TeraGrid’s Process for Meeting User Needs. Jay Boisseau, Texas Advanced Computing Center Dennis Gannon, Indiana University Ralph Roskies, University of Pittsburgh

How do we gather user requirements, determine priorities and plan? How well users are represented in the TG management process? Are user views effectively integrated into the management process or are they dealt with separately?

Data Gathering Modalities Formal surveys –User Surveys annual survey focused on functional requirements; personal contacts are following up on specific issues –Some RATs conduct their own surveys, e.g. HPC University (2007) and Metascheduling RAT (2006) Advisory/Consultative/Review groups –CUAC, SAB, TeraGrid Futures Workshops, Annual Review Group meetings with Users –NSF meetings e.g. CFD, Visualization, PetaApps –TG08 has 8 BOFs, each of which intends to engage users in a discussion of TG services, priorities and planning (scheduling, portal, file systems, CI education, petascale programming support, data management, software stack, Gateways) One-on-one contact between user support staff and users: –In response to tickets/problem reports –Personal contacts assigned to each M/LRAC team –ASTA, SGW, and RP-specific programs –EOT activities including science domain conferences –Local campus activities Unsolicited user comments –TG resource grant applications and progress reports –Feedback from TeraGrid web pages, User Portal, EOT activities, and Knowledge Base

Processing User Requirements Findings collected by the various input modalities are discussed by the GIG executive team at weekly Access Grid meetings and via list as needed –Issues requiring immediate action are assigned to an AD and sent for action to working groups –Strategic issues are referred to the TeraGrid Forum for higher level discussion –Discussed and tracked at the weekly TG-wide Architecture Access Grid meetings and quarterly face-to-face Management meetings User requirements gathered in PY3 determined the formulation of the PY 4 and PY 5 objectives for the GIG

Examples of actions taken in response to user requirements Science Gateway operational needs stressed the limits of GTK development and deployment: Special task force formed to enable user progress on TG systems as well as direct influence on Globus development. This resulted in profound improvements in middleware reliability. CTSS 4 Kits were defined and documented, and are being maintained, based on user and RP feedback and testing The unified User Facing Presence information system was designed and deployed, and is being maintained, based on user feedback and testing Petascale application and tool developers were brought together, and a new Extreme Scalability Working Group was formed, in response to the community’s need for assistance in scaling up to Track-2 systems

User Representation in Management Process TeraGrid is a science-driven project: our users are scientists with computational/CI requirements –We don’t burden them with day-to-day management … but … TeraGrid sites depend on users for direct advisory roles –Resource Allocations Committee Users determine what science gets done! –Science Advisory Board Provides guidance on how we enable science to get done –Center advisory groups (formal & informal) Most centers have formal committees or informal but persistent relationships with major/regular/friendly users to receive direct feedback –Special purpose advisory groups Example: Ranger (first Track2 system) has a dedicated used advisory committee (Obviously, review teams include users and play major roles in TG management decisions as well)

User View Integration into Management User inputs are integrated in different ways depending on need to be addressed: –xRAC inputs implemented almost directly xRAC input extended to include recommendations for ASTA support –Advisory inputs receive direct, formal response, and generate specific, direct action items for TG SAB response in progress Ranger advisory group generating action items Etc. –Other user inputs integrated into GIG project priorities and/or RP planning as appropriate Coordination and collaboration thru GIG and RP Forum enables some inputs to be implemented across all sites--a key advantage of TeraGrid (e.g. working in improvements in TG-wide allocations process based on user inputs) Pride and competitive spirit ensure RP-specific inputs enabling increased science impact are implemented by RP site management, promoting strongest set of RP partners within TG

Modalities for Improved Information Gathering Campus champions program- –a university member becomes the link between the campus and the TeraGrid The Core-2 project will improve our ability to mine POPS and the ticket system Work with both users and support staff to log verbal and interactions that occur outside the ticket system New ideas: user-to-user discussion groups SAB will provide additional high-level input and help us engage new communities We are pushing the TeraGrid Conference to be a higher profile gathering of users and potential users. Conferences like TG0X and SCxx provide opportunities to gather “focus groups” of users.

Metrics Subsequent user surveys should show higher satisfaction and higher adoption rates, if we have correctly identified, implemented and explained the capabilities based on user needs Tickets on particular sore points should diminish. We monitor scientific publications through resource requests.