REPORT

OF THE

PANEL ON LARGE SCALE COMPUTING

IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

Peter D. Lax, Chairman

Under the sponsorship of

> Department of Defense (DOD)
>
> National Science Foundation (NSF)

In cooperation with

> Department of Energy (DOE)
>
> National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
>
> December 26, 1982

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in
this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Foundation.

[EXECUTIVE SUMMARY]{.underline}

Report of the Panel on Large Scale Computing

in Science and Engineering

Large scale computing is a vital component of science, engineering, and
modern technology, especially those branches related to defense, energy,
and aerospace. In the 1950's and 1960's the U. S. Government placed high
priority on large scale computing. The United States became, and
continues to be, the world leader in the use, development, and marketing
of "supercomputers," the machines that make large scale computing
possible. In the 1970's the U.S. Government slackened its support, while
other countries increased theirs. Today there is a distinct danger that
the U.S. will fail to take full advantage of this leadership position
and make the needed investments to secure it for the future.

Two problems stand out:

> [Access.]{.underline} Important segments of the research and defense
> communities lack effective access to supercomputers; and students are
> neither familiar with their special capabilities nor trained in their
> use.

Access to supercomputers is inadequate in all disciplines. Agencies
supporting some disciplines such as fusion energy, atmospheric sciences,
and aerodynamics have funded National computing facilities through which
their remote users have limited networking capabilities. In those
disciplines that attempt to fund computing through individual research
grants, access to large scale computing remains minimal.

> [Future Supercomputers.]{.underline} The capacity of today's
> supercomputers is several orders of magnitude too small for problems
> of current urgency in Science, engineering, and technology.
> Nevertheless, the development of supercomputers, as now planned in the
> U.S., will yield only a small fraction of the capability and capacity
> thought to be technically achievable in this decade.

Significant new research and development effort is necessary to overcome
technological barriers to the creation of a generation of supercomputers
that tests these technical limits. Computer manufacturers in the U. S.
have neither the financial resources nor the commercial motivation in
the present market to undertake the requisite exploratory research and
development without partnership with government and universities.

Unless these barriers are overcome, the primacy of U S. science,
engineering, and technology could be threatened relative to that of
other countries with national efforts in supercomputer access and
development. Although the Federal Government is the first and by far the
largest customer for supercomputers, there are no national plans to
stimulate the development and use of advanced computer technology in the
U. S.

[Recommendations]{.underline}

The Panel recommends the establishment of a National Program to
stimulate exploratory development and expanded use of advanced computer
technology. The Program has four principal components, each having
short- and long-term aspects. Underlying them all is the establishment
of a system of effective computer networks that joins government,
industrial, and university scientists and engineers. The technology for
building networks that allow scientists to share facilities and results
is already developed and understood; no time should be lost in
connecting existing research groups and computing facilities.

The for components of the recommended program are:

> 1\. Increased access for the scientific and engineering research
> facility through high bandwidth networks to adequate and regularly
> updated supercomputing facilities at experimental computers;
>
> 2\. Increased research in computational mathematics, software, and
> algorithms necessary to the effective and efficient use of
> supercomputer system;
>
> 3\. Training of personnel in scientific and engineering computing; and
>
> 4\. Research and development basic to the design and implementation of
> new -computer systems of substantially increased capability and
> capacity, beyond that likely to arise from commercial requirements
> alone.

The Panel recommends that this program be coordinated within the Federal
Government by an interagency policy committee, and that an
interdisciplinary Large Scale Computing Advisory Panel be established to
assist in its planning, implementation, and operation.

The Panel believes that current funding levels are insufficient to
maintain the Nation's leadership in large scale computing. Federal
agencies that depend on large stale computing to fulfill their missions
must work together to reexamine priorities and to create a coherent
program their individual missions. The Panel has set forth policy and
planning issues and has outlined some options for implementation.

Members of the

Panel on large Scale Computing

in Science and Engineering

William F. Ballhaus, Jr. NASA-Ames Research Center

James C. Browne University of Texas, Austin

Brice Carnahan University of Michigan

Michael Creutz Brookhaven National Laboratory

Richard H. Gallagher University of Arizona

Herbert Keller California Institute of Technology

John Killeen Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Peter D. Lax, Chairman New York University, National Science Board

Walter M. Macintyre National Center for Atmospheric search

Steven Orszag Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Werner Rheinboldt University of Pittsburgh

Allan Robinson Harvard University

Jacob Schwartz New York University

Edward Wilson University of California, Berkeley

Kenneth Wilson Cornell University

CONTENTS

> I. Introduction. p. 3
>
> II\. Summary of Findings and Recommendations. p. 5
>
> III\. Selected Bibliography. p. 14
>
> IV\. Supplement p. 18
>
> Organization of the Workshop on Large Scale
>
> computing for Science acid Engineering. p. 19
>
> Agenda of the Workshop on Large Scale Computing for Science and
> Engineering, Washington, D.C.: June 21-22. p. 20

List of Participants of the workshop on Large Scale Computing for
Science and Washington, D.C.; June 21---22. p. 21

> List of Participants of the Follow-up
>
> Workshop on Large Scale Computing for
>
> Science and Engineering, Bellaire, Michigan; August 23-24 p. 23
>
> On Supercomputing (K. G. Wilson.). p. 24
>
> Needs and Opportunities for Supercomputers
>
> (H. B. Keller and J. R. Rice) p. 34
>
> A Program for Development of Very High
>
> Performance Computer Systems (J. C. Browne and
>
> J. T. Schwartz) p. 42

Appendices

Appendix I Information on Selected Facilities p. AI-1

> Partial Inventory and Announced Orders of
>
> Class VI Machines p. AI-2
>
> The NASA/AMES Research Center
>
> (W. F. Ballhaus, Jr.). p. AI-4
>
> NCAR Computing Capabilities
>
> and Services (W. Macintyre) p. AI-5
>
> Magnetic Fusion Energy and Computers
>
> (J. Killeen) p. AI-14
>
> The Potential of Los Alamos National

