DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 340 594 SE 052 448

TITLE Seeking Solution: High-Performance Computing for

Science. Background Paper.

INSTITUTION Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. Office of

Technology Assessment.

REPORT NO OTA-BP-TCT-77

PUB DATE Apr 91

NOTE 50p.

AVAILABLE FROM Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325 ($2.25).

PUB TYPE Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS *Computer Centers; Computer Sclence; *Financial

Support; *Government Role; *Research and Development;

Technological Advancement

IDENTIFIERS *High Performance Computing; *Supercomputers

ABSTRACT

This is the second publication from the Office of

Technology Assessment's assessment on information technology and

research, which was requested by the House Committee on Science and

Technology and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation. The first background paper, "High Performance

Computing & Networking for Science," published in 1989, framed the

outstanding issues; this background paper focuses on the federal role

in supporting a national high-performance computing initiative.

Chapter 1, "High-Performance Computing and Information Infrastructure

for Science and Engineering," discusses the goals of the initiative,

the government's role, the structure of federal policy, major

strategic concerns, and long-range plarning needs. Chapter 2, "Policy

Considerations for High-Performance Computing," describes the

difficulties and barriers to advancing computer technology, providing

access to resources, and expanding and improving usage. Tne purposes

of these centers are also discussed in this section. Chapter 3,

"High-Penformance Computers: Technology and Challenges," discusses

the research and development process and the evolution of computer

technology. Brief descriptions of national and other high-perf,rmance

computer facilities are appended. (KR)

**********************************4************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document. ***********************************************************************
SEEKING SOLUTIONS:

HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING

FOR SOENCE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RE SOURCES INFORMATION

CENTE R ERIC)

tXThis document has been reproduced as

rece,wed from the person or ofganitattOn

or.ginating it

Minor changes have been made to improve

reproduction quality

Points Of view or opinions slated in this docu ment dci not necessarily represent official

OE RI position or policy

REST COPY AVAILABLE
3

BEST COPY AVAILABLE
SEEKING SOLUTIONS:

HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING

FOR SCIENCE

BACKGROUND PAPER

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

4
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Seeking Solutions: High-Performance

Computing for ScienceBackground Paper, OTA-BP-TCT-77 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, April 1991).

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form can be found in the back of this background paper)
Foreword

High-performance "supercomputers" are fast becoming tools of international competition and they play an important role in such areas as scientific research, weather forecasting,

and popular entertainment. They may prove to be the key to maintaining America's

preeminence in science and engineering. The automotive, aerospace, electronic, and

pharmaceutical industries are becomin.; more reliant on the use of high-performance

computers in the analysis, engineering, design, and manufacture of high-technology products.

Many of the national and international problems we face, such as global environmental

change, weather forecasting, development of new energy sources, development of advanced

materials, understanding molecular structure, investigating the origin of the universe, and

mapping the human genome involve complex computations that only high-performance

computers can solve.

This is the second publication from our assessment on information technology and

research, which was requesteu by the House Committee on Science and Technology and the

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The first background paper,

High Performance Computing & Networking for Science, published in 1989, framed the

outstanding issues; this background paper focuses on the Federal role in supporting a national

high-performance computing initiative.

OTA gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the many experts, within and outside

the government, who served as panelists, workshop participants, contractors, reviewers, and

advisors for this document. As with all OTA reports, however, the content is solely the

responsibility of OTA and does not necessarily constitute the consensus or endorsement of the

advisory panel, workshop participants, or the Technology Assessment Board.

i 0 JOHN H. GIBBONS

Director
High-Performance Computing and Networking

for Science Advisory Panel

John P. (Pat) Crecine, Chairman

President, Georgia Institute of Technology

Charles Bender

Director

Ohio Supercomputer Center

Charles DeLisi

Chairman

Department of Biomathematical Science

Mount Sinai School of Medicine

Deborah L. Estrin

ssistant Professor

Computer Science Department

University of Southern California

Robert Ewald

Vice President, Software

Cray Research, Inc.

Kenneth Flamm

Senior Fellow

The Brookings Institution

Malcolm Getz

Associate Piovost

Information Services & Technology

Vanderbilt University

Ira Goldstein

Vice President, Research

Open Software Foundation

Robert E. Kraut

Manager

Interpersonal Communications Group

Bell Communications Research

Lawrence Landweber

Chairman

Computer Science Department

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Carl Ledbetter

President/CEO

ETA Systems

Donald Marsh

Vice President, Technology

Contel Corp.

