller is a computer scientist supporting the WSC program at LLNL since 1995. He is a contributor to VisIt and the lead developer of Silo. He is also a contributor to the IDEAS-ECP project.

Holly Auten is the Web Content Lead for the Computation Web Team and routinely contributes articles regarding various aspects of on-going software development activities within the Computation department at LLNL.