1. National Science Foundation Blue Ribbon Panel on Cyberinfrastructure Introduction, Context & Charge Dan Atkins, Chair atkins@umich.edu University of Michigan April 19, 2002

2. National Science Foundation Panel Members Daniel E. Atkins, Chair, Univ. of Michigan, EECS and SI, atkins@umich.edu atkins@umich.edu Kelvin K. Droegemeier, Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms, University of Oklahoma, kkd@ou.edukkd@ou.edu Stuart I. Feldman, IBM Research, sif@us.ibm.comsif@us.ibm.com Hector Garcia-Molina, CS Dept., Stanford University, hector@cs.standford.edu hector@cs.standford.edu Michael Klein, Center for Molecular Modeling, University of Pennsylvania, klein@lrsm.upenn.eduklein@lrsm.upenn.edu Paul Messina, Cal Tech, messina@cacr.caltech.edumessina@cacr.caltech.edu David G. Messerschmitt, UC-Berkeley, EECS & SIMS, messer@eecs.berkeley.edu messer@eecs.berkeley.edu Jeremiah P. Ostriker, Princeton University, jpo@astro.princeton.jpo@astro.princeton Margaret H. Wright, Computer Science Department, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University, mhw@cs.nyu.edu mhw@cs.nyu.edu

3. National Science Foundation Meeting Agenda: April 19, 2002, NSF, 1-4 pm 1. Review of status of the panel's activities and goals for this meeting. 2. Reports from the authoring sub-committees. 3. Review and discussion of the working draft of the report. 4. Discussion of primary recommendations. 5. Stewardship and additional use of the material gathered by the Panel. 6. Summary of additional activities to create final version of report. 7. Matters arising.

4. National Science Foundation Historical Schematic CISE Directorate CSE research elsewhere in NSF Provision of advanced scientific computing 5 Supercomputer Centers, NSFnet, Support for an array of small, medium, and large CISE basic research projects Hayes Report 1984 Lax ->Curtis/Bardon Reports 1995 Computational Science init.; Expanded equip. program. 1993 BRP:“Desktop to Teraflop” PACI: NCSA & NPACI Terascale Computing Initiatives OUR REPORT

5. National Science Foundation Charge OUR REPORT A) Evaluate the current PACI programs. WRT meeting needs of the scientific and engineering research community: B) Recommend new areas of emphasis for CISE Directorate, C) Recommend an implementation plan to enact recommended changes. “Cyber- infrastructure”

6. National Science Foundation Process Web survey Hearings Reviewing prior reports Random input Knowledge and expertise of the Panel members.

7. National Science Foundation Epigraph Cyberinfrastructure is the sine qua non for true progress in much of the mathematical and physical sciences – And progress in CI is often driven by real-world problems. –Robert Eisenstein, AD for MPS, 11/30/01

8. National Science Foundation Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through Cyberinfrastructure: Table of Contents 1. The Vision 2. Background and Charge 3. Challenges and Opportunities for the Scientific Research Community 4. The New Cyberinfrastructure: What Changed in Computing 5. The Landscape of Related Activities 6. Partnerships for Advanced Computational Infrastructure: Past and Future Roles 7. Achieving the Vision 8. Scope and Budget Estimates

9. National Science Foundation Draft Report Available in pdf at worktools.si.umich.edu/workspaces/datkins/001.nsf Please send comments by May 1, 2002 to NSF-PCI-all@umich.edu

10. National Science Foundation Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through Cyberinfrastructure: Table of Contents 1. The Vision 2. Feldman 2. Background and Charge 1. Atkins 3. Challenges and Opportunities for the Scientific Research Community 3. Droegemeier 4. The New Cyberinfrastructure: What Changed in Computing 2. Feldman 5. The Landscape of Related Activities 2. Feldman 6. Partnerships for Advanced Computational Infrastructure: Past and Future Roles 6. Wright 7. Achieving the Vision 4. Messerschmidt 8. Scope and Budget Estimates 5. Messina Summary and Discussion - Atkins

