1 / 30

Role of e-infrastructure in supporting European Research

Role of e-infrastructure in supporting European Research . Kimmo Koski March 11 th , 2011 Oslo. Themes. European Landscape in ICT support for research Nordic position Central or distributed support model How to prepare for 2015 and beyond. Landscape for supporting research in ICT.

keira
Download Presentation

Role of e-infrastructure in supporting European Research

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. Role of e-infrastructure in supporting European Research Kimmo Koski March 11th, 2011 Oslo

  2. Themes • European Landscape in ICT support for research • Nordic position • Central or distributed support model • How to prepare for 2015 and beyond

  3. Landscape for supporting research in ICT Some trends

  4. The Complex and ConfusingEuropeane-InfrastructureLandscape YOU NAME IT…

  5. Synergy in services Benefits obtained case by case No need to solve all at the same shot, addressing a group of communities can be very valuable, too Picture: originally from EC, modified by Kimmo Koski

  6. CASE CSC: EU projects’ portfolio (total volume in PMs) Project area HPC grid linguistics data biomedical applications network policywork

  7. CASE CSC: EU projects’ portfolio (total volume in PMs) Project area HPC grid linguistics data biomedical applications network policywork environmental

  8. From infrastructure to research driven projects Policy work: e-IRG, e-Infranet Ice2sea MMM@HPC Science specific problem Science specific problem Emphasis to build trust Community: Elixir, Claricle, ENVRI, BioMedSci Training, user interface: HPC-Europa2 General e-Infrastructures TOP PRIORITY ACTION: Moving from horizontal projects to support vertical activities and research driven projects, but maintaining the presence and role in the relevant e-Infrastructure layers Application development: CRESTA middleware: NDGF, EGI data: EUDAT, ODE, APARSEN HPC: PRACE, DEISA, EGI Network: GN3

  9. Critical times for European e-infrastructure • Will PRACE funding be sustainable after the first round (business model)? • Will financial national contribution in EGI allow self sustained organization in a long run? • Will there be EU-project flagships for emerging areas, such as data, software development, education and training, green ICT and cloud services? • Can we build trust between researchers and service providers such as national centers? • How can we efficiently collaborate in providing e-infrastructure and related services in Europe?

  10. Nordic position

  11. Different support systems in different countries • Finland centralized, critical mass • Sweden and Norway distributed, local matching funding • Denmark coordinates through research groups, direct researcher involvement in e-infrastructure decisions • Common nominators: NDGF, joint work in EGI and e-IRG, commonalities in ESFRI-participation, 3/5 included in PRACE etc. • Need to respect national decisions and note that history has an impact to the system • Joint services with distributed resourcing possible • Requirement to fit together with the national system

  12. Nordic opportunities • Green ICT and datacenters, cloud computing • Excellent education system • Resource profiling – do we all want to repeat the same services? • Collaboration in Research Infrastructures (both ESFRI and existing RIs)

  13. Role in HPC • Worth thinking about: • How many Nordic projects have got resources from PRACE? • How many even applied? • What is the reason? • No need? • Too good local resourcing? • Software does not scale? • Something else? • Can we risk not getting the high-end resources timely due to time consuming peer review and uncertainties to succeed • Major training and scalable software development challenge -> should be done together

  14. Datacenter example

  15. Finnishcompetitiveedge – as a country(Fits to Norway orNordic, too…) • Modern and reliableinfrastructure (national powergrid, roads, airlineconnections, data networks) • World classeducationsystem and competences on ICT & energy • Steadyeconomical and politicalconditions • Cheapenergy (www.energy.eu) and stronglyincreasing CO2 –freecapacity • Coolclimate and waterresources • No majorearthquakes (4.1 biggestever) • No majorstormsorotherdangerousnaturalphenomena • EuropeanGateway to Russia Kajaani paper mills & hydro & bio energy

  16. 19

  17. CASE Finland: next generation supercomputing • Major investments • 25 MEUR funding granted for investment in HPC, medium range and data management • 30 MEUR investment in Datacenter (Kajaani) • Operation costs on top of that (in CSC budget) • Installations in phases during 2012-2014 • Procurement started, decisions expected autumn 2011

  18. Central vs. Distributed

  19. Characteristic for Finnish model • Services centralized in the national center (CSC) • Productivity • Quality • Cost efficiency • Strong support organization • Technical and scientific support • Multidisciplinary • Diverse fields (computing, connections, contents) • Short way to decision making • Limited Company (Ltd.) • Short path to the Ministry of Education • Functional distribution of work • Cooperation between CSC and institutions of higher learning

  20. It is not that simple… • Both central and distributed models have their strengths and challenges • Matching funding, areal support, distance to customers, overhead in repeating services, competence development in universities etc. • History has an impact • Ability to agree how to divide work is a key issue

  21. Distributed model • Overhead in providing services, but impact in involving local users and training local people • Slower decisions, but high commitment after that • Overlaps in investments, but possibility to add local co-funding • Requires typically lot of committees and strategy papers, but that can also be useful sometimes .

  22. Infrastructure is evolving: can we afford to renew all every four years? Cray XT 2008

  23. Users adapt quickly: Example from CSC supercomputer history

  24. How to prepare for future, 2015 and beyond

  25. Some proposals • Focus on balanced services, e-infrastructure at large, including training and education • Invest in more efficient management and utilization of data • Find successful ways to build trust in ICT between research and service providers • What to do: research • How to implement it: service provider • Explore work distribution in Nordic level • Selected projects, well-defined targets, clear benefits • More efficient utilization of European resources • Active Nordic participation • Joint presence

  26. Spring is almost here! You can already see deer walking in the fields…

More Related