1. May 12, 2010 Planning team: Mairéad Martin, Kevin Morooney, Laura Patterson, Rex Pruess, Shelton Waggener, & Bill Wrobleski

2.  Storage Survey Results (15 minutes)  Institutional Snapshots (60 minutes)  Iowa by Dave Shafer  Virginia by Jim Jokl  UC Berkeley by Shel Waggener  Presenter/Panel Q&A  Break (30 minutes)  Curation & Preservation (30 minutes)  Cloud Storage: Benefits & Challenges (30 minutes)  Q&A, Discussion (30 minutes) 2

3. 1. Carnegie Mellon 2. Chicago 3. Colorado 4. Columbia 5. Cornell 6. Duke 7. Georgetown 8. Illinois 9. Iowa 10. Michigan State 11. Minnesota 12. NYU 13. Princeton 14. UC Berkeley 15. UC San Diego 16. USC 17. Virginia 18. Virginia Tech 19. Washington 20. Wisconsin 21. Yale 3

4. 4

5.  Central growing steadily  OIT and a few select departments maintain large storage pools  Colo facility + several other data centers + many departmental storage pools  We manage about 350 TB centrally, but are not sure how much other storage is distributed  But working to provide enterprise storage services both for research and administrative IT  We have a lot centrally but have never tried to do an inventory to see how much is in departments; some will have a lot  We have personal and departmental storage provisioned centrally, but it would be unrealistic to assume that we provide the majority of storage centrally 5

6. 6

7.  Hierarchical storage for HPC  Block storage for servers managed central I.T.  HPC research space, LMS, email etc  Storage for a VM provided by central IT, but where the OS and application are managed by department  Central services (ERP, E-mail, etc. data and backups)  We have some workstation backups, but its not yet a large central service 7

8.  Backups for desktop workstations is in planning. We are researching archive solutions also.  Most of the services offered are via colo facility  We use AFS for personal and departmental storage, though we also provide network attached storage for our Virtual Machine offering 8

9. 9

10.  Some file space for all staff/faculty/students is centrally funded  Fixed charge with no consideration of usage. 10

11.  Default quotas/fee above baseline amounts  Different services employ different models.  Colo facility  Planning to add base+plus model next year as well  We do charge some for backups and extraordinary storage requests. 11

12. 12

13.  Full recovery, capital recovery, no recovery (common good)  Partial including staff time, but subsidized.  For our AFS storage, we charge to prevent a tragedy of the commons. 13

14.  Cost recovery strategy may change within next year or two to “Partial cost recovery excluding staff time,” or some other partial recovery model. 14

15. 15

16.  Upgrades to dept & individual filespace, possibly desktop backup.  Explicitly not doing workstation backup and recovery as an enterprise services. File that need backing up should be stored on file server.  Funding model since it is currently fragmented in a mix of central funding and some cost recovery.  Dropping rates on our mid-Tier storage on an annual basis  Central storage infrastructure, research storage 16

17. “Bootstrapping a funding plan for central storage services where growth is explosive.” Data growth “As Central IT, our biggest challenge is fighting the misconception that storage is ‘cheap.’” Perception of cost “Well by volume it is research data storage and particularly data generated by instruments like telescopes and sequencers.” Research storage 17