11. National Science Foundation Blue Ribbon Panel on Cyberinfrastructure Vision Stuart I. Feldman IBM April 19, 2002

12. National Science Foundation Recommendations New INITIATIVE to revolutionize science and engineering research at NSF and worldwide to capitalize on new computing and communications opportunities 21 st Century Cyberinfrastructure includes supercomputing, but also massive storage, networking, software, collaboration, visualization, and human resources –Current centers (NCSA, SDSC, PSC) are a key resource for the INITIATIVE –Budget estimate: incremental $650 M/year (continuing) An INITIATIVE OFFICE with a highly placed, credible leader empowered to –Initiate competitive, discipline-driven path-breaking applications within NSF of cyberinfrastructure which contribute to the shared goals of the INITIATIVE –Coordinate policy and allocations across fields and projects. Participants across NSF directorates, Federal agencies, and international e-science –Develop high quality middleware and other software that is essential and special to scientific research –Manage individual computational, storage, and networking resources at least 100x larger than individual projects or universities can provide.

13. National Science Foundation Science and Engineering Research Depends on Computing and Communications Online fast publication (and archives too) New collections accessible Raw data and digital libraries Collaboration (Collaboratories, Access Grid, etc.) In silico science

14. National Science Foundation Furthering the Revolution Saving raw data Cross-disciplinary collections Richer publications Grander simulations (cells and organisms; entire earth system) Breadth and depth of collaborations, routinely international

15. National Science Foundation Thresholds and Opportunities Internet and Web use almost universal –Activity would stop without e-mail and WWW Expectations rising with generations and for all disciplines Supercomputers and terabytes in the lab Simulation required to do new science Standardized formats, software

16. National Science Foundation Risks and Costs Inconsistent formats across fields and sites Data loss Field boundaries Duplicative moderate quality software Falling behind on computing technologies

17. National Science Foundation Proposals for the INITIATIVE Large incremental budget Drive applications that revolutionize the way that research is done –Fund competitive discipline-driven projects –With cyberinfrastructure contribution and standards and participation by computing experts Supply shared resources –Supercomputers and data farms that provide 100-1000x what can be found locally –New shared middleware, content standards, basic applications –New research (emphasizing computation, social science, –New education and outreach Central organization with authority

18. National Science Foundation The New Cyberinfrastructure

19. National Science Foundation Hardware Trends Processor speeds and memory increasing with Moore’s Law Cluster sizes – now 1000s, soon even larger –Largest sites at 10TF, moving toward PF Disk capacity increasing with areal density (60%-100%/year) –Terabytes typical, petabytes coming Wide area networking moving to Gb/s Large and high-resolution displays

20. National Science Foundation Software Information networking – applications, messages, self-describing content, not just bit streams –The Grids Content management – metadata, searches, persistence Collaboration Middleware

21. National Science Foundation Ecology of Scientific Computing Computing industry –Commercial requirements drive basic hardware and software –Important additional needs for scientific computing Computing Research Other sciences Other federal agencies Non-US activities

22. National Science Foundation Blue Ribbon Panel on Cyber Infrastructure Science & Engineering Community Needs and Challenges Kelvin K. Droegemeier University of Oklahoma April 19, 2002

23. National Science Foundation Goals Engage the broadest elements of the science and engineering communities as a means for critically assessing needs and challenges –Scientific –Technological –Sociological Identify barriers and opportunities

24. National Science Foundation The Communities Domestic and International Academia Private Industry Government Agencies Laboratories State, Regional, and National Centers

25. National Science Foundation Methodology Community-wide web survey –Widely publicized –>700 responses –Quantitative comparisons with the Hayes Report Oral public testimony (3 sessions) –62 participants selected from: research scientists and engineers; computer and computational scientists; center directors; agency and corporate leaders; system administrators; educators; students and young scientists; technicians and consultants –Emphasis given to traditionally underrepresented groups and the physically challenged –Written transcripts and A/V materials assembled Existing reports and planning documents Ad hoc communications Personal experiences and expertise

