1. Kent Milfeld, TACC TG Allocations Coordinator Aug. 13, 2009

2.  TRAC Request Summary Allocation Period (Oct. 1, 2009  Sept. 30, 2010)  Changes to TRAC Review Process  Issues with TG-Wide Roaming Access  TRAC Request Tracking

3. TRAC Requests RequestsAdaptiveAdvances TRAC Requests 1263312 Startup Trend JanFebMarAprMayJunJul Requests 68575261647774

4.  Parallel Sessions at TRAC meeting (Trial)  Plenary Session for top 20 Requests.  2 Break-out Sessions: PHY/AST/ATM & MCB/CHE/DMR  Reconciliation Session: Adjust total allocation to availability  New Review Form addresses Methodology, Efficiency and Computational Plan Criteria  Better Reviewer/Request matching:  FOS (field of Science) matching  Reviewer Preference  Given Titles, reviewers are asked state their preference: Prefer, Indifferent, Unfamiliar

5. Rating Recommendation (Overall Evaluation) Reference to Criteria Methodology (Algorithms, Packages, Libraries) Efficiency (Performance, Optimization Scaling) Computational Plan (SU Calculations, Justification)

6.  TG-Wide Roaming Access  Has evolved into ineffective mechanism.  Mid-range system Pool ?  Abe (NCS), QueenB (LONI), Lonestar (TACC), Steele (Purdue)  Serious RP concerns about managing user expectations.

7.  Remove TG-Roaming from Resource Request form.  Provide multi-system access through:  Better Choice: Allow User-requested allocation % distributions  If necessary, distribution can be readjusted through transfers.  Not so Good: Abe/QB/Lonestar/Steel allocation pool (like the present Abe/QB model).  Harder to manage  RPs suspect ‘popular’ resources will run out early

8.  Now Using Google docs to Track Monitoring.  Startups  Supplement/Justification/Advances  Responsibility for Processing can be shared.  Site Reps can easily see/determine status.  Can be used as “case study”/prototype for an enhanced POPS Interface.

9.  Questions?