Michael J. McGill

Vice President

Technical Assessment & Development

OCLC, Computer Library Center, Inc.

Kenneth W. Neves

Manager

Research & Development Program

Boeing Computer Services

Bernard O'Lear

Manager of Systems

National Center for Atmospheric Research

William Poduska

Chairman of the Board

Stellar Computer, Inc.

Elaine Rich

Director

Artificial Intelligence Lab

Microelectronics & Computer Technology Corp.

Sharon J. Rogers

University Librarian

Gelman Library

The George Washington University

William Schrader

President

NYSERNET

Kenneth Toy

Postgraduate Research Geophysicist

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Keith Uncapher

Vice President

Corporation for the National Research Initiatives

Al Weis

Vice President

Engineering & Scientific Computer

Data Systems Division

IBM Corp.

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistane and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this background paper. OTA assumes full responsibility for the background paper and the accuracy of its contents.

iv
OTA Project Staff High-Performance Computing

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division

James W. Curlin, Telecommunication and Computing Technologies Program Manager

Fred W. Weingarten,' Project Director

Elizabeth 1. Miller, Research Assistant

Administrative Staff

Elizabeth Emanuel, Office Administrator

Karolyn St. Clair, Secretary

Jo Anne Price, Secretary

1Through June 30, 1990.
vi

Contents

Page

Chapter 1: High-Performance Computing and Information Infrastructure

for Science and Engineering 1 Introduction 1 High-Performance Computing: A Federal Concern 2

Multiple Goals for an Initiative 3

An Infrastructure for Scierce 5

Science and Information Technology Are Closely Linked 5

A National Infrastructure for Research and Education 6

The Current Federal Picture 8

Recent Strdies 8

The Government's Role Is Changing 11

The Structure of Federal Policy 12

Major Strategic Concerns 13

Breadth of Scope 13

Long-Range Planning Needs 13

Chapter 2: Policy Considerations for High-Performance Computing 15

Advancing Computer Technology 15

Difficulties and Barriers 15

Providing Access to Resources 16

Difficulties and Barriers 16

Support Strategies 17

Expanding and Improving Usage 20

Difficulties and Barriers 21

Computational Centers 22

Purposes for Federal High-l-trformance Computing Programs 22

Chapter 3: High-Performance Computers: Technology and Challenges 25

Computers and the R&D Process 25

Modes of Research Computing 25

Implications for Federal Programs 26

The Evolution of Computer Technology 26

Government and Computer R&D 26

Computer Performance 31

Appendix A: Supercomputer Centers 33

Boxes

Box Page

A. Black Holes: The Mysteries of the Universe 6

B. Supertyphoon Hope 7

C. The Building Blocks of Modern Computer Hardware 28

Figure

Figure Page

1. Estimated Proposed Funding Levels for Federal High-Performance

Computing Program 1

Table

Table Page

A-1. Federal Unclassified Supercomputer Installations 34

;)
Chapter 1

High-Performance Computing and Information

Infrastructure for Science and Engineering

Introduction

Information technology is a critical element for

science and engineering. The United States is

building a nationwide computer-communication infrastructure to provide high-speed data services to

the R&D community, but the mere installation of

hardware is not enough. Whether very fast data

communication networks and high-performance computers deliver their promised benefits will depend on

the institutions, processes, and policies that are

established to design and manage the new system.

OTA was asked by the House Committee on

Science, Space, and Technology and the Senate

Committee on Commerce and Transportation to

examine the role that high-performance computing,

networking, and information technologies are playing in science and engineering, and to analyze the

need for Federal action. An OTA background paper,

released in September 1989, explored and described

some key issues.' This background paper examines

high-performance computing as part of the infrastructure proposed in the Office of Science and

Technology Policy (OSTP) initiative. A detailed

OTA report on the Natiowd Research and Education

Network (NREN) is scheduled for release later in

1991.

Six years ago, Congress directed the National

Science Foundation (NSF) to establish an Advanced

Scientific Computing Program designed to increase

access by researchers to high-performance computing. That progicam resulted in the establishment of

five national centers for scientific supercomputing.

