1. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Jim Gray Talk at University of Tokyo  Personal views on PITAC report: invest in long term research  Preview of Turing lecture: 10 long term research problems Bush: Summarize info in cyberspace Turing: Intelligent Computers 7 9s: build systems that are always up and prove it.  5-Minute rule For disks For tapes  Sorting Progress PennySort Terabyte Sort (!)  Slides will be at http://research.Microsoft.com/~Gray/talks

2. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Presidential Advisory Committee on High Performance Computing and Communications, Information Technologies, and the Next Generation Internet Information Technology http://www.ccic.gov/ac/interim/http://www.ccic.gov/ac/interim/ or http://research.microsoft.com/~Gray/papers/PITAC_Interim_Report_8_98.doc

3. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Charter for the Committee: provide an independent assessment of  High-Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Progress Balance among research components;  Next Generation Internet initiative; Progress Balance  IT Research and development Maintain United States leadership in —IT and —Applications

4. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Committee Members  Co-Chairs: Bill Joy, Sun Microsystems Ken Kennedy, Rice University  Members: Eric Benhamou, 3Com Vinton Cerf, MCI Ching-chih Chen, Simmons David Cooper, LLNL Steve Dorfman, Hughes David Dorman, PointCast Bob Ewald, SGI David Farber, U. of Pennsylvania Sherri Fuller, U. of Washington Hector Garcia-Molina, Stanford Susan Graham, UC Berkeley Jim Gray, Microsoft Danny Hillis, Disney, Inc John Miller, Montana State Univ. David Nagel, AT&T Raj Reddy, Carnegie Mellon Ted Shortliffe, Stanford Larry Smarr, U. of Illinois @ UC Joe Thompson, Miss. State U. Les Vadasz, Intel Andy Viterbi, Qualcom Steve Wallach, Centerpoint Irving Wladawsky-Berger, IBM

5. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 My Summary of the Report  1/3 of the US economic growth since 1992 was in the IT sector. IT is key to our health, wealth, and safety.  Created 400 B$ of wealth in last 3 years (!!)  Federal IT research funding of twenty years ago, created the boom.  Federal IT research funding for the last decade has been flat (in constant dollars).  Research funding is increasingly near-term & applied development  The committee recommends Increase long-term research funding in: Software design and implementation technologies Technologies to scale the Next Generation Internet to 6 billion users. Tools, algorithms, and systems for high-performance computing.  Spend a billion dollars over the next 5 years on Lewis and Clark style "expeditions" into cyberspace.

6. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Myths 1.Now that IT is a big business, Industry will do long term research. FACT: industry spends LITTLE on long-term research. it is not in their best interest 2.IT research = buy computers for scientists. FACT computer science research is different from the application of computers to some discipline.

7. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Research Priorities  Findings: Total federal Information technology R&D investment is inadequate Federal IT R&D is excessively focused on near-term problems  Recommendations: Create a strategic initiative in long-term IT R&D Increase the investment for research in software, scalable information infrastructure, high-end computing, and socio-economic and workforce impacts

8. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Software Research  Findings: Demand for software far exceeds the nation’s ability to produce it The nation depends on fragile software Technologies to build reliable and secure software are inadequate The nation is under-investing in fundamental software research  Recommendations: Fund more fundamental research in software development methods and component technologies Sponsor a national library of software components Make software research a substantive component of every major IT research initiative Support research in human-computer interfaces and interaction  Make fundamental software research an absolute priority

9. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Scalable Information Infrastructure  Findings: The Internet has grown well beyond the intent of its original designers Our nation’s dependence on the information infrastructure is increasing daily We cannot safely extend what we currently know to more complex systems Learning how to build large-scale, highly reliable and secure systems requires research  Recommendations: Increase funding in research and development of core software and communications technologies aimed directly at the challenge of scaling the information infrastructure Expand the Next Generation Internet test beds to include additional industry partnerships in order to foster the rapid commercialization and deployment of enabling technologies

10. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 High-End Computing  Findings HEC is: essential for science and engineering research an element of the United States national security ripe for new applications suppliers suffer from unusual market pressures  Research& Development Recommendations Fund innovative technologies and architectures Fund HEC software (parallel programming) Aim for a real application petaops by 2010 through a both hardware and software strategies Fund HEC systems for science and engineering research

11. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Social, Economic, Workforce Recommendations  Expand research on the social and economic impacts of information technology diffusion and adoption  Expand initiatives to increase IT literacy, access and research capabilities  Address the shortage of high-technology workers  Programs to re-train “stale” IT workers  Encourage participation by women and minorities  Short-term increase in immigration of skilled IT workers

12. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Conclusions  IT is an essential foundation for commerce, education, health care, environmental stewardship, and national security: Dramatically transform the way we communicate, learn, deal with information and conduct research Transform the nature of work, nature of commerce, product design cycle, practice of health care, and the government itself  The total Federal IT R&D investment is inadequate  The Federal IT R&D is excessively focused on near-term problems  U. S. government must: Create a strategic initiative in long-term IT R&D Establish an effective structure for managing and coordinating IT

13. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Jim Gray Talk at University of Tokyo  Personal views on PITAC report: invest in long term research  Preview of Turing lecture: 10 long term research problems Bush: Summarize info in cyberspace Turing: Intelligent Computers 7 9s: build systems that are always up and prove it.  5-Minute rule For disks For tapes  Sorting Progress PennySort Terabyte Sort (!)  Slides will be at http://research.Microsoft.com/~Gray/talks

14. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Vanaveer Bush: Memex  Memex: Proposed putting all information online (1948)  It will happen  Result: InfoGlut. Too much information in the shoebox  Challenge: Organize the information. Give answers as good as an expert in the field. Anticipate questions and so inform “subscriber”  Protect personal privacy A hacker cannot get access to your personal information without your consent.

15. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Turing’s Test (1951): Intelligent Machines  Computers helped with the 4-color problem end game  Computers (and people) won world chess championship  Computers will likely be our 5 th brain Augment our intelligence See for us, hear for us, read for us, Prosthetic eyes, ears, voices, arms, legs,….  Probably computers will be intelligent like plants and animals.  Perhaps computers can be intelligent like people Pass the Turing Test (easy/impossible?) (70%, 5 minutes, B can lie) Translating telephone (as good as a human translator) Read a textbook and pass the written exam. Pass a graduate programming class Pass a graduate literature class  Radical: Download someone.

16. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Dependable Systems  Build a system used by millions of people each day.  Then: Prove that it does what it is supposed to do (code matches spec). Prove that it delivers 99.99999% (7 9s) availability (1 hr per millennium) Prove that it cannot be “hacked” for less than 1B$ (Y2K $)  Then build the system automatically from the specification.

17. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Jim Gray Talk at University of Tokyo  Personal views on PITAC report: invest in long term research  Preview of Turing lecture: 10 long term research problems Bush: Summarize info in cyberspace Turing: Intelligent Computers 7 9s: build systems that are always up and prove it.  5-Minute rule For disks For tapes  Sorting Progress PennySort Terabyte Sort (!)  Slides will be at http://research.Microsoft.com/~Gray/talks

18. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Storage Hierarchy (9 levels) Cache 1, 2 Main (1, 2, 3 if nUMA). Disk (1 (cached), 2) Tape (1 (mounted), 2)

19. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Meta-Message: Technology Ratios Are Important  If everything gets faster & cheaper at the same rate THEN nothing really changes.  Things getting MUCH BETTER: communication speed & cost 1,000x processor speed & cost 100x storage size & cost 100x  Things staying about the same speed of light (more or less constant) people (10x more expensive) storage speed (only 10x better)

20. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Today’s Storage Hierarchy : Speed & Capacity vs Cost Tradeoffs 10 15 10 12 10 9 6 3 Typical System (bytes) Size vs Speed Access Time (seconds) 10 -9 10 -6 10 -3 10 0 3 Cache Main Secondary Disc Nearline Tape Offline Tape Online Tape 10 4 2 0 -2 10 -4 $/MB Price vs Speed Access Time (seconds) 10 -9 10 -6 10 -3 10 0 3 Cache Main Secondary Disc Nearline Tape Offline Tape Online Tape

21. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Storage Ratios Changed  10x better access time  10x more bandwidth  4,000x lower media price  DRAM/DISK 100:1 to 10:10 to 50:1

22. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Thesis: Performance =Storage Accesses not Instructions Executed  In the “old days” we counted instructions and IO’s  Now we count memory references  Processors wait most of the time Sort Disc Wait Where the time goes: clock ticks used by AlphaSort Components Sort Disc Wait OS Memory Wait D-Cache Miss I-Cache MissB-Cache Data Miss

23. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 The Pico Processor 1 M SPECmarks 10 6 clocks/ fault to bulk ram Event-horizon on chip. VM reincarnated Multi-program cache Terror Bytes!

24. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Storage Latency: How Far Away is the Data? Registers On Chip Cache On Board Cache Memory Disk 1 2 10 100 Tape /Optical Robot 10 9 6 Sacramento This Campus This Room My Head 10 min 1.5 hr 2 Years 1 min Pluto 2,000 Years Andromeda

25. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 The 5 Minute Rule Derived M$: cost of a RAM page RAM $/MB PageSize x Lifetime A$: cost of a disk access Disk Price AccessesPerSec x Lifetime RI: Reference Interval time between accesses to page $ Reference Interval =Time Disk access cost A$/RI M$ Cost of a RAM page M$= A$/RI Breakeven: M$ = A$ / Reference Interval M$ = A$ / Reference Interval Reference Interval = M$/A$ Reference Interval = M$/A$ = DiskPrice x PageSize = DiskPrice x PageSize RAMprice x AccPerSec RAMprice x AccPerSec

26. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 The Five Minute Rule Observations  Break even has two terms: (2) Economic term: DiskPrice / RAM_MB_Price ~ 400:4 = 100:1 (1) Technology term: PageSize / DiskAccPerSec ~ 8KB : 80 = 100:1  Economic term trends down  Technology term trends up to compensate.  Still at 5 minute for random, 1 minute sequential

27. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Shows Best Page Index Page Size ~16KB

28. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Standard Storage Metrics  Capacity: RAM: MB and $/MB: today at 10MB & 100$/MB Disk:GB and $/GB: today at 10 GB and 200$/GB Tape: TB and $/TB: today at.1TB and 25k$/TB (nearline)  Access time (latency) RAM:100 ns Disk: 10 ms Tape: 30 second pick, 30 second position  Transfer rate RAM: 1 GB/s Disk: 5 MB/s - - - Arrays can go to 1GB/s Tape: 5 MB/s - - - striping is problematic

29. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 New Storage Metrics: Kaps, Maps, SCAN?  Kaps: How many KB objects served per second The file server, transaction processing metric This is the OLD metric.  Maps: How many MB objects served per sec The Multi-Media metric  SCAN : How long to scan all the data The data mining and utility metric  And Kaps/$, Maps/$, TBscan/$

30. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 For the Record (good 1998 devices packaged in system http://www.tpc.org/results/individual_results/Dell/dell.6100.9801.es.pdf ) X 14

31. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 For the Record (good 1998 devices packaged in system http://www.tpc.org/results/individual_results/Dell/dell.6100.9801.es.pdf ) X 14

32. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 How To Get Lots of Maps, SCANs  parallelism: use many little devices in parallel  Beware of the media myth  Beware of the access time myth At 10 MB/s: 1.2 days to scan 1,000 x parallel: 100 seconds SCAN. Parallelism: divide a big problem into many smaller ones to be solved in parallel.

33. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 The Disk Farm On a Card The 1 TB disc card An array of discs Can be used as 100 discs 1 striped disc 10 Fault Tolerant discs....etc LOTS of accesses/second bandwidth 14" Life is cheap, its the accessories that cost ya. Processors are cheap, it’s the peripherals that cost ya (a 10k$ disc card).

34. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Tape Farms for Tertiary Storage Not Mainframe Silos Scan in 27 hours. many independent tape robots (like a disc farm) 10K$ robot 14 tapes 500 GB 5 MB/s 20$/GB 30 Maps 100 robots 50TB 50$/GB 3K Maps 27 hr Scan 1M$

35. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Tape & Optical: Beware of the Media Myth Optical is cheap: 200 $/platter 2 GB/platter => 100$/GB (2x cheaper than disc) Tape is cheap:30 $/tape 20 GB/tape => 1.5 $/GB (100x cheaper than disc).

36. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Tape & Optical Reality: Media is 10% of System Cost Tape needs a robot (10 k$... 3 m$ ) 10... 1000 tapes (at 20GB each) => 20$/GB... 200$/GB (1x…10x cheaper than disc) Optical needs a robot (100 k$ ) 100 platters = 200GB ( TODAY ) => 400 $/GB ( more expensive than mag disc ) Robots have poor access times Not good for Library of Congress (25TB) Data motel: data checks in but it never checks out!

37. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 The Access Time Myth The Myth: seek or pick time dominates The reality: (1) Queuing dominates (2) Transfer dominates BLOBs (3) Disk seeks often short Implication: many cheap servers better than one fast expensive server shorter queues parallel transfer lower cost/access and cost/byte This is now obvious for disk arrays This will be obvious for tape arrays

38. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Jim Gray Talk at University of Tokyo  Personal views on PITAC report: invest in long term research  Preview of Turing lecture: 10 long term research problems Bush: Summarize info in cyberspace Turing: Intelligent Computers 7 9s: build systems that are always up and prove it.  5-Minute rule For disks For tapes  Sorting Progress PennySort Terabyte Sort (!)  Slides will be at http://research.Microsoft.com/~Gray/talks

39. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Penny Sort Ground Rules http://research.microsoft.com/barc/SortBenchmark  How much can you sort for a penny. Hardware and Software cost Depreciated over 3 years 1M$ system gets about 1 second, 1K$ system gets about 1,000 seconds. Time (seconds) = SystemPrice ($) / 946,080  Input and output are disk resident  Input is 100-byte records (random data) key is first 10 bytes.  Must create output file and fill with sorted version of input file.  Daytona (product) and Indy (special) categories

40. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 PennySort  Hardware 266 Mhz Intel PPro 64 MB SDRAM (10ns) Dual Fujitsu DMA 3.2GB EIDE disks  Software NT workstation 4.3 NT 5 sort  Performance sort 15 M 100-byte records (~1.5 GB) Disk to disk elapsed time 820 sec —cpu time = 404 sec

41. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 How Good is NT5 Sort?  CPU and IO not overlapped.  System should be able to sort 2x more  RAM has spare capacity  Disk is space saturated (1.5GB in, 1.5GB out on 3GB drive.) Need an extra 3GB drive or a >6GB drive CPU Disk Fixedram

42. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Sort Speed Doubles Every Year   

43. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Recent Results  NOW Sort: 9 GB on a cluster of 100 UltraSparcs in 1 minute  MilleniumSort: 16x Dell NT cluster: 100 MB in 1.8 Sec (Datamation)  Tandem/Sandia Sort: 68 CPU ServerNet 1 TB in 47 minutes  Rumor of IBM Sort: 7000 cpu Blue Pacific 1 TB in 1024 seconds (17 minutes). 10 Mrps (1GBps)

44. Jim Gray / Presented at U. Tokyo / 23 Jan 1999 Jim Gray Talk at University of Tokyo  Personal views on PITAC report: invest in long term research  Preview of Turing lecture: 10 long term research problems Bush: Summarize info in cyberspace Turing: Intelligent Computers 7 9s: build systems that are always up and prove it.  5-Minute rule For disks For tapes  Sorting Progress PennySort Terabyte Sort (!)  Slides will be at http://research.Microsoft.com/~Gray/talks