1 / 20

Research Computing Survey Results

Research Computing Survey Results. January 2007 Common Solutions Group Meeting Bill Clebsch, Stanford University. Agenda. Survey Purpose Participation Rates Survey Overview Results Overview What Do the Results Suggest/Tell Us. Survey Purpose.

jerold
Download Presentation

Research Computing Survey Results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Research Computing Survey Results January 2007 Common Solutions Group Meeting Bill Clebsch, Stanford University

  2. Agenda • Survey Purpose • Participation Rates • Survey Overview • Results Overview • What Do the Results Suggest/Tell Us 2006 CSG Research Computing Survey Results

  3. Survey Purpose • Identify current context of Research Computing • Document Research Computing baselines • Ask about Research Computing directions • Pinpoint collaboration opportunities • Inform long term strategies and plans 2006 CSG Research Computing Survey Results

  4. Brown University Carnegie Mellon University Columbia University Cornell University Duke University Georgetown University Harvard University Indiana University MIT New York University Penn State University Princeton Stanford University 26 CSG Member Schools Participated • University of California, Berkeley • University of Chicago • University of Colorado, Boulder • University of Delaware • University of Michigan • University of Minnesota • University of Southern California • University of Texas, Austin • University of Virginia • University of Washington • University of Wisconsin, Madison • Virginia Tech • Yale University 2006 CSG Research Computing Survey Results

  5. Overview of the Research Computing Survey 2006 CSG Research Computing Survey Results

  6. The QuestionsCurrent Context for Research Computing 2006 CSG Research Computing Survey Results

  7. Survey Response Current Context for Research Computing 78% See value in having a governance/oversight group for Research Computing 26% have an active and useful group in place 52% don’t have one and wish they did Governance 50% Say the central Data Center needs to be upgraded in order to better meet needs 35% Indicate that central solution is not desired by researchers 15% Say they are currently serving campus needs Top Issue: Data Center Facilities 70% Indicate the campus networks have no capacity issues and are widely used Top Issue: Network Capacity Ability to Keep Pace with Needs 60% Have Data Center expansion and/or rebuild plans to address utilization and capacity expectations 16% have funded plans 44% have plans; have not received funding 2006 CSG Research Computing Survey Results

  8. The Questions: Infrastructure Support Baseline for Research Computing 2006 CSG Research Computing Survey Results

  9. Survey Response: Infrastructure Support Baseline for Research Computing • “Funded by Researcher Only” or the “Funded by Researcher, School, and University” are the research computing funding method used by most Funding Methods • Just Hosting – providing only floor space, cooling and power – is the most common support model used in Data Centers • This is no discernable difference between the remaining support services models • Hosting servers with minimal sys admin/DBA support • Hosting servers with full sys admin/DBA support • Hosting large shared computing resources as a service Infrastructure Support Services Model • Ad hoc use of central storage allocation and researcher owned/housed storage arrays is the dominant storage model in use today • Storage is the most important concern going forward - followed closely by CPU cycles Storage 2006 CSG Research Computing Survey Results

  10. The Questions: Staff Support Baseline for Research Computing 2006 CSG Research Computing Survey Results

  11. Survey Response: Staff Support Baseline for Research Computing Central IT Provides Staff Support 46% Central IT provides staff support Central IT Staff Support Services Model 86% Staff monitor facilities and power 68% Offer options for system administration support 45% Support technology portion of grant development 27% Central IT provides 0 FTE of staff support 58% Central IT provides 1-10 FTE of staff support 15% Central IT provides 10+ FTE of staff support Central IT Staff Support Services Model 2006 CSG Research Computing Survey Results

  12. Research Computing Staff SupportThe Last 3 Years, The Next 3 Years Staffing: The Last 3 Years 64% Reported staffing stayed the same Staffing: The Next 3 Years 42% Predict staffing will grow up to 25% 11% Predict staffing will grow by more than 11% What do our other predictions reveal? 2006 CSG Research Computing Survey Results

  13. The QuestionsResearch Computing Directions 2006 CSG Research Computing Survey Results

  14. Survey ResponseResearch Computing Directions 86% Staff monitor facilities and power 68%Offer options for system administration support 45%Support technology portion of grant development Fastest Areas of Growth (Predicted for next 3 years) Factors Influencing Central Data Center Use Cost is the top factor Control is becoming a distant second Addressing Regulatory Change Pending funding requirement – research data must publicly available up to 20 years 27% Are prepared today for this pending change 54%Started the discussion, no approach defined 19%No ability exists, no plans to change the situation 2006 CSG Research Computing Survey Results

  15. Importance Ratings:Factors Influencing Data Center Use 2006 CSG Research Computing Survey Results

  16. So…How Does this Data Inform Our Series of Panels ? 2006 CSG Research Computing Survey Results

  17. Drivers and Changes in Hosting Research Computing Panel • Hosting expectations continue to grow … modern facilities, CPU and storage solutions will need to exist • Support requirements are more complex … one size does not fit all, researchers expect to select solutions from a menu of offerings • from “just the power and cooling please” • to “super-computing-size me” • Staffing strategy implications – new skills are needed to support grant development, provide analytical support Panel Discussion Leaders: Pat Dreher, Jim Pepin, Tim Gleason, Bruce Vincent 2006 CSG Research Computing Survey Results

  18. Developing and Funding Cyberinfrastructure Panel • We indicated the top factor influencing the researcher’s decision to use central Data Centers is COST • To fund Data Center costs today, we use some combination of funding models • What behaviors and decisions do we want to incent? • When is central funding the right answer? Panel Discussion Leaders: Kevin Morooney, Earv Blythe, Bill Clebsch, Jim Jokl 2006 CSG Research Computing Survey Results

  19. Research Computing Governance Panel • More than 50% said we wish we had a working governance structure • What can those with working models in place tell us (best practice and practical advice!) • What is on our wish list of ways to leverage such a model • Identify additional questions, considerations? Panel Discussion Leaders: Brad Wheeler, Jim Pepin, Dave Vernon, Phil Reese 2006 CSG Research Computing Survey Results

  20. Discussion & Panels Bill Clebsch

More Related