Since then, one of the centers has been left unfunded;

but the other four are still operating.

During the last 5 years, legislation has been

introduced in Congress calling for the establishment

of a high-capacity, broadband, advanced national

data communicatirms network for research. Over the

years, congressional interest has grown as this

concept has evolved into a plan for an integrated

national research and education nets 'ork (NREN)

Figure 1Estimated Proposed Funding Levels tor

Federal High-Performance Computing Program

$ Millions 1,200

900

600

300 7,77

0

Current First Second Third Fourth

Funding year

[..] Computer Science & HPC

Computational Science

NREN

Fifth

SOURCE: Offze of Science and Technology Policy, The Federal

kligh-Performance Computing Program (Washington, DC:

Office of Science and Teshnology Policy, 1989), app. C, p.

26.

consisting of an advanced communication network

linked to a variety of computational and information

facilities and services.

In September 1989, at the request of Congress,

OSTP submitted a draft plan developed by the

Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET). The plan

called for a "National High-Performance Computing Initiative" that includes both a national network

and initiatives to advance high-performance computing (see figure 1). In testimony to the 101st

Congress, the director of OSTP stated that this

Initiative was among the top priorities on the science

agenda. On June 8, 1990, the National Science

Foundation announced a $15.8 million, 3-year

research effort aimed at funding 5 gigabit-speed

testbed experimental networks. These test networks

are the first step in developing a high-speed nation-

'U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment, High Petformance Computing di Networking for Science, OTA-BP-C1T-59 (Washington. DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, September 198 /).

-1- ! 0
2 Seeking Solutions: High-Performance Computing for Science

wide broadband advanced communication network

in collaboration with the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA).

OSTP set forth its plans for a Federal HighPerformance Computing and Communications Program (HPCC) in a document released on February 4,

1991, supporting the President's Fiscal Year 1992

budget.2 The Program proposes to invest $638

million in fiscal year 1992, an increase of about 30

percent over the 1991 level. These funds will support

activities in four program areas: 1) high-performance computing systems; 2) advanced software

technology and algorithms; 3) National Research

and Education Network; and 4) basic research and

human resources.

High-Performance Computing:

A Federal Concern

Concern about information technology by highlevel policymakers is a recent phenomenon. Researchers who see the importance of data exchange

have managed to seclue funding for computers and

communications out of the limited Federal agency

research budgets. Agencies such as DARPA and

NSF have quietly developed computer and networkrelated programs without major administration initiatives or congressional actions. But the atmosphere

is now different for several reasons.

researchers cannot consistently obtain needed

information resources because of the cost. High-end

scientific computers cost several million dollars to

purchase and millions more per year to operate.

Universities grew reluctant in the late 1970s and

early 1980s to purchase these systems with theirown

funds, and government investment in computers

slowed. In the meantime, researchers learned more

about the use of high-performance computing. The

machines became more powerful, doubling in speed

about every 2 years. The scientific community

slowly became aware of the lost opportunities

caused by lack of access to high-performance

computers and other powerful information technologies.

Second, information resourcescomputers, databases, and softwareare being shared among disciplines, institutions, and facilities. These are being

linked as common resources through networks to

users at desktop workstations. A need has grown for

better coordination in the design and operation of

these systems; this will be particularly important for

a national data communications network.

Third, although the U.S. computer industry is

relatively strong, there is concern about increasing

competition from foreign firms, particularly Japanese. Over the last decade, the Japanese Government

has supported programs, such as the Fifth Generation Project (it is now planning a Sixth Generation

initiative) and National Superspeed Computer Project, designed to strengthen the Japanese position in

high-performance computing. During the last 2

years there have been difficult trade negotiations

between the United States and Japan over supercomputer markets in the respective countries. This has

raised concern about the economic and strategic

importance of a healthy U.S. high-performance

computing indusuy.3

Fourth, concern for the Japanese challenge in

high-performance computing goes beyond the competitiveness of the U.S. supercomputer industry.

Computational simulation in engineering design and

manufacturing is becoming a major factor in maintaining a competitive posture m high-technology

industries such as automotives, aerospace, petroleum, electronics, and pharmaceuticals. It is in the

availability and application of high-performance

computing to increase productivity and improve

product quality where the greatest future economic

benefits may lie.

