XD to Desktop

1. XD to Desktop • 6 months – 2 Years – 5 Years • Open standards • Ideals -> real world • TeraGrid accept teething problems and iterate • US - Prescriptive model for resource usage, future usage • EU – Allocation procedure between top sliced and national usage, no single method for interaction • UK model - departmental, institutional and national facilities have different drivers. • Is a forced model as per US desirable? • Benefits vs disadvantages • Scientists limited in ambition due to perceived difficulty • Resources off site must be as accessible as local – though the local network is currently underutilised • Network connectivity • Co-location of compute and storage is essential • Tension between cutting edge and sustainability • Data accessibility at the local level (dept) will be increasingly important • Develop campus infrastructure to get researchers -> facilities, local->regional->national->international • Tools with open standards – allow researchers to drive IS providers to provide tools interfaces and services they want: researchers collaborate and so want services that facilitate that. • Different institutional governance models give different levels of responsiveness in the services offered. • Different scales of resources could require different types of middleware

2. Align with groups that are already looking at multi scale usage – EU? • Join work already ongoing around production open standards interfaces • Recognition that we need to possibly disconnect running the equipment from the resource/facility that it can provide • Recognition that resource centres have expertise above just running hardware national cvatasrphe if we were to lose this expetrise • Follow the JANET model for resources? • Shared services where a clear value proposition can be shown and where it makes research sense • Get representatives from non-participating institutions into the forum to give impartial view • Recognise that the levels (desktop) may disappear into local/remote • Researcher-IT services relationship improved with clear descriptionof role and resopsabilities and • Resistance for adoption around changing methods of work, even if clear benefits can be shown • RC have driven requirements around data is it better in the long term if the RC have similar edicts around other resources • Consultation with self organised coherent communities is essential to allow for the long term development of services

3. Researchers should be able to move their problem from desktop up to national scale facilities quickly simply and easily

4. 6 Months • Consultation with self organised coherent communities is essential to allow for the long term development of services • Get representatives from non-participating institutions(commercial providers?) into the forum to give an impartial view • Align with groups that are already looking at multi scale usage – EU? • Re-join work already on going around production open standards interfaces • Different institutional governance models give different levels of responsiveness in the services offered. • Coherent central services around AAA & QA

5. 2 Years • Different scales of resources could require different types of middleware/interfaces • Resources off site must be as accessible as local – though the local network is currently underutilised • Co-location of compute and data is essential • Tools with open standards – allow researchers to drive IS providers to provide tools interfaces and services they want: researchers collaborate and so want services that facilitate that.

6. 5 Years • Recognition that we need to disconnect running the equipment from the service/facility that it can provide • Use shared services where a clear value proposition can be shown and where it makes research sense • Tension between cutting edge and sustainability will always

7. Open standards in tools and services