Laboratory to Provide Large-Scale

Computational Capabilities to

the Research Community

(B. Buzbee and D. Sparks) p. AI-22

Appendix II Applications of Supercomputing p. AII-1

Supercomputers and the Equations of State of

Classical One Component Plasma (B. Buzbee) p. AII-2

Aerospace Structural Design and Supercomputers

(R.H. Gallagher) p. AII-4

Supercomputers and Engineering Research (B. Carnahan) p. AII-6

Some Examples of Supercomputer Projects (L. L. Smarr) p AII-8

Examples and needs of Supercomputers (K. Wilson) p. AII-11

Roles and Needs for Large Scale Computing for

Theoretical Physics (K. Wilson) p. AII-16

Appendix III Position Papers p. AIII-1

Japan's Initiatives in Larch Scale Computing (L. Lee) p. AIII-2

Position Paper (R. G. Gillespie) p. AIII-4

The Supercomputer Famine in American Universities (L. L. Smarr) p.
AIII-6

Priorities for Funding Current Needs (K. Wilson) p. AIII-15

Position Paper (K. B. Wiberg) p. AIII-17

Position Paper (A. Brenner) p. AIII-19

Why the U.S. Government Should Support Research on

and Development of Supercomputers (B. Buzbee) p. AIII-21

Position Paper (J. Dennis). P. AIII-37

Thoughts on Very High Speed Computer Systems for

the 1980's (D. D. Gajski et al) p. AIII-31

Position Paper (F. Ris) p. AIII-37

Position Papers (S. Fernbach) p. AIII-40

I. [Introduction]{.underline}

Supercomputers are the fastest and most powerful scientific computing
systems^1^ available at any given tine: they offer speed and capacity,
or special characteristics, significantly greater than on the most
widely available machines built primarily for commercial use.^2^ Large
scale scientific computing is the application of supercomputers to the
solution of a model or simulation of a scientific or engineering problem
through the appropriate use of numerical algorithms and techniques.

The availability of supercomputers during the past thirty years has been
crucial to the Nation's advances n science, engineering, national
security, and industrial productivity. Supercomputers have been
essential to scientific and engineering investigations in areas such as
atmospheric research, astrophysics, molecular biology, integrated
circuit design, and fusion research, The weapons programs of DOE,
cryptographic analysis, and weather forecasting are dependent on the
availability of computational facilities. The use of supercomputers in
the aerospace, petroleum, semiconductor, and nuclear industries
contributes substantially to the nation's productivity. The development
of supercomputers has significant spinoffs for all, the electronically
based components of the national economy. Research and development in
semiconductor technology and in computer research has directly supported
and expanded the defense, industrial, medical, and consumer segments of
the economy.

The U.S. is the acknowledged leader in the development and use of
supercomputers. In 1970 this Nation was preeminent in all aspects of
electronic, computer, and computational technology. However, America's
present leadership in supercomputers is challenged in the areas of
components, development, and applications. Recently, Hitachi has begun
marketing what is claimed to be the first 16k bipolar ECL RAM^3^; this
device, representative of the continuing advances of Japanese
microelectronic manufacturers, is designed for applications in today's
scientific computers. Fujitsu, Nippon Electric Company, and Hitachi have
each developed supercomputers, which are claimed to compare favorably
with the available, or announced, American systems. American
universities and research centers, which have historically created new
applications of

^1^ These include specialized machines, such as array processors, that
are

> equal to or, for sane problem, more powerful than general purpose
> mainframes.

^2^ The term supercomputer, as used in this report, encompasses
hardware,

> software, supporting peripherals, at the facilities and personnel
> needed for their appropriate use. Appendix I reproduces three papers
> presented to the Panel: [NCAR Computing Capabilities aid
> Services]{.underline}, by W. Macintyre; [Magnetic Fusion Energy and
> Computers]{.underline}, by J. Killeen; at [The Potential of Los Alamos
> National Laboratory to Provide Large Scale Computational Capabilities
> to the Research community]{.underline}, by B. Buzbee and D. Sparks.
>
> These papers present description of supercomputer facilities and of
>
> their access from remote facilities through networking.

^3^ See Electronic Engineering Times, December 6, 1982.

supercomputers at sustained research in computational mathematics, have
lagged behind their Japanese and European counterparts in the
installation of supercomputers.

Significant national thrusts in supercomputing are being pursued by the
governments of Japan, West Germany, France, and Great Britain, Some of
these, notably the Japanese effort, center on the development of
supercomputers; others, on the provision of supercomputers, or access to
them through networks, to the scientific and engineering research
community. The British program, for example, is designed to provide
research scientists and engineers in academic and government
laboratories access to supercomputers through modern workstations
connected to a high-speed national network. These aggressive foreign
national initiatives provide a striking contrast to the current state of
planning in the U.S. The domestic computer industry continues its
vigorous research and development efforts in the supercomputer field;
however, it is felt that these efforts, necessarily dictated by
commercial conditions, are less than they could be and far less than
should be for the national scientific and technical capability as a
whole. The U.S. research community does not have sufficient access to
supercomputing facilities, as is documented in numerous, papers, and
reports directed toward specific disciplines and specific studies. A
partial bibliography of these agencies is included in this report.

Expressions of concern that the U.S. is failing to exploit its position
of leadership in supercomputing are being voiced from many quarters.
Reflecting this concern, the NSF/DOD Coordinating Committee requested,
in April of 1982, that a workshop be organized to explore the problems,
needs, and opportunities in large scale computing. This Workshop,
sponsored by NSF and DOD with the cooperation of DOE and NASA was led by
a broad spectrum of disciplines. It took place at the NSF on June 21-22,
1982, and was attended by over one hundred participants. Experts in the
use, design, and management of large scale computers from the computing,
defense, and other industries, government laboratories, universities,
and research funding agencies were included. The lists of the
participants in this Workshop are contained in the Supplement.