Finally, the infrastructure of this interlinked set of

technologies is considered by some to be a stong

basis for the development of a universal broadband

information system. A very high-capacity digital

communication network and information services,

as visualized, would carry entertainment, educational, and social services to the home and support

a broad range of business and education services. A

20STP, Grand Challenges: High-Performance Computing and Communications, (Washington. DC: OSTP, 1991), p. 57.

3High-performance computers are considered to be strategically important to the United States because of the central role computers play in the

economy, security. manufacturing, and research and development. See Office of Science and Technology Policy, The Federal High Performance Computing Program (Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technology Policy, 199), pp. 12-13. See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Making Things Better: Competing in Manufacturing, OTA-ITE-443 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1990). p. 241, for a comprehensive view of the U.S. competitive position in mPnufacturing, including computer-related industries. An assessment of the status

of the U.S. supercomputing industry will be included in a forthcoming OTA report on Japan and International Trade.
Chapter IHigh-Performance Computing and Information lqrastructure for Science and Engineering 3

Photo credit: Cray Rsearch, Inc.

The CRAY Y-MP/832 computer system is the top-of-theline supercomputer of Cray Research, Inc. It contains 8

central processors and 32 million 64-bit words of memory.

nationwide network for research and education

could be a starting point, and could gradually

broaden to this vision.

Multiple Goals for an Initiative

The supporting arguments for a Federal HighPerformance computing/networking initiative center on three objectives:

1. To advance U.S. research and development

critical to U.S. industry, security, and education by providing researchers with the most

powerful compters and communication systems available. This objective is based on a

vision of computers and data communication

technologies forming a basic infrastructure for

supporting research. This goal has been proposed in several reports and policy papers.4

2. To strengthen the U.S. computer industry

(particularly the high-performance computers

and high-speed telecommunications) by testing new system concepts and developing new

techniques for applications. Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and

Technology (FCCSET) and the Institute of

Electrical and Electronics Engineers, among

others, strongly endorse this view.5

3. To enhance U.S. economic and social strength

by stimulating the development of a universal

information infrastructure through development of new technologies that could serve as

a eystem prototype.6

Strong sentiment exists among some Members of

Congress for each of these three objectives. Furthermore, the goals are closely related and nearly

inseparable--most discussion and proposals for

computing and networking programs reflect elements of all three.

Not everyone in Congress or the executive branch

agrees that all goals are equally important or even

appropriate for the Federal Government. Some

consider the current level of government spending to

advance scientific knowledge to be adequate, and

they believe that other needs have higher priority.

Others point out that since information technology

is now central to all R&D, it is important to create a

modern information infrastructure in order to realize

the benefits from government investmtnt in science

and engineering.

4Peter D. Lax. "Report of the Panel on Large-Scale Computing in Science and Engineering" (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. 1982).

p.10. EDUCOM. Networking and Telecommunications Task Force,The National Research and Education Network: A Policy Paper (Washington, DC: EDUCOM, 1990) p. 3.

"The goal of the National Research and Education Network is to enhance national competitiveness and productivity through a high speed .. . network infrastructure which suppo is a broad set of applications and network services for the research and instructional community."

5Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The Federal High Performance Computing Program (Washington. DC: September 1989). p. I.

"IA goal of the High Performance Computing Program is to] maintain and extend U.S. leadership in hi& performance computing, and

encourage U.S. sources of production."

6Congressional Record comments on introduction of bill. For example. Senator Gore stated the following, when introducing his bill, S1067:

"The nation which most completely assimilates high performance computing into its economy will very likely emerge as the dominant

intellectual, economic, and technological force in the next centwy.

U.S. industry mu4 produce advanced yet economical systems which will meet the needs of users found in each of the major sectors.... If

this is not done by U.S. Government leadership, it will bc done by foreign leadership to the detriment of U.S. national interests."

1 9
4 Seeking Solutions: High-Petformance Computing for Science

Some disagree with an initiative that resembles

"industrial policy"--i . policy aimed at supporting specific private sector enterprises. They argue

that the govIrnment should not intervene to support

either the supercomputer or the telecommunications

industry. Proponents of government intervention

argue that the dominant position of the U.S. super.

computer industry has historically resu'ted from

heavy Federal investments in computing for research and that the future health of the industry will

require continued Federal attention.

