Workshop Report - Pervasive Technology Institute - Indiana University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Respondents were asked about specific CI programs and if they are used. Alabama Supercomputing Center California Cascades Volcano Observatory CCNI Center for Internet Augmented Rsrch and Asmnt ChesapeakeBayNet ESOGIS (NY) GECO (Golden Energy Computing Organization) Geographic Data Clearinghouse Georgia GIS Clearinghouse IACAT. NCSA <strong>Indiana</strong> Kansas - DASC, Kansas Research and Education Network (KanREN) Louisiana Maryland Mayaguez, Perto Rico MCSR, Olemiss, MS MHEC Montana NRIS NCAR/UCAR NH NHDOT NM Encanto NMGGI NSCA NY Ohio Supercomputer Center OR PA Pittsburgh Supercomputer Center RENCI San Diego STC TRUST TACC Texas TMSTEC TXDOT U of Florida U of Utah UMass Lowell’s USGS Utah Education Network Utah State U. IT Vermont Advanced Computing Center ZMATH, MATHSCINET In the case of “Other,” the respondents entered the following: Finally, the respondents were asked if there was CI that they have tried but are not using. Only 10% of respondents selected “Yes,” there is CI that they have tried but are not using. For those 10% of respondents, the fill in answers that they entered include: • a cluster of computers (Beowulf )in my institution • A high-performance computing cluster operated at the college level • access grid and similar conferencing technology • All of the grid stuff • AMAZON • Bluewaters • caBIG • Campus HPC cluster, National Super Computers (UCSD, Pitt) • CIPRES portal 33
• clickers, podcast • Clusters of the university research computing center • Collaborative websites for projects-- Data Archives • Community clusters • Computing on national supercomputing centers such as the San Diego Supercomputer Center • condor • CVS based at Los Alamos National Labs • Databases I have received training on. • desktop sharing • Document repository at partner institution. It’s just easier to email necessary documents back and forth • Due the problem of the firewall, our system cannot be shared freely with the community. We ended up using password request for accessing our information. • Emulab testbed • Euro Science Grid • EVO • Explored the option of TeraGrid but couldn’t find a way to use it. • for collaboration: DropBox, Google Wave, and a lot of other things I cannot remember • Geon Neon archaeoinformatics • Globus • Google Apps • grid-enabled or grid-accessible computational resources for bioinformatics • HPC on campus; unfamiliar to me at this moment which particular cluster hardware/software is currently being used, though I have sought training and attempted to use it. • HPCC cluster at USC • http://www.phylo.org/ • I am semiliterate in this area. There are a lot of national databases but I am not trained in using them so I don’t • I have tried a highspeed IBM cluster at Brown <strong>University</strong>, I lack the systems support to install software on a parallel system • IBM BlueGene • Interactive video class for distance learning • Internet2 • Kepler and Morpho (NCEAS products) • “leadership class” computing centers • Large File Sharing sites, Social Network Sites • Local campus High Performance Computing Center. • local Research Computing Center • Local university resources 34
Page 1 and 2: Campus Bridging Software & Software
Page 3 and 4: Acknowledgments The workshop organi
Page 6: 1 Executive Summary 5 1. Introducti
Page 9 and 10: The NSF Advisory Committee on Cyber
Page 11 and 12: challenges in selecting an appropri
Page 13 and 14: As laid out in the National Science
Page 15 and 16: To help guide the workshop discussi
Page 17 and 18: As indicated in Figure 3, the most
Page 19 and 20: Here we present workshop findings o
Page 21 and 22: esearch computing. Additionally, me
Page 24 and 25: 4. Workshop recommendations
Page 26 and 27: 4.2. The NSF should lead the establ
Page 28 and 29: 5. Conclusion
Page 30 and 31: Appendix 1. User CI survey
Page 32 and 33: Average across responses: Percentag
Page 34 and 35: Large scale data analyses Visualiza
Page 36 and 37: 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50
Page 38 and 39: 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00%
Page 42 and 43: • Multiple resources on campus an
Page 44 and 45: Appendix 2. Submitted workshop pape
Page 46 and 47: time we created a bridge between ca
Page 48 and 49: Dr. Chuck Horowitz is a professor o
Page 50 and 51: Appendix 2.2. Position Paper on Cam
Page 52 and 53: Maintainability This software stack
Page 54 and 55: these shortcomings. Services critic
Page 56 and 57: Appendix 2.4. Campus Bridging as an
Page 58 and 59: Appendix 3. Prior work
Page 60 and 61: Appendix 4. Workshop agenda
Page 62: August 27th • 8:00 am: Campus Per
Page 65 and 66: To broaden impact and include an ed
Page 67 and 68: 1. Indiana University Pervasive Tec
Page 70 and 71: Workshop on Campus Bridging Softwar
Page 72 and 73: Workshop Goals • First, some work
Page 74 and 75: Workshop Goal • Try to answer the
Page 76 and 77: Over to John McGee Survey results b
Page 78 and 79: SurveyDetails • Morecompletedetai
Page 80 and 81: Datastorage 60.00% Youandteam local
Page 82 and 83: • FTP • SQL • SVN • VNC Wha
Page 84 and 85: Whatstate,regional,national,orinter
Page 86 and 87: Governance • 11+ Resource Provide
Page 88 and 89: Science Gateways • A natural exte
Page 90 and 91:
Current Draft Set of Modalities •
Page 92 and 93:
Resources • Definition - What res
Page 94 and 95:
Going further • Do these modaliti
Page 96 and 97:
• - - • - - • - -
Page 98 and 99:
• - - - • - - - - -
Page 100:
• - - - - - - • - -
show all

Workshop Report - Pervasive Technology Institute - Indiana University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?