Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

CyberInfrastructure and Campus/Regional Networking at the National Science Foundation Dr. Jennifer M. Schopf NSF EPSCoR Sept 29, 2010.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "CyberInfrastructure and Campus/Regional Networking at the National Science Foundation Dr. Jennifer M. Schopf NSF EPSCoR Sept 29, 2010."— Presentation transcript:

1 CyberInfrastructure and Campus/Regional Networking at the National Science Foundation Dr. Jennifer M. Schopf NSF EPSCoR Sept 29, 2010

2 2  National Science Foundation on its cyber- infrastructure initiatives and NSF support for campus and regional networks.  ~30 mins

3 3 Fundamental Change in Science  Modern science  Data- and compute-intensive  Integrative  Multiscale Collabs  Additional complexity  Individuals, groups, teams, communities  Transitioning research approach to address these issues  One way is through use of CI

4 4 Expertise Research and Scholarship Education Learning and Workforce Development Interoperability and ops Cyberscience Organizations Universities, schools Government labs, agencies Research and Med Centers Libraries, Museums Virtual Organizations Communities Networking Campus, national, international networks Research and exp networks End-to-end throughput Cybersecurity Computational Resources Supercomputers Clouds, Grids, Clusters Visualization Compute services Data Centers Data Databases, Data reps, Collections and Libs Data Access; stor., nav mgmt, mining tools, curation Scientific Instruments Large Facilities, MREFCs, telescopes. colliders, shake tables Sensor Arrays Ocean, env’t, weather, buildings, climate. etc Software Applications, middleware Software dev’t & support Cybersecurity: access, authorization, authen. CyberInfrastructure Ecosystem Discovery Collaboration Education

5 5 GC & VOs Software ACCI Task Forces Campus Bridging HPC (Clouds, Grids) Education Workforce Data (Viz) Craig Stewart David Keyes Valerie Taylor Alex Ramerez Tinsley Oden Thomas Zacharia Dan Atkins Tony Hey  Timeline: months  Advising NSF (not just OCI)  Workshop(s)  Recommendations  Input to NSF informs  CF21 programs  2012 CI Vision Plan

6 6 CF21 DRAFT Plan  Incorporate and integrate existing ACCI Task Forces Recommendations and input  CF21 Colloquium (C 2 ) – in process  Plan to establish CF21 group at NSF  Development of a CI requirements template  Develop a CF21 budget building exercise for FY12  Complete draft by 1 st Quarter,

7 7 CI requirements Template (Draft)  CI requirements to meet science and engineering challenges over the next 10 years  Scientific instruments, facilities, MREFCs, etc  Data, collections, libraries, access, curation, preservation, etc  Software, application, middleware, etc  Compute resources, data centers, clouds, grids, etc  Networking, end-to-end, cybersecurity, campus, national, international, etc  Organizations, labs, universities, VOs, communities, etc.  Expertise, education, workforce development, collaboration 7

8 8 Challenges  Foundational substrate for research and education  Involves user interacting with CI capabilities  Data, software, visualization, HPC, clouds, organizations, etc  Involves entire CI ‘stack’ – transparency of desktop to world capabilities  Throughput and usefulness to the end-user is the metric  New “world view” and culture for research infrastructure 8

9 9 Within NSF  CyberInfrastructure Framework for 21 st Century (CF21)  Setting a new vision across the Foundation for CI  Spearheaded by OCI, but with involvement from all directorates

10 10 CF21: Cyberinfrastructure Framework…  High-end computation, data, visualization, networks for transformative science; sustainability, extensibility  Facilities/centers as hubs of innovation  MREFCs and collaborations including large-scale NSF collaborative facilities, international partners  Software, tools, science applications, and VOs critical to science, integrally connected to instruments  Campuses fundamentally linked end-to-end; clouds, loosely coupled campus services, policy to support  People. Comprehensive approach workforce development for 21st century science and engineering 10

11 11 Networking Infrastructure and CF21  Major Scientific Facility Interconnects  Networking infrastructure focus  High Performance End-User Access  Address at-speed connection at desktop  Usefulness and User throughput  Pilots and prototypes  Experimental Research Networks  Multi layer, hybrid networks including cybersecurity  Applications with end-to-end focus  Digital Divide issues  Geographically remote, rural areas, community colleges, etc  On campus, off campus