The Panel assessed the role of Supercomputing in scientific and
engineering research; surveyed the current use availability, and
adequacy of supercomputers; and considered near- and long-term needs.
Subsequent to the June 21-22 Workshop, numerous meetings of smaller
groups of participants have taken place; in particular, experts on
computer development (Group 3 of the Lax Panel) met at Bellaire,
Michigan, on August 23-24, 1982, to further explore avenues for assuring
the development of future supercomputers. From these meetings a large
number of suggestions and position papers have been directed to the
Panel and to the Organizing Committee. This report is an attempt, on the
part of the Organizing Committee and the Panel, to outline both the
results of the Workshop and the subsequent discussions and
contributions. The Panel has chosen not to repeat all the detailed
technical arguments or examples of the use of supercomputers found in
the literature. A bibliography and appendices are included.

Overall, this report outlines the issues and options for the U.S. to
maintain its leadership in supercomputers and supercomputing. Because
the issues involve many Federal agencies, government laboratories,
universities, private sector companies, and scientific disciplines, they
need to be addressed on a National basis and require Federal study,
planning, and support. The Panel's report attempts to bring the
fundamental issues to the attention of policymakers; however, it
deliberately avoids details of an organizational, programmatic, or
budgetary nature.

II [Summary of Findings and Recommendations]{.underline}

## Summary of Findings

Large scale computing is a vital component of science, engineering, and
technology^4^, bringing together theory and applications. It is
essential for the design of may technologically sophisticated products,
and is making possible for the first time the analysis of very complex
scientific and engineering problems which to date have defied analytical
and experimental techniques. Examples of the importance of
supercomputing are briefly noted below^5^.

> Renormalization group techniques^6^ are a major theoretical
> breakthrough that provide a new framework of the understanding of a
> number of unsolved scientific and engineering problems ranging from
> problems in quantum field theory, the onset of phase transitions in
> materials, the development of turbulence, propagation on of cracks in
> metals, and the exploitation of oil reservoirs. Only a minute fraction
> of these problems can be solved analytically. Large scale
> computational techniques have been essential to the use of
> renormalization group methods, and even today's largest computational
> machines are not sufficiently powerful to address most of these
> problems^7^.
>
> Aerodynamic design using a supercomputer has resulted in the design of
> an airfoil with 40% less drag than that developed by previous
> experimental techniques^8^. The solution of the Navier-Stokes
> equations with sufficient

^4^ See, for example, [R & D for National Strength]{.underline}, Center
for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University,
Washington, D.C., 1982. See also [The Defense Science Board Summer
Study]{.underline}, 1981.

^5^ In the Supplement of this Report, H. B. Keller and J. R. Rice
describe in some detail scientific and engineering areas in need of
supercomputers. Appendix II contains a number of examples of scientific
and engineering problems successfully addressed on supercomputers as
well as additional examples requiring supercomputing capabilities not
yet available.

^6^ These techniques were devised to handle the description of phenomena
with interactions spanning an extremely wide scale. K. Wilson was
awarded the 1982 Nobel Prize in Physics for his contributions to the
theoretical development and application of renormalization group
techniques to critical phenomena. See his contributions to this report
in the Supplement, as well as in Appendices II and III.

^7^ See, in Appendix II, several problems posed by K. C. Wilson.

^8^ For a detailed description see "Trends and Pacing Items in
Computational Aerodynamics", \[40\].

> resolution to represent faithfully fluid behavior became practical
> with the current (Class VI) generation of supercomputers. The wings of
> the Boeing 767 and of the European Airbus 310 were designed by
> computational methods on such machines, resulting in this most
> significant improvement.
>
> The aerodynamic design of an entire aircraft is not feasible with
> today's supercomputers; it is estimated that machines 100 times more
> powerful are needed for this purpose. The design of jet engines,
> involving the simulation of complex three-dimensional fluid flows and
> associated chemical reactions, also requires significantly increased
> computational capability and capacity.
>
> In design, especially of advanced weapons systems, large scale
> computational modeling is an essential substitute for experimentation.
> Similarly, the design of future generations of nuclear power plants,
> and their operation---relying on real-time simulation for their
> control---require computational facilities several orders of magnitude
> greater than those available today.
>
> Perhaps the most significant applications of scientific computing lie
> not in the solution of old problems but in the discovery of new
> phenomena through numerical experimentation; the discovery of
> nonergodic behavior, such as the formation of solutions, and the
> presence of strange attractors and universal features common to a
> large class of nonlinear system are examples of this scientific
> process.

Current and feasible supercomputers are extremely powerful scientific
and engineering tools. They permit the solution of previously
intractable problems, and motivate scientists aid engineers to explore
and formulate flew areas of investigation. They will surely find
significant applications not yet imagined. For these reasons, the Panel
believes that it is in the National interest that access to constantly
updated supercomputing facilities be provided to scientific and
engineering researchers, and that a large and imaginative user community
be trained in their uses and capabilities.

The U. S. has been and continues to be the leader in supercomputer
technology and in the use of supercomputers in science and engineering.
The present position of leadership is evidenced by the dominance of the
supercomputer market by American producers and by the successful
exploitation of supercomputing at national laboratories, However, the
Panel finds that this position of leadership is seriously undermined by
the lack of broad scale exploration, outside of a few national
laboratories, of the scientific art engineering opportunities offered by
supercomputing, and by a slowdown in the introduction of new generations
of supercomputers. This threat becomes real in light of the major thrust
in advanced supercomputer design that is being mounted by the Japanese
Government and industry, and by vigorous governmental programs in the
United Kingdom, West Germany, France, and Japan to make supercomputers
available and easily accessible to their research and technological
communities.

American preeminence in large scale computing has been a result of the
confluence of three factors: the vitality of the U.S. computer industry,
the far-sighted policies of the Federal government, and the leadership
of scientists and engineers from universities and government
laboratories. The Atomic Energy Commission, on the urging of John von
Neumann, initiated

the use of large scale computation in research and weapons design; NASA,
prodded by Hans Mark, advanced the use of supercomputing in its
scientific program. American universities and government laboratories
conducted the research that formed the basis for constructing and
applying computers, trained the needed scientific and engineering
personnel, and made computers and computing an essential tool in
scientific and engineering research.

