Next: Summary of role of
Up: Critique of the Branscomb
Previous: Critique of the Branscomb
This report presented in August 1993 addresses an opportunity to
accelerate the progress in almost every branch of science and engineering
by dealing effectively with the development of high performance
computing (HPC) resources and their availability to all kinds of
organizations in the nation, viz. educational, governmental and
industrial. The panel feels that HPC is the key to the nation's
technological and economical success.
It considers four main challenges that that need to be
overcome and suggests suitable remedies for each of them.
- 1.
- Removal of technological barriers relating to the development of
suitable parallel hardware, and implementation barriers relating
to development of suitable algorithms (i.e. software) to take
advantage of this kind of hardware. Also, National Science Foundation
(NSF) need to weave together existing work in various developing
scientific disciplines, as well as fostering new bridges between pure,
applied and computational techniques.
- 2.
- Appropriate acquisition and distribution of HPC resources among
the scientists and engineers depending on their need. Each level of
institution foreseeing the need for HPC facilities should have atleast
a minimum set amount of resources available locally to support their
scientists and engineers.
- 3.
- Encouragement of usage of these HPC resources on a broad basis
by expanding education and training and encouraging participation
by other HPC institutions. This includes providing the right incentive
for all three levels of the computational institution pyramid by
funding appropriate research.
- 4.
- Determination of a suitable role of NSF in creating the intellectual
and management leadership for the future of HPC and its impact on
other federal agencies. This mainly deals with the budgeting of the
available funds by the NSF to promote critical sectors of High
Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) like networking,
parallel architecture, etc.
The report describes four sets of interdependent recommendations
to deal with these challenges.
Figure:
HPC pyramid
 |
- 1.
- The report envisions the HPC pyramid environments and the first
recommendation suggests the implementation of a balanced HPC
pyramid, each element supporting the others resulting in a
stable distribution of the resources. The apex of the pyramid
(teraflop class computers) is the need for national capability
at the highest level of computing power to deal with ``Grand
Challenge'' problems posed to us. The United States should
lead the world in HPC by collaborating with big agencies
like ARPA and DoE to expand access to all levels of the
pyramid for all sectors of the nation.
It is also aimed that the research universities should be assisted
to acquire mid-range machines over the next five years, and that that NSF
should double the current annual level of investment in scientific and
engineering workstations for its 20,000 principal investigators. It was
also recommended that NSF support the development of new parallel
configurations for HPC applications.
- 2.
- To accelerate progress in developing the required HPC technology,
NSF should create a challenge program in computer science with grant size
and equipment access to support the systems and algorithm research.
NSF should focus attention on support for the design and development
of computational techniques, algorithmic methodology, and mathematical,
physical and engineering models to make efficient use of the machines.
NSF should also set up an agency-wide task force to develop a way to
remove the imbalance in the HPC pyramid caused by the the
under-investment in the emerging mid-range scalable and parallel
computers and the inequality of access to stand-alone potentially
networked workstations.
- 3.
- The Supercomputer Centers should be retained and their missions, as they
have evolved, should be reaffirmed. An open re-competition of the four
Supercomputer Centers should be avoided at this time, instead favoring
periodic performance evaluation and competition for some elements
of their activities. The NSF should continue to provide funding to support
the Supercomputer Centers' HPC capacity. The NSF should review the
administrative procedures used to allocate center resources to ensure
that the burden on scientists applying for research support is minimized.
The NSF should give strong emphasis to its education mission in HPC, and
should actively seek collaboration with state-sponsored and other HPC centers
not supported primarily on NSF funding.
- 4.
- The National Science Board should urge the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) to establish an advisory committee representing
the states, HPC users, NSF Supercomputer Centers, computer manufacturers,
computer and computational scientists which should report to High
Performance Computing, Communications, and Information Technology
(HPCCIT) subcommittee.
Next: Summary of role of
Up: Critique of the Branscomb
Previous: Critique of the Branscomb
Anirudh Modi
3/20/1998