12 12 NSF NW Programs  Academic Research Infrastructure Program: Recovery and Reinvestment (ARI-R2) - OIA  Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) - OIA  EPSCoR CyberConnectivity (C2) - EPSCoR  Future Internet Architectures (FIA) - CISE  Software Development for CI (SDCI) OCI  Strategic Technologies for CI (STCI) - OCI  Int’l Research NW Connections (IRNC) OCI

13 13 Future Internet Architectures CISE  Supports projects to conceive, design, and evaluate trustworthy Future Internet architectures  Solicitation NSF , proposals due 4/22/2010.  August 27, 2010 NSF announced four FIA awards; each FIA project is for three years.  Each FIA will be prototyped and evaluated

14 14 Global Environment for Network Innovations (GENI) - CISE  Virtual laboratory at the frontiers of network science and engineering  Investigating future internets at scale  Support at-scale experimentation on shared, heterogeneous, highly instrumented infrastructure  Enable programmability throughout the network  Provide collaborative environments for novel research and innovation

15 15 Software Development in CI 2010 (SDCI) - OCI  Develop, deploy, and sustain a set of reusable and expandable software components and systems  Benefit a broad set of science and engineering applications  5 software areas:  HPC, Data, Middleware, Networking, Cybersecurity  ~$15M in funding  Feb 26, 2010 due date

16 16 SDCI Networking  End-to-end performance  Application down to the desk top  NW infrastructure experimentation tools  Testing of experimental networks Awards:  The Missing Link: Connecting Eucalyptus Clouds with Multi-Layer Networks  Chase, Duke; Senoy, UM Amherst; Baldine, UNC  Web10Gig - Taking TCP instrumentation to the Next Level  Huntoon, CMU; Eastbrook, UIUC

17 17 NSF Funded Pragmatic Networking  International  Regional  State  Campus

18 18 International Research Network Connections (IRNC)  Goals:  Provide network connections linking U.S. research with peer networks in other parts of the world  Stimulate the deployment and operational understanding of emerging network technology and standards in an international context  Support science and engineering research and education applications

19 19 IRNC 2010  Increase capacity and reach into new and existing regions  Strive to support to the scientist/engineer/educator/ student by targeting an end-to-end approach in appropriate activities  Maintain and build strong international relationships with colleagues and partners  Leverage resources (capacity, tools, ideas) where feasible  Collaborate closely with U.S. domestic R&E network providers and leaders (Internet2 and NLR)  Technical emphasis areas  Security and measurement

20 20 IRNC 2010  Three funded areas  Production Networking  Experimental Networking  Special Projects  ~$32.5M over 5 years  Proposals due August 2009  Awards in Summer FY10

21 21 IRNC 2010 Awards  5 Production awards (~$25M over 5 years)  Supporting connectivity from US to EU, South America, and Asia/Pacific  Note: nothing to Africa  6 smaller – Experimental and special projects (~$7M over 3 years)  Monitoring, both dynamic and passive  Deployment of IPv6  Support for dynamic circuit services  International outreach

22 22 Academic Research Infrastructure : Recovery and Reinvestment (ARI-R2)  Goals  Improvement to research facilities  Could be used to advance campus and regional network environments  $200M in stimulus funds  Small - $250K to $2M, expect ~100 awards  Medium - $2-$5 million, expect ~5-7 awards  Large - $5-$10 million, expect ~1-3 awards  Overall  495 proposals received, success rate 20-25%  Geographically diverse & diverse set of schools

23 23 ARI Networking Awards  16 awards of 51 that went to panel  Success rate = 31.4%  Average award $1.79M  1 award > $5M  1 award $2M – $5M  9 awards $1M - $2M  5 awards < $1M

24 24 ARI Networking Awards  National: 1  NLR  Regional: 9  SCLR/C-Light, 3ROX, NYSERNet, Hawaii REN, MREN, BiSON, MAX, NTN, PNWGP  Outdoor wireless, mesh and long-distance: 2  UC NRS, Lowell Observatory  Campus: 4  LSU, U Delaware, UIC, Lehigh U

25 25 ARI Next  Post award management  Extra year to show a science result  No current plans for a follow on

26 26 EPSCoR: Experimental Program for Stimulation of Competitive Research  NSF statutory function: "to strengthen research and education in science and engineering throughout the United States and to avoid undue concentration of such research and education."  EPSCoR works to advance science and engineering capabilities in EPSCoR jurisdictions  State-based programs

