NSF High Performance Computing
(HPC) Activities
 Established a HPC SWOT Team as part of Cyber Planning
Process (August 2005)
 Held Meeting to Request Information on HPC Acquisition
Models (September 9, 2005)
 Held Meeting to Request Input on HPC Performance
Requirements (October 18, 2005)
 Released Program Solicitation for 1 or 2 HPC machines
(November 10, 2005)
 Scheduled Future Releases of HPC Acquisition
Solicitations (November 2007, 2008 and 2009)
1
NSF High Performance Computing
(HPC)
Background
 NSF planned to release one or more solicitations for the
acquisition of high-performance computing (HPC) systems and
support of subsequent HPC services.
 Prior to the release of the solicitation(s), NSF invited input on:
1. Processes for machine acquisition and service provision
2. Machine performance requirements of the S&E research
community
2
HPC System Acquisition and
Service Provision Meeting
 Goal: Receive feedback from machine vendors
and resource providers on pros/cons of 3
possible acquisition models:
• Solicitation for a RP(s) who then selects
machine
• Solicitation for RP-Vendor Team(s)
• Separate solicitations for machine(s) and
RP(s)
3
Other Topics for Discussion
 Metrics that could be used to define machine
performance and reliability requirements
 Selection criteria that might be used as a basis
for proposal evaluation
 Pros/Cons of acquiring an HPC system that
meets a specified performance curve as a one
time purchase or in phases
 Strengths and weaknesses of alternatives such
as leasing HPC systems.
4
Participants
 Universities
• Case Western Reserve U.
• Cornell Univ.
• Georgia Inst. Of
Technology
• Indiana University
• Louisiana State Univ.
• NCSA
• Ohio Supercomputer
Center
• Purdue
• PSC
• SDSC
• TACC
• Univ. of NC
• Univ. of Utah
• USC
 Vendors
• Cray
• DELL
• Hewlett Packard
• IBM
• Intel
• Linux Networx
• Rackable Systems
• SGI
• Sun Microsystems
 Other
• Argonne National Lab
• CASC
• DOD HPCMP
• Hayes Consulting
• NCAR
• ORNL
• Raytheon
5
HPC System Acquisition and
Service Provision Meeting
 Outcome:
• Vendors said any of the models would
work for them but RP/Vendor Team least
favored
• RP said all three will work but favored
Model 1 - Solicitation for RP(s)
• Acquisition Solicitation used Model 1
6
HPC System Performance
Requirements Meeting
 Goal: Obtain input from the S&E research
community on:
• Performance metrics appropriate for
use in HPC system acquisition
• Potential benchmark codes
representative of classes of S&E
applications
7
BIO Participants











David Badder - Georgia Institute of Technology
James Beach - University of Kansas
James Clark - Duke University
William Hargrove - Oak Ridge National Lab
Gwen Jacobs - University of Montana
Phil LoCascio - Oak Ridge National Lab
B.S. Manjunath - UC Santa Barbara
Neo Martinez - Rocky Mountain Biological Lab
Dan Reed - University of North Carolina
Bruce Shapiro – JPL-NASA-Cal Tech
Mark Schildhauer – USSB - NCEAS
8
HPC System Performance Meeting
 S&E Community Comments:
• Many S&E codes are “boutique” – not good for
benchmarking
• Machines that can run coupled codes are
needed
• Speed not the problem, latency is
• Usability, staying up and running, a priority
• HPC needs not uniform, e.g. faster, more
• Flexibility/COTS cost of clusters/desktop
systems make them systems of choice
• Software a big bottleneck
• Benchmarks should include 20-30 factors
9
HPC System Performance Meeting
 Outcome:
• More community workshops needed
• Current solicitation uses a mixture of
“tried and true” benchmarking codes
10