The Federal government vigorously implemented policies that supported
these efforts, granted generous funds for computation, and, through its
role as the major purchaser of scientific computers, provided the
incentives and insured the market for these unique machines.
Forward-looking corporations exploited the scientific and engineering
opportunities, developed an advanced industrial technology, and created
this most vital component of the American economy.

During the 1970's the Federal government retreated from its support of
large scale computing in universities. The NSF program to provide and
expand university computing facilities for scientific and engineering
research was terminated in 1972; at about the sane time IBM discontinued
its generous discounts for the purchase of computing equipment by
academic institutions as a result of pressures from the Justice
Department and competitors. Since then large scale university computing
facilities have withered while the action shifted to national
laboratories and to industrial users. The most advanced scientific
computer of the early seventies, the CDC 7600, was not installed on a
single American campus, although it was available to researchers at
several foreign universities and research institutes.

This Continues today. With the exception of two universities and a few
government laboratories, either dedicated to special tasks or specific
disciplines, universities and government research installations lack
supercomputers.^9^

Within the Government, fully integrated supercomputer facilities are
found exclusively at dedicated national laboratories such as Los Alamos
National Laboratory (LANL) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(LLNL) in support of weapons and fusion programs; and NASA
installations, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, and the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in support of aerospace,
oceanographic, and atmospheric research programs. The National Magnetic
Fusion Energy Computer Center (NMFECC) of LLNL is accessible in
interactive mode to researchers at remote locations by a high speed
network.^10^ On the other hand, the National Bureau of Standards and
most DOD laboratories do not have supercomputers and far too few
universities have the specialized computational equipment needed for
scientific computing (e.g., array processors). As a result of limited
access to supercomputing facilities by the broad research community,
significant research opportunities^11^ have

^9^ See, in Appendix I, [Partial Inventory and Announced Orders of Class
VI Machines]{.underline}.

^10^ See Appendix I for a description of some of these facilities.

^11^ See, for example, the "Prospectus for Computational Physics," \[2\]

"Future Trends in Condensed Matter theory and the Role and Support of

Computing" \[4\], "Report by the Subcommittee an Computational

Capabilities for Nuclear Theory," \[28\], and "An Assessment of

Computational Resources required for ocean Circulation Modeling,"
\[35\].

been missed, and younger generation of researchers is inadequately
trained in large scale computing.

The need for access to large scale computational facilities has become
so critical^12^ that several universities, assuring significant
financial risks, have felt it essential to acquire supercomputers.
Several more are seriously considering doing so, and others are in the
process of forming consortia for this purpose. Some of these endeavors
have applied for federal funding without which they may have financial
difficulties. Other groups are pressing funding agencies to expand or
replicate highly successful facilities, such as those at NCAR, NMFECC,
and NASA-Ames, at universities or at national laboratories. Class VI
scientific remote computing services are available from a few commercial
service bureaus, but neither the academic nor the government research
communities make extensive use of this resource. This seems due to a
combination of lack of funds for computing services, the perceived high
cost associated with these services, and a lack of sophisticated
high-speed networking facilities. It is an indication of the absence of
a national plan that a substantial number of leading scientists are
clamoring for access to supercomputers at the sane time that some
supercomputing facilities are underutilized.^13^

A supercomputer is a general purposes scientific instrument serving a
broad and diverse base of users. The decline of supercomputing at
universities is analogous to the decline of instrumentation; neither
large scale computing or instrumentation can be sustained in a stable
manner through funding of undividual research grants, where their costs
must compete with that of scientific personnel.^14^

The findings of the Panel regarding the development of supercomputers
are as alarming as the findings on their access and availability. The
U.S. supercomputing market is, at this time, dominated by Cray Research
(CRAY-1) and Control Data Corporation (CYBER 205).^15^ The Japanese
vendors, Hitachi (S-210/20) and Fujitsu (VP-.200), have announced the
delivery of supercomputers in the near future and these machines appear
to be comparable to the available American systems. The Japanese are
striving to became serious competitors of domestic manufacturers, and
U.S. dominance the supercomputer market may soon be a thing of the past.
The Japanese Government---sponsored [National Super Computer
Project^16^]{.underline} is aimed at the development, by 1989, of a
machine one thousand times faster than current machines. There is no
comparable technical program in the U. S. The Panel notes that in the
case of the NASA Numerical Aerodynamic Simulator, a very high
performance supercomputer, no acceptable proposals for its development

^12^ See, in Appendix III, [The Supercomputer Famine in American
Universities]{.underline}, by L, L. Smarr.

^13^ Supercomputer cycles are available at the University of Minnesota

CRAY 1 and at Colorado State University CYBER 205.

^14^ See, in Appendix III, the paper by R. G. Gillespie. Most
supercomputer

facilities are funded directly by the Federal Government.

^15^ See, in Appendix I, [Partial Inventory and Announced Orders of
Class VI Machines]{.underline}.

^16^ See, in Appendix III, [Japan's Initiatives in Large Scale
Computing]{.underline}, by

L. Lee.

were received. Neither of the two competing vendors could assure NASA
that they would meet the performance requirements. Rather than
developing new products, the vendors attempted to fit all NASA
requirements to their existing product line.

Upon review of previous studies, the Panel also finds that the power of
current and projected supercomputers is insufficient to meet existing
needs in science, engineering, and technology, both military and
civilian.^17^ Research at universities and in the computer industry has
indicated that future generations of very high performance computer
systems may have parallel architectures radically different from the
conceptually sequential architectures of today's supercomputers. There
are many candidate architectures that must be evaluated before
commercial feasibility can be established.^18^ Simultaneously, the rapid
and continuing advance of microelectronic technology makes it feasible
to build such parallel machines. There is also a need for improvement of
component performance.

The Panel believes that under current conditions there is little
likelihood that the U.S. will. lead in the development and application
of this new generation of machines.^19^ Factors inhibiting the necessary
research and advanced development are the length and expense of the
development cycle for a new computer architecture, and the uncertainty
of the market place. Very high performance computing is a case where
maximizing short-term return on capital does not reflect the national
security or the long-term national economic interest. The Japanese
thrust in this area, through its public funding, acknowledges this
reality.