27 27

28 28 Research Infrastructure Improvement Cyber Connectivity (RII-C2)  Up to 2 years and $1M  $20M in ARRA funds overall  Inter-campus and intra-campus connectivity  New in FY 2010  Proposals came in November 2009  17 awards made in June 2010  FY 11 solicitation out now  Deadline in November  12 eligible jurisdictions

29 RII-C2 Awards  Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia

30 30 EPSCoR RII C2 Awards The Difference  Networking across the state  Not just to awarded institution  Expectation of involvement of “non research- centric” institutions  External outreach needed  Workforce Development was a component  Meant as a way a state could grow to be able to leverage other programs

31 31 Expanded Major Research Instrumentation Program (MRI-R 2 )  Providing much stronger campus-level resources  ~$300M in ARRA funds for FY10  1220 proposals requesting a total of $1.230 billion were accepted for review  ~400 awards expected from $100K to $6M  There were networking proposals  Don’t have any stats for how many  Instrumentation NOT infrastructure

32 32 Hawaii Networking Awards – 2010 IRNC Supports 2 x 10Gbps from AARNet to Hawaii + Oahu to Pacific Wave (LA + Seattle) SX-TransPORT AUP restricted to R&E only ARI-R2 Will Support 2 x 10Gbps from Oahu to to Pacific Wave (LA + Seattle) RII-C2 Will Support 10Gbps from Hawaii to Maui to Oahu (BTOP CCI Will Extend fiber to every public school and library (1Gbps) and every college campus/center (10Gbps) on every island) UH-Hilo Mauna Kea Observatories UH Manoa Kapiolani CC Haleakala Observatories Maui HPC Center

33 33 A Few Lessons Learned…  In the pragmatic networking calls, networks should be in support of some science need  Don’t build a solution looking for a problem  We still don’t always make great arguments about why we NEED to do upgrades  Use numbers  Define use cases  Get user buy-in  Make an argument for your technical solution

34 34 Long Standing NSF Data Policy “Investigators are expected to share with other researchers, at no more than incremental cost and within a reasonable time, the primary data, samples, physical collections and other supporting materials created or gathered in the course of work under NSF grants. Grantees are expected to encourage and facilitate such sharing.” Has not been widely enforced, with a few exceptions like OCE NSF Proposal and Award Policy and Procedure Guide, Award and Administration Guideline PDF page 61

35 35 Changing Data Management Policy IMPLEMENTATION  Planning underway for 2+ years within NSF  May 5, 2010 National Science Board meeting  Change in the implementation of the existing policy on sharing research data discussed  Fall 2010  Change in the NSF GPG released F_51 applicant.html

36 36 In Early 2011:  All proposals must include a data management plan  Two-page supplementary document  Can request budget to cover costs  Echo the actions of other funding agencies  NIH, NASA, NOAA, EU Commission  What is this going to mean for the networking needs?

37 37 Conclusions  FY09-FY10 has shown a marked increase in NSF support for pragmatic networking  Cross-directorate support has in part enabled this  Working to continue this trend  A complete CI solution requires adequate networking, and end-to-end performance  Data sharing is only going to grow

38 38 Expertise Research and Scholarship Education Learning and Workforce Development Interoperability and ops Cyberscience Organizations Universities, schools Government labs, agencies Research and Med Centers Libraries, Museums Virtual Organizations Communities Networking Campus, national, international networks Research and exp networks End-to-end throughput Cybersecurity Computational Resources Supercomputers Clouds, Grids, Clusters Visualization Compute services Data Centers Data Databases, Data reps, Collections and Libs Data Access; stor., nav mgmt, mining tools, curation Scientific Instruments Large Facilities, MREFCs, telescopes. colliders, shake tables Sensor Arrays Ocean, env’t, weather, buildings, climate. etc Software Applications, middleware Software dev’t & support Cybersecurity: access, authorization, authen. CyberInfrastructure Ecosystem Discovery Collaboration Education

39 39 More Information  Jennifer Schopf    ARI: Steve Meacham,  EPSCoR C2: Jennifer Schopf,  FIA: Victor Frost,  GENI: Suzi Iacono,  IRNC: Alan Blatecky,  MRI: Randy Phelps,  SDCI: Team,  STCI: Team,


Download ppt "CyberInfrastructure and Campus/Regional Networking at the National Science Foundation Dr. Jennifer M. Schopf NSF EPSCoR Sept 29, 2010."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google