26. National Science Foundation Analysis Results from all 5 methodologies have been synthesized Remarkable consistency among individual responses and within and among disciplines No prioritization of findings: all summary issues are viewed as critically important Categorization –Philosophy and Process –Current Resources –Future Infrastructure –Emerging Paradigms and Activities

27. National Science Foundation Philosophy and Process Cyber infrastructure lies at the heart of revolutionary science and engineering NSF should take the lead in charting a national course for cyber infrastructure NSF should consider human capital and software as co-equals with traditional physical infrastructure Cyber infrastructure requires continuity, consistency, and sufficient funding; NSF should consider the consequences of periodic full re-competition of CI centers

28. National Science Foundation Philosophy and Process NSF needs to –Provide a framework, motivation, and clear direction for building and sustaining linkages between academia and industry –Give attention to the sociological, economic, and cultural issues associated with cyber infrastructure –Continue supporting open source software strategies

29. National Science Foundation Current Resources The entry barrier into high performance computing continues to be high Effective use of parallel computers is becoming increasingly complex Greater investments are needed in –Software development –Training and support

30. National Science Foundation Current Resources The PACI centers have successfully –brought high performance computing to the masses; –broadened the spectrum of users; and –responded to dramatic changes in the user base, technology, and applications However, the PACI centers remain a largely batch oriented environment and are not configured or funded to deliver significant resources in novel ways (dedicated, on- demand) to large numbers of users

31. National Science Foundation Current Resources The NRAC allocation process no longer is effective –Double jeopardy –Yearly resource allocations not congruent with multi-year agency grants –Proposal development process is time- consuming –Reviewer base insufficiently broad –Need flexibility to accommodate future resources (e.g., data repositories)

32. National Science Foundation Current Resources The PACI centers have been highly successful in developing visionary, innovative technologies and prototype tools However, insufficient funding and the lack of selective investment has hampered transition to full deployment

33. National Science Foundation Future Infrastructure The “last mile problem” continues and is especially serious for HBCUs, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and Hispanic institutions Research-group and departmental-scale facilities (100 to 1000x less powerful than national centers) are becoming increasingly important; thus, national centers need to be a factor of 100 to 1000x more capable High speed networks with high quality of service continue to be foundational to research and education at all levels On-demand (not pre-scheduled) and instantaneous access is becoming increasingly important (computers, data bases, networks)

34. National Science Foundation Future Infrastructure Comprehensive environments are needed for linking models from multiple disciplines and for synthesizing results in interoperable frameworks The Grid represents an important opportunity for the future and should receive high priority for support Inexpensive and reliable tools are needed to support distance collaborations Higher levels of security are needed

35. National Science Foundation Emerging Paradigms and Activities Cyber infrastructure is becoming the essential lynchpin for research at the boundaries among disciplines and should be driven by user needs The need for a new information technology professional is emerging –Expertise in one or more disciplines plus computer science –They will develop, maintain, and integrate complex hardware and software systems –They are an important bridge to users –Educational institutions must develop strategies for creating this computational science workforce

36. National Science Foundation Emerging Paradigms and Activities Scientific and engineering applications are becoming more multi-scale (both space and time) and compute-intensive; thus, the need for high-end resources continues to grow. However, cyber infrastructure research needs to span the spectrum from small grants to large centers

37. National Science Foundation Emerging Paradigms and Activities Significant need exists for access to long-term, distributed, stable data and meta data repositories and digital libraries Legacy data likewise are important and must be digitized and preserved

38. National Science Foundation Knowledge Frontiers Several new projects provide a glimpse of the future

39. National Science Foundation Blue Ribbon Panel on Cyberinfrastructure Organization David G. Messerschmitt University of California at Berkeley April 19, 2002