The Panel estimates^20^ that the present annual investment in basic
research on algorithms, software, and architecture is between 5 and 10
million dollars, while the annual advanced development expenditures for
supercomputer's (beyond Class 6 machines) are between 20 and 40 million
dollars. This is contrasted with the development cost for a new
high-speed conventional architecture system of approximately 150 million
dollars, as well as the estimated 200 million dollars national
superspeed computer project in Japan. The panel considers current levels
of United States investments insufficient to maintain leadership in
supercomputers.

The Panel believes that U.S. leadership in supercomputing is crucial for
the advancement of science and technology, and therefore, for economic
and national security.

^17^ See, for some illustrative examples, Appendix II. Also notable is
See, for

> "Trends and Pacing Item in Computational Aerodynamics", by D. R.
> Chapman, \[40\].

^18^ See, in Appendix III, a series of contributions to the Workshop. In
particular, the papers by Dennis, Gajski, et al., Ris, and Fernbach;
also the report of Group 3 of the Lax Panel in the Supplement.

^19^ See, in Appendix III, [Why the U.S. Government Should Support
Research on and Development]{.underline} [of
supercomputers]{.underline}, by B. Buzbee.

^20^ Members of the Panel and of the Organizing Committee have conducted
a survey to estimate the current total national investment in research
and advanced development for supercomputer and supercomputing, both
public and private. This survey included research and development costs
but excluded funding for the acquisition, maintenance, and operation of
supercomputer facilities.

[Recommendations]{.underline}

The Panel recommends that the present needs and challenges to U. S.
leadership in scientific computing and supercomputer technology be
addressed with high priority. To this end, the Panel has set forth the
background for planning and policy issues, outlined some options, and
noted that current total funding in this area is insufficient to
maintain the Nation's leadership in large scale computing. The Panel has
avoided recommendations of a programmatic and organizational nature;
these, and their implementation, are best left to the appropriate
government agencies. These agencies must work together to respond to the
issues raised and put together a detailed coherent program whose
components are responsive to their individual missions. The program plan
should contain a clear statement of goals, directions, and roles for the
academic, industrial, and Federal government segments; responsibilities
of the participating Federal agencies; and funding required.

The Panel recommends that a long-term National program on Large Scale
Computing should be initiated immediately, with the participation of the
appropriate Federal agencies, the universities, and industry. The goals
of this National Program should be:

> 1\. Increased access for the scientific and engineering research
> community through high bandwidth networks to adequate and regularly
> updated supercomputing facilities and experimental computers:
>
> 2\. Increased research in computational mathematics, software, and
> algorithms necessary to the effective and efficient use of
> supercomputer systems;
>
> 3\. Training of personnel in scientific and engineering computing; and
>
> 4\. Research and development basic to the design and implementation of
> new supercomputer systems of substantially increased capability and
> capacity beyond that likely to arise from commercial sources.

This Program should be coordinated by an interagency policy committee
consisting of representatives of the appropriate Federal agencies,
including DOC, DOD, DOE, NASA, and NSF, A Large Scale Computing Advisory
Panel, with representatives from Government, the universities, and
industry, should be established to assist in the planning,
implementation, and operation of the Program.

The Panel finds two points that require emphasis:

> As the few successful facilities amply demonstrate, solution of the
> problem of access to supercomputing facilities, on a national basis,
> is possible.
>
> Secondly, the domestic computer industry must allocate its scarce
> research and development funds to meet all the commercial
> opportunities and competitive challenges. Supercomputing enjoys a
> priority within the computer industry. But this priority, which
> reflects competitive commercial conditions, does not reflect the
> entire national scientific and security interest. It is not reasonable
> to rely solely on industry's own initiatives and resources in this
> area.

[Possible Approaches for the National Program]{.underline}

The Panel has received many suggestions^21^ for carrying out the thrusts
or the proposed National Program. We outline here those considered most
promising.

> 1\. [Access]{.underline}: There appear to be three approaches to
> provide reliable and efficient access to supercomputers to the
> research and development community. Common to all these is the
> development of a nation-wide interdisciplinary network^22^ through
> which users will have access to facilities. This network should
> connect all supercomputer facilities (except those dedicated to very
> special tasks), including commercial supercomputing centers and
> experimental machines.

o The most expedient and perhaps least expensive way to provide
supercomputer access to the broad range of scientific and engineering
researchers is to enhance supercomputer capacity and staff at existing
centers which have demonstrated sophisticated capabilities for providing
large scale computing.

> o Provide supercomputers to selected government laboratories without
> such facilities and make them available to the broad research and
> development community through networking. In addition, there should be
> sharing and enhancement of current supercomputer facilities located at
> universities and government laboratories.
>
> o Establish additional regional centers at selected universities,
> interconnected with existing facilities at other universities and
> government laboratories.
>
> The existence of a national network would permit combinations of these
> nonexclusive options, as well as the appropriate use of commercial
> services. The mechanisms for funding these facilities and allocating
> access should be carefully studied.^23^

^21^ See position papers in Appendix III.

^22^ The NMFECC network, described in Appendix I, is the example
repeatedly mentioned for emulation because of its high bandwidth. The
ARPANET network is often mentioned because of its interdisciplinary
nature.

^23^ See the position paper by R. G. Gillespie in Appendix III.

> The above recommendations are related to the problems of access to
> general purpose supercomputer facilities. It should be noted, however,
> that there are scientific and engineering problems that can perhaps be
> better and more economically attacked by specialized supercomputing
> facilities and by sophisticated array processors. The Panel recommends
> that, as part of the National Program, significant emphasis be placed
> on providing this specialized equipment to the research community.
> Finding the proper balance between investments on these two types of
> facilities requires a careful analysis, at the multidisciplinary and
> interagency level,
>
> 2\. [Research in Software and Algorithms]{.underline}

Today's supercomputers are a major departure from traditional sequential
machines. Future significant improvements may have to come from
architectures embodying parallel in processing elements − perhaps
several thousands of processors. In order to exploit today\'s vector
processors and future parallel possessors, entirely new algorithms must
be conceived, Research in languages, algorithms, and numerical analysis
will be crucial in learning to exploit these new architectures fully.
The contributions of numerical analysis, computational mathematics, and
algorithm design to the practice of large scale computing is as
important as the development of a new generation machines.