Some ask why science should get ea:ly preferred

access to what ultimately may become a universal

communication service, and suggest that selectively

providing such resources to science might delay

broader adoption by the public that promises even

greater payoff3. They are also wary of the government providing or subsidizing telecommunication

services that should, ;n their view, be provided by

the private sector. They argue that a universal

network is best achieved through the expertise and

resources of the commercial communication and

itubrmation industries. Proponents of Federal action

maintain that the science network will be an

important prototype to develop and test new standards and technologies for extremely high-speed

packet-switched data communication. Furthermore,

in their view, a network oriented to research and

education would be a valuable testbed for developing applications and better understanding how a

universal network would be used.

These debates reflect in part different philosophies, values, and expectations about future events

that must be resolved in a political process. The

assumptions underlying each of these three goals

advance U.S. R&D, strengthen the U.S. computer

and telecommunications industry, and enhance U.s.

economic and social strengthare generally soundly

based because:

1. Scientific users need access to advanced

computer:, communication systems, databases, and software servicesScientific and

engineeiing research in the Unit; States

cannot retain its world-class pusitik .. without

the best available information and communication technologies. These include advanced

computer systems, very large databases, and

high-speed data communications, local workstations, electronic mail service, and bulletin

boards. Such technology does not simply

enhance or marenally improve the productivity of the resemch process; it enables research

that could not be performed otherwise. Simulating the complex behavior of the Earth's

climate, analyzing streams of data from an

Earth satellite or visualizing the interactions of

complex organic molecules are impossible

without these new technologies. Furthermore,

many more important applications await the

as-yet-unrealized capabilities of future generations of information technology.

2. Major Federal research applications have

stimulated the computer industry and will

likely continue to do so---Scientific and

engineering applications have stretched the

capacities of information technologies and

tested them in ways that other applications

cannot. Eventually, the techniques and capabilities developed to serve these demands

make their way into the broader community of

computer users. Although the computer industry structure and markets are changing, this

form of technology transfer will likely continue.

3. U.S. economic growth and societal strength

can be assisted by the development of a

natienal information infrastructure that

couples a universal high-speed data communication network with a wide range of

powerful computational and information

resourcesIn a recent report, C Mica! Connections: Communication for the Future, OTA

stated:

Given the increased dependence of American businesses on information and its exchange, the competitive statug among businesses and in the global economy will increasingly depend on the technical capabilities, quality, and cost of [their] communication faci:Ities . .. Failure to exploit these

opportunities is almost certain to leave many

businesses and nations behind.7

In that report, OTA listed "modernization and

technological development of the communication

infrastructure" as one of the five key areas of future

policy concern. The high-performance computing

7U.S. Congress, Office of To,chnology Assersment, Critical Connections: Communication for the Future, OTA-CIT-407 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 199n), p. 6.
Chapter IHigh-Performance Computing and Information Infrastructure fir Science and Engineering 5

and networking initiative reflects a mixture of three

basic goals: 1) enhancing R&D, 2) accelerating

innovation in U.S. information technology, and 3)

stimulating the development of a universal broadband digital network in the United States. Achieving

the last goal will ultimately bring information and

educational opportunities to the doorstep of most

American homes.

An Infrastructure for Science

Science and Information Technology

Are Closely Linked

Whether computers are made of silicon chips,

optical glass fibers, gallium arsenide compounds, or

superconducting ceramics, and regardless of the

architecture, the basic elements of computers are the

samedata, logic, and language.

Data is the substance that is processed or

manipulated by the technology; often. but not

always, numerical.

Logic is the nature of the process, from basic

arithmetic to extremely complex reasoning and

analysis.

Language is the means of communicating from

the user to the machine what is to be done, and

from the machine to the user the result of that

action.

These three elements are also basic to science.

They characterize the nature of research and the

work of scientists.

Researchers collect data from measurements of

natural phenomena, experiments, pure mathematics, and, increasingly, from computer calculations and simulations. Data can take many

forms, e.g., numbers, symbols, images, sounds,

and words.

Researchers build logical structurestheories,

mathematical and computer models, and so

onto describe and understand the phenomena

they are studying.

Researchers communicate their work among

themselves in common scientific languages.