40. National Science Foundation Layered structure of the INITIATIVE Applications of information technology to science and engineering research Conduct of science and engineering research Cyberinfrastructure supporting applications Core technologies incorporated into cyberinfrastructure

41. National Science Foundation Some roles of cyberinfrastructure Processing, storage, connectivity –Performance, sharing, integration, etc Make it easy to develop and deploy new applications –Tools, services, application commonality Interoperability enables future collaboration across disciplines Best practices, assistance, expertise Greatest need is software and experienced people

42. National Science Foundation Operations in support of end users Development or acquisition Classes of activities Research in technologies, systems, and applications Applications of information technology to science and engineering research Cyberinfrastructure supporting applications Core technologies incorporated into cyberinfrastructure

43. National Science Foundation Defining applications Only domain science and engineering researchers can create a vision and implement the methodology and process changes Information technologists need to be deeply involved –What technology can be, not what it is –Conduct research to advance the supporting technologies and systems –Applications inform research Shared responsibility

44. National Science Foundation Core information technologies (CISE, E) Technological (CISE) and social systems (CISE, SBE) Applications (multi-disciplinary) Applications (discipline specific) All science (natural and social) and engineering disciplines Mapping onto disciplines

45. National Science Foundation Who delivers Research in technologies, systems, and applications Operations in support of end users Long-term and applied researchers (applications, systems, core technologies) Development or acquisition Commercial suppliers, development centers, community development, integrators End-user staff support, operational centers, service providers

46. National Science Foundation Evaluation and assessment Research in technologies, systems, and applications Operations in support of end users Ideas: outcomes Development or acquisition Plans: impact and use Users: impact and satisfaction

47. National Science Foundation Responsibility for applications Applications (discipline specific) All science (natural and social) and engineering disciplines Other Directorates Applications (multi-disciplinary) CISE Close coordination and collaboration (matrix organization)

48. National Science Foundation Applications (multi-disciplinary) Applications (discipline specific) All science (natural and social) and engineering disciplines Responsibility for cyberinfrastructure Other Directorates Close coordination and collaboration (matrix organization) Technological systemsSocial systems CISE CISE and SBE CISE

49. National Science Foundation OFFICE for the INITIATIVE Headed by a leader with experience, credibility, commitment, persuasiveness, accountability Complex matrix organization spaning all Directorates needs central direction Vision and coordination Manage INITIATIVE budget (competitive and community input) Outreach to agencies, international

50. National Science Foundation Blue Ribbon Panel on Cyberinfrastructure Scope and Budget Paul Messina California Institute of Technology April 19, 2002

51. National Science Foundation To achieve its goals, the INITIATIVE should include funding for software and people Long-term research in IT and CI Applied research in IT and CI, with deep involvement by applications projects Developing new applications enabled by IT and CI Enhancing existing applications to take advantage of the new facilities and capabilities Transforming research software into robust products

52. National Science Foundation To achieve its goals, the INITIATIVE should include funding for data Creating and operating data repositories in many disciplines –taking existing data collections and making them conveniently accessible Establishing discipline-specific coordination centers to guide and coordinate software and data format choices for the repositories Establishing STCs for addressing common issues that arise in creation and use of data collections, especially across disciplines

53. National Science Foundation To achieve its goals, the INITIATIVE should include funding for physical infrastructure and its operation Acquiring and operating high-end computers, visualization facilities, data archives, and networks of much greater power and in substantially greater quantity –in particular, multiple computers that are among the world’s most powerful Establishing production data libraries

54. National Science Foundation Basis for budget estimates Our estimates are based on –current and previous NSF activities –testimonies –other agencies’ programs in related areas –activities in other countries

55. National Science Foundation Preliminary Budget Overview (Incremental)

56. National Science Foundation Is this enough to support a revolution? Not by itself However, there are activities in CISE, in other parts of NSF, and in the world at large that will complement the funding we recommend for this INITIATIVE