> 3\. [Training]{.underline}
>
> Another important component of this National Program is the
> development of an imaginative and skilled user community in
> supercomputing. There is a considerable shortage of appropriately
> trained personnel and of training opportunities in this area.
>
> Forms of institutional encouragement, such as NASA's special
> fellowships in the area of numerical fluid mechanics, special summer
> schools, and special allocation of access time to supercomputers for
> those projects that involve graduate students, should be considered.
> Some of the more mathematical aspects of these activities can be
> accomplished independently of the machines
>
> ^24^ Some of these problems rise in a number of areas associated with
> experimental physics. See, in Appendix III, the letter from A. E.
> Brenner, Jr. See, also in the same Appendix, the position paper by K.
> Wilson on the use of array processors.
>
> on which the actual calculations are done; however, the true
> integration of methods and their implementation cannot be done without
> access to supercomputers. The nature of the machine architecture has a
> very profound effect on the commercial methods, on the algorithms, and
> of course on the software. Thus, while being trained, students must
> have access to state-of-the-art computers. Today such training is
> virtually nonexistent; yet the skills gained from such training are
> essential to science and engineering.
>
> 4\. [Research and Development for New Supercomputers]{.underline}
>
> There are serious component and architectural problems that must be
> solved as part of the development of future generations of
> supercomputers. The unique strengths of industry, universities, and
> Government laboratories should be brought together for this purpose. A
> group of panelists from this workshop, with the aid of a number of
> experts from industry and universities, has produced a report which
> describes one such program.

Since a great deal of careful analysis and detailed planning is required
before the proposed National Program can be implemented, the Panel urges
that its recommendations be acted upon as soon as possible.

25 See, in the Supplement, [A Program for Development of Very High
Performing Computer Systems]{.underline}, by J. C. Browne and J. T.
Schwartz.

[Selected Bibliography]{.underline}

\[1\] "A Push for Major Improvements in Both Large-Scale Computing
Capability

> and Simulation Techniques for Physical Processes," memo to Users of
>
> Large Scale Computing for Simulation in Government, Industry and
>
> Universities from Kenneth Wilson, James A. Weeks Professor of Physical
>
> Science, Cornell University, July 15, 1981.

\[2\] "Prospectus for Computational Physics," Report by the Subcommittee
on

> Computational Facilities for Theoretical Research to the Advisory
>
> Committee for Physics, Division of Physics, National Science
>
> Foundation, March 15, 1981, William H. Press, Chairman.

\[3\] "A Proposal Submitted to the United States Department of Energy
for a

> National Nuclear Computer Center at the University of Maryland," and
>
> Appendix A., "A Report on Computer Needs for Nuclear Theory," William
>
> MacDonald, Chairman, July 15, 1979.

\[41 "Future Trends in Condensed Matter Theory and the Role and Support
of Computation," report by the Condensed Matter Theory Panel, published
under the auspices of the council on Materials Science for the Division
of Materials Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy, J. D. Joannopoulos and
A. N. Berker, Co-Chairmen, September 22, 1981.

\[5\] "A Preliminary Proposal to the Department of Energy submitted by

> Colorado State University for the Support of a Class VI Computer," by
>
> Robert W. Hayman and Gerold R. Johnson, Colorado State University,
> Fort
>
> Collins, Colorado, August 24, 1981.

\[6\] "NAS Project Status Report for the NAS User Steering Group,"
prepared by the Numerical Aerodynamic Simulator Project Office, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research Center, July 1,
1980.

\[7\] "The Numerical Aerodynamic Simulator --- Description, Status, and
Funding Option;" a report prepared at the request of the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate; Dec. 1981,
NASA.

\[81 Numerical Aerodynamic Simulator; Background, Requirements, and
Justification; NASA, Ames Research Center, Revised January 1982.

\[9\] "Proposal for Research on Parallel Applicative Programming for
Multiprocessor Systems," Rodney R. Oldehoeft, Stephen J. Allan, Colorado
State University, and Burton J. Smith, Denelcor, Inc., October 1981.

\[10\] "Development Program, Scientific Computation Center," Florida
State University Computing Center, Tallahassee, Florida.

\[11\] "Second Generation 5-1 Systems: Computing and Memory Capacity for

> Demanding Navy Applications," A Review Presentation for Members of the
>
> Navy Technical Community, Phys. Brief 81-103, Lowell Wood, et al., S-1
>
> Project, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, January 16, 1980.

\[12\] "Simulation of Turbulent Shear Flows: What can we do and what
have we learned?" presented by invitation at the Seventh Biennial
Symposium on Turbulence Rolla, MO, by W. C. Reynolds, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, September 21, 1981.

\[131 "A Commentary on Computational Mechanics," J. T. Oden and K. J.
Bathe, Applied Mechanics Reviews [31]{.underline} (1978) pp. 1053-1058.

\[14\] "Draft Proposal to the National Science Foundation for support of
Fellowship Program to Institute for Computation, the Center for Advanced
Technology at Colorado State University," George G. Olson, June, 1981.

\[151 "Report on the Utilization of Large Scale Computers," Committee on
the Utilization of Large Scale Computers in ASGA, Bennett Miller,
chairman, July 1, 1977.

\[16\] "Computing Division Two Year Operational Plan, FY 1981-1982,"
Robert H. Ewald, W. Jack Worlton, Margery McCormick, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, LA-8725-MS, February 1981.

\[17\] Letter to Dr. Alvin W. Trivelpiece, Director, Office of Energy
Research from Dr. David A. Shirley, Director, Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory with Conceptual Proposal for Energy Research Network,
September 14, 1981.