This communication is a continuing process

both formal and informalthat lies at the heart

of the scientific method. It is based on exposing

ideas to the critical review of peers, allowing

the reproduction of experiments and analyses,

and encouraging the evolution of understanding based on prior knowledge.

Scientists invented the computer to serve research

needs during World War II. In the late 1960s,

research needs led to the development of ARPANET

the first nationwide communication system designed specifically to carry data betwcen computers.

NSF operated a Computer Facilities Program in the

late 1960s and early 1970s that assisted ui iversities

in upgrading their scientific computing capabilities

for research and education. Today, computers are

used throughout society, but researchers, joined by

industry, are still driving the evolution of information technology and finding new applications for the

most powerful computer and communication technologies.

The invention of the printing press in the 15th

century created the conditions for the development

and flourishing of modern science and scholarship.

Not only did the press allow authors to communicate

their ideas accurately, but the qualities of the

medium stimulated entirely new methods and institutions of learning. Similarly, electronic information

technology is again changing the nature of basic

research. The character of the researchthe way

data are collected, analyzed, studied, and communicatedhas changed because of :echnology.

Computational research has joined experimentation and theory as a major mode of investigation.

Scientists now use computer models to analyze very

complex processes such as the flow of gases around

a black hole or the wind patterns around the eye of

a hurricane or typhoon (see boxes A and B). These

and other areas of research, such as global climate

change, can be accomplished only with high-peiformance computing. They cannot use conventional

mathematical and experimental approaches because

of the complexity of the phenomena.

Research is generating data at unprecedented

rates. The human genome database is projected to

eventually contain over 3 billion units of information. Earth observation experiments in space will

collect and send to Earth trillions of units of data

daily. A single image of the United States, with

resolution to a square yard, contains nearly a trillion

data points. Current data storage technologies are

unable to store, organize, 'and transmit the amounts

of data that will be generated from these projects.

Long-term storage capabilities must be researched

and developed. "Big science" projects, such as

those mentioned above, should devote a portion of

their budgets for R&D ni high-capacity data storage

A
6 Seeking Solutions: High-Performance Computing for Science

Box ABlack Holes: The Mysteries

of the Universe

A Mack hole is an object in space, whose mass is

so dense that nothing is able to escape its gravitational pull, not even light. Astronomers think the

universe is populated with black holes that are the

remains of collapsed stars. Much of the research

conducted on the universe has implications for

other areas of study, such as physics. Below is a

visualization of the three dimensional flow of gases

past a black hole. The computer codes used to create

this image can also be used to determine the

accuracy of computer generated models of three

dimension fluid flows.

Collaborative efforts between NSF-funded

supercomputer centers, the National Center for

Supercomputing Application (NCSA) in Illinois

and The Cornell Theory Center, resulted in a video

of the phenomenon pictured. The computer code

used to derive the data was written by researchers at

Cornell and was run on Cornell's IBM 3090

computer. NCSA remotely accessed the data via

NSFNET from Cornell. At the Illinois center

researchers worked with a scientific animator who,

using Waverfront Technologies Graphic Software

tools and a graphics packaged designed at NCSA,

processed the data on a Alliant computer. The

research team created a rough contoured image of

the cell with the Alliant. The researchers returned to

Cornell and modified the contouring graphics

programs, creating a videotape on Silicon Graphics

workstation at Cornell. The project was the first

joint effort between NSF supercomputer centers.

Utilizing the expertise of two centers was instrumental in graphically depicting three-dimensional

fluid flow.

1,9 villkilisystems if such large projects are to be successful.

New forms of institutions and procedures to manage

massive data banks are also needed.

Journal articles have been the major form of

communication among scientists. Publishers are

beginning to develop electronic journals, accessed

directly over communication networks or distributed in computer readable form. The different nature

of electronic storage means that these new "publications" will likely look, behave, and be used differently than printed journals. They may contain

information in a variety of forms: high-defmition

video, moving images, sound, large experimental

data sets, or software. Using so-called "hypermedia" and multimedia techniques, these electroni,:

journals can be linked to other related articles, films,

and so on. They can evolve and change over time,

containing later annotations by the original author or

others, or references to later articles that advanced or

stemmed from the original work.