57. National Science Foundation Ongoing NSF CISE-funded activities that would be folded into the INITIATIVE

58. National Science Foundation There are other NSF activities that would contribute to and benefit from the INITIATIVE NCAR Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) and others

59. National Science Foundation Related activities supported by other governmental entities NASA IPG NIH BIRN DOE Science Grid DOE SciDAC DOE/NNSA ASCI UK e-Science EU Grid projects (9) All of the above (and others) support Research, Development, and Deployment activities that will bolster the NSF INITIATIVE

60. National Science Foundation And the private sector is also making investments Most high-end computer manufacturers have announced substantial efforts in grid software –and are participating in Global Grid Forum Twelve companies announced support of Globus last November End-user companies in aerospace, pharmaceuticals are using or investigating grid approaches

61. National Science Foundation Open issues Is the funding level high enough for the system software and tools R&D? –Taking into consideration the number of people who could and would engage in those activities Is the funding level high enough for the development of production-quality software? –With same consideration, but note that work not necessarily done in universities Funding level for production digital libraries

62. National Science Foundation Blue Ribbon Panel on Cyberinfrastructure PACIs: Past and Future Roles Margaret H. Wright New York University April 19, 2002

63. National Science Foundation The PAST NSF Supercomputer Centers (1986-87) Multiple reports (Branscomb, Brooks- Sutherland, Hayes)  PACI program (1997) Two PACI partnerships (NCSA, NPACI)

64. National Science Foundation The PRESENT Multiple functions within PACI program Provision of high-end resources (cycles, networking, data, …) Discipline-specific codes and infrastructure Generic tools and infrastructure for users of high-end computing Education, outreach, and training

65. National Science Foundation Part A of our charge: Assessment of PACI program Our interpretation: the potential roles for the PACIs and PSC in a GREATLY expanded context Annual evaluations of PACIs: positive overall Repeated concerns: effectiveness of enabling and application technology projects in serving the science, engineering, and computer science communities who use high-end computing

66. National Science Foundation Rationale for the Future Insatiable demand for highest-end cycles, networking, data (quantity, speed) Need for sustained work on industrial-strength discipline-specific codes and infrastructure, generic software tools and infrastructure –Effort at least one order of magnitude greater than high-quality prototypes

67. National Science Foundation Within the INITIATIVE Disaggregation of PACI functions Augmented centralized high-end resources Enabling/application infrastructure projects peer-reviewed Expanded, peer-reviewed education, outreach, and training

68. National Science Foundation Future of PACI within the INITIATIVE Two-year extension of current PACI program requested Until 2007, PACI’s and PSC should receive stable funding to provide high-end resources and associated operations 2004: INITIATIVE funding begins –Important to retain skilled PACI staff and successful collaborations –PACI’s can compete for all aspects of the larger INITIATIVE funding –Separate peer-reviewed enabling and application infrastructure projects

69. National Science Foundation Blue Ribbon Panel on Cyberinfrastructure Summary recommendations April 19, 2002

70. National Science Foundation Recommendations New INITIATIVE to revolutionize science and engineering research at NSF and worldwide to capitalize on new computing and communications opportunities –21 st Century Cyberinfrastructure includes supercomputing, but also massive storage, networking, software, collaboration, visualization, and human resources –Current centers (NCSA, SDSC, PSC) are a key resource –Budget estimate: incremental $650M/year (continuing) INITIATIVE OFFICE with a highly placed, credible leader empowered to –Initiate competitive, discipline-driven path-breaking applications within NSF of cyberinfrastructure which contribute to the shared goals of the INITIATIVE –Coordinate policy and allocations across fields and projects. Participants across NSF directorates, Federal agencies, and international e-science –Develop high quality middleware and other software that is essential and special to scientific research –Manage individual computational, storage, and networking resources at least 100x larger than individual projects or universities can provide.