\[18\] "Nuclear Weapons and Computers, Summary: The Role of Large Scale
Computers in the DOE Nuclear Weapons Program," the Gold Report, prepared
for the Director of Military Applications, U. S. Department of Energy,
March 1978.

\[19\] "DOE Research in Utilization of High-Performance Computers," B.
L. Buzbee, W. Jack Worlton, G.A. Michael, G. Rodrigue, LA-8609-MS, Los
Alamos National Laboratory, December 1980.

\[20\] "A Philosophy of Supercomputing," Jack Worlton, LA-8849-MS, Los
Alamos National Laboratory, June 1981.

\[21\] "Department of Energy FY 1983-1987 ADP Long Range Plan," Office
of ADP Management, December 1981.

\[22\] "An Assessment of Trends in the Solid State Sciences," National
Research Council, July 1980.

\[231 "Future of Nuclear Science," by Ad Hoc Panel on the Future of
Nuclear Science, 1977.

\[241 "Long Range Plan for Nuclear Science," excerpts from a report by
the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee, July 30-August 4, 1979.

\[251 "Draft II - Astronomy Survey Committee: Report of the Panel on
Data Processing and Computational Facilities," May 19, 1980.

\[26\] "Workshop on Computational Astrophysics," NASA Ames Research
Center, February 1980.

\[27\] "Magnetic Fusion Energy and Computers: The Role of Computing in
Magnetic Fusion Energy Research and Development," Office of Fusion
Energy, DOE, October 1979.

\[28) "Report by the Subcommittee on Computational Capabilities for
Nuclear Theory to the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee,"
December 1981.

\[291 "Purdue Center for Parallel and Vector Computing," Dennis Gannon,
John Rice, Saul Rosen, April 23, 1982.

\[30\] "Universities and the Future of Computer Technology Development,"
Kenneth G. Wilson, Laboratory of Nuclear Studies, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York.

\[31\] "Present vs. Future Supercomputers," notes by Kenneth Wilson,
Newman Laboratory, Cornell University, May 1982.

\[32\] "A Data Flow Supercomputer," Jack B. Dennis, G-R Gao, Kenneth W.
Todd, Computation Structures Group Memo 213, MIT Laboratory for Computer
Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts, March 1982.

\[33\] "Foreign Travel Trip Report: Visits with Japanese Computer
Manufacturers," R. Ewald, Bill Buzbee, J. Worlton, CDO/82-6782A,
Computation Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, April 5, 1982.

\[34\] "Supercomputers," Ronald D. Levine, Scientific American, January
1982.

\[351 "An Assessment of Computational Resources Required for Ocean
Circulation

> Modeling," Ad Hoc Committee on Computing Resources and Facilities for
>
> Ocean Circulation Modeling, Ocean Sciences Board, Commission on
> Physical
>
> Sciences, Mathematics and Resources, National Research Council of the
>
> National Academy of Sciences, 1982.

\[36\] "Nearest Neighbor Concurrent Processor," E. Brooks, C. Fox, R.
Gupta,

> O. Martin, S. Otto, E. De Benedictis; California Institute of
>
> Technology, DOE Research and Development Report, CALT-68-867,
> September
>
> 1981\.

\[37\] "Why the U.S. Government Should Support Research On And
Development of Supercomputers," Bill Buzbee, Los Alamos Report
LA-UR---82-1968, July 1982.

\[38\] Los Alamos SCIENCE, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Vol. 2, No. 2
(1981).

\[391 Justification for Class VI Scientific Computing Capability at
Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque; Sandia Laboratories, February 1979.

\[40\] "Trends and Pacing Items in Computational Aerodynamics," D. R.
Chapman, Lecture notes in Physics, 141, Springer-Verlag, 1981.

# Organization of the Workshop on Large Scale

[Computing for Science and Engineering]{.underline}

Members of the

Panel on Large Scale Computing

in Science and Engineering

William F. Ballhaus NASA-Ames

James C. Browne University of Texas, Austin

Brice Carnahan University of Michigan

Michael Creutz Brookhaven National Laboratory

Richard H. Gallagher University of Arizona

Herbert Keller California Institute of Technology

John Killeen Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Peter D. Lax, Chairman New York University, National Science Board

Walter N. Macintyre National Center for Atmospheric Research

Steven Orszag Massachusetts Institute Technology

Werner Rheinboldt University of Pittsburg

Allan Robinson Harvard University

Jacob Schwartz New York University

Edward Wilson University of California, Berkeley

Kenneth Wilson Cornell University

Organizing Committee

of the

Workshop on Large Scale Computing

in Science and Engineering

Donald Austin Department of Energy

Melvyn Ciment National Bureau of Standards

Kent Curtis National Science Foundation

David Fox Air Force Office of Scientific Research

J. M. Greenberg National Science Foundation

Carl Hall National Science Foundation

E. F. Infante National Science Foundation

Peter D. Lax, Chairman New York University, National

Marshall Lih National Science Foundation

Lawrence Lee National Science Foundation

James Pool Office of Naval Research

Paul Schneck National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

June 14, 1982

AGENDA FOR

WORKSHOP ON LARGE-SCALE COMPUTING FOR

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

[Location]{.underline}

> National Science Foundation
>
> 1800 G Street, N.W., Rm. 540

Washington, D.C. 20550

# June 21, 1982

Ti me Topic Leader

8:30 a.m. Preamble

9:00 a.m. Large-Scale Computing 4eeds

10:00 a.m. BREAK

10:15 Arrangements for Making Computing Orszag

Power Available

(Ballhaus, Hayes, Killeen, Macintyre)

12:00 LUNCH

1:00 p.m. Computer Technology in the U.S. Schwartz

(Presentations)

(Ballhaus, Buzbee, Michael, Schneck, Wilson)

3:00 p.m. BREAK

3:15 p.m. Discussion Lax

(Fernbach, Patton, Olson, Rice)

6:00 p.m. Adjournment (except for Panel Members)

# June 22, 1982

8:30 a.m. Charge to Panel Lax

9:00 a.m. Group Working Sessions

12:00 LUNCH

1:30 p.m. Plenary Session I

2:30 p.m. BREAK

2:45 p.m. Group Working Session Closing Remarks

5:00 p.m. Closing Remarks Lax

List of Participants of the

Workshop on Large Scale Computing

In Science and Engineering

Washington, DC

June 21-22, 1982

W. Richards Adrion - National Science Foundation

Carl Amthor - Associated Universities, Inc.

Lloyd Armstrong - National Science Foundation

Donald Austin - Department of Energy

Steven Bachman - Control Data Corporation

William F. Ballhaus - National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Ames

Bruce N. Barnes - National Science Foundation

F. Brett Berlin - Cray Research Incorporated

William Bernard - National Science Foundation

Alfred Brenner - Fermi Laboratory

James C. Browne - University of Texas, Austin

Alphonse Buccino - National Science Foundation

Bill Buzbee - Los Alamos National Laboratory

Andrew Cailegari - Exxon Research and Engineering Company

P. Cannon - Star Technology

Jagdish Chandra - Army Research Office

Alan Charlesworth - Floating Point Systems, Incorporated

John C. Cherniavsky - National Science Foundation

Y. T. Chien - National Science Foundation

Melvyn Ciment - National Bureau of Standards

Andrew Collier - Time Magazine

Curtis Collins - National Science Foundation

Michael Creutz - Brookhaven National Laboratory

Kent K. Curtis - National Science Foundation

Carl C. Davis - BMO Advanced Technology Center

Dorothy Deringer - National Science Foundation

A. Erisman - Boeing Computer Service

Sidney Fernbach - Consultant, Information Systems

Judith Flippen-Anderson - Naval Research Laboratory

David Fox - Air Force Office of Scientific Research

U. Gaylor - Boeing Computing Services

Robert Gillespie - University of Washington

Paul Gilmore - Goodyear Aerospace Corporation

Randolph Graves, Jr. - National Aeronautics and Space Administration

James N. Greenberg - National Science Foundation

Lloyd Griffiths - University of Colorado

Carl Hall - National Science Foundation

W. F. Nanrahan - CBEMA

Allen U. Hansen - Burroughs Corporation

Richard Harris - Cray Research Incorporated

w\. C. Harris - National Science Foundation

Edward Hayes - National Science Foundation

Kenneth Hoffman - Massachusetts Institute of Technology

E. F. Infante - National Science Foundation

Glenn Ingram - National Bureau of Standards

R. F. Johnson - Floating Point Systems, Incorporated

Ronald E. Kagarise - National Science Foundation

Robert Kahn - Advanced Research Projects Agency

James S. Kane - Office of Energy Research, Department of Energy

Herbert Keller - California Institute of Technology

John Killeen - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Ronald Larsen - National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Peter Lax - New York University - National Science Board

Lawrence Lee - National Science Foundation

Stephen F. Lundstrom - Burroughs Corporation

Walter N. Macintyre - National Center for Atmospheric Research

J. V. Martinez - Department of Energy

Paul Mathews - Office of Military Applications, DOE

George Michael - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

K. Mohan - Office of Management and Budget

Thomas Nash - Fermi Laboratory

David B. Nelson - Department of Energy

Robert Numrich - Control Data Corporation

C. E. Oliver - Air Force Office of Scientific Research

George Olson - Colorado State University

Barbara Onestak - National Science Foundation

Steven Orszag - Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A. R. Osborne - Johns Hopkins University

Seymour Parter - University of Wisconsin

Peter Patton - University of Minnesota

Howard Penn \\- National Science Foundation

Victor Peterson - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames

A. H. Pettifor - Office of Science and Technology Policy

Elliot Pierce - Department of Energy

Irwin Pikus - National Science Foundation

James Pool - Office of Naval Research

Jesse Poore - Georgia Institute of Technology

B. Prosswinner - Boeing Computing Services

Lawrence Rapagnani - Air Force Weapons Laboratory

Werner Rheinboldt - University of Pittsburgh

John Rice - Purdue University

Fred Ris - International Business Machines

Allan Robinson - Harvard University

Paul N. Romani - National Science Foundation

William G. Rosen - National Science Foundation

Sherwin Ruben - Goodyear Aerospace

John Ryff \\- National Science Foundation

Russ Saunders - Denelcor, Incorporated

Paul Schneck - National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Jacob Schwartz - New York University

Burton J. Smith - Denelcor, Incorporated

W. R. Smith - Cray Research Incorporated

P. Sorianic, Jr. - Star Technology

Dale Sparks - Los Alamos National Laboratory

Paul G. Spyropoulos - National Science Foundation

Leonard Stans - Air Force Weapons Laboratory

Martin T. Storma - Cray Research Incorporated

Jane Stutsman - National Science Foundation

Alvin Thaler - National Science Foundation

Eric Thompson - National Science Foundation

D. Triantaphyllou - Mitre Corporation

Jean M. Vocar - Goodyear Aerospace

Kenneth Wallgren - National Aeronautics and Space

Hugh Walsh - International Business Machines

Frederick Warther - Denelcor, Incorporated

Edward Wilson - University of California, Berkeley

Kenneth Wilson - Cornell University

Robert Woods - Department of Energy

List of Participants of the

Follow-up Workshop on Large Scale Computing for

Science and Engineering

Shanty Creek, Michigan

August 23-24, 1982

Jim Browne - University of Texas

Kent Curtis - National Science Foundation

Jack Dennis - Massachusetts Institute of Technology

David Fox - Air Force Office of Scientific Research

David Kuck - University of Illinois, Urbana

George Michael - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Ed Oliver - Air Force Office of Scientific Research

Fred Ris - IBM Research

Paul Schneck - NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

Jack Schwartz - New York University

Burton Smith - Denelcor, Inc.

Larry Snyder - Purdue University

Marty Storma - Cray Research

Bob Voigt - NASA/Langley Research Center

Ken Wallgren - NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

> ---23---