Scientists communicate with each other continually by letter, telephone, conferences, and seminars,

and by meeting personally around the departmental

coffee pot. These modes of communication are often

as important to research as formal publications. All

of these modes will likely continue in some form, but

digital communication systems provide many new

powerful ways to communicateelectronic mail,

computer conferences, and bulletin boards. Proximity, time, and travel are less important in using these

new communication paths. With bulletin boards and

electronic mail, information can be exchanged much

faster than by mail and with accuracy and detail that

is impossible to achieve with telephone. Since the

participants need not travel, computer conferences

can accommodate large numbers of panicipants.

Sessions can take place over weeks or months, and

people can participate in the electronic meeting

wherever they are at whatever time is convenient.

A National Infrastructure for Research

and Education

These information technologies and applications

are merging into an interconnected network of

resources referred to in telecommunication's parlance as an "Information Infrastructure." This

infrastructure is a conceptual collection of linked

resources made up of:
Chapter 1High-Performance Computing and Thformation Infrastructure for Science and Engineering 7

Box BSupertyphoon Hope

A typhoon is a tropical storm confined to the western Pacific Ocean, referred to as hurricanes in the Western

Hemisphere. The cyclonic storms are usually accompanied by extremely low atmospheric pressure, high winds of

over 100 knots, and vast amounts of rainfall. These storms can wreak havoc when they reach land, at which time

they dissipate. A series of computer-generated images that trace the 6-day evolution of supertyphoon Hope are

shown here. The supertyphoon's course was simulated using a computer model. Researchers were able to measure

the precision of their model by comparing its results to the data gathered during the storm in 1979. Developing

accurate weather models continues to be difficult despite advances in technology. Weather models must incorporate

many variables such a winds, temperatures, the oceans, and atmospheric pressures.

Researchers processed their weather model at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) remotely

from their home institute, Florida State University (FSU). Using a NASA computer network, the group accessed

an 1BM 4381 computer, which served as the front end machir for a Cray X-MP. After the data were processed at

NCAR, it was transferred to magnetic tapes and mailed to FSU tor further analysis. (An increase in bandwidth now

allows the researchers to separate large data sets into sections and send them over high bandwidth computer

networks.) At FSU the data were translated into images using a Silicon Graphics Workstation. Data collected from

the storm in 1979 are stored on computers at NCAR. The data were used tomeasure the accuracy of FSU's weather

model. The computer-generated storm was accurate within hours of the actual events of Supertypoon Hope.

The facilities at NCAR were especially suited for the needs of the FSU researchers since both the staff and

resources were geared towards atmospheric and ocean modeling. Researchers frequently visit NCAR for user

conferences and have become fam.liar with many of the technical support staff.

30N

20N

28N

18N !

I ON 8N

130E 140E 150E 128E

72h

28N 33N

I

I 18N r

1 8N

23N

1

24h 48h

27N

7N

138E 1 48E 126E 136E

96h

125E 135E 145E 119E 129E 144h

37N

27N

'

17N

108E 118E 128E

139E

met orsh,neortd

0' 10

40

50

60

35N

25N

15N

112E

120h

if\ /

_

146E

N1

122E 132E
8 Seeking Solutions: High-Petformance Computing for Science

A Nationwide High-Speed Broadband Advanced

Information Communication Network

This computer-to-computer network is composed

of many partslocal networks on campuses and in

research facilities, State and regional networks, and

one or more national "backbone" networks interconnecting them all. This domestic backbone would

link to networks in other countries. Some of the

domestic networks will be private commercial

networks; others may be operated by private nonprofit organizations, and still others may be government-funded and/or managed.

Specialized and General Purpose Computers

Users will be able to access the newest, most

powerful supercomputers. There will be a variety of

specialized machines tailored to specific uses and

applications because of the developing nature of

current computer architectures. They will be used for

database searches, graphical output, and artificial

intelligence applications such as pattern recognition

and expert systems. Researchers will have access to

a heterogeneous computing environment where

several specialized machines, each with their own

strengths, are linked through a software network that

will allow users to simultaneously exploit the power

of each computer to solve portions of a single

application.

Collections of Specialized Applications Programs

Some application programs are extremely large

and represent years of development effort. They may

be maintained and updated centrally and made

available over the network. Groups can also make

available libraries of commercial or public domain

software that could be distributed to local computers.

Remote Access to Research Instruments

Some research facilities house one-of-a-kind instruments, unique because of their cost or their site

location, such as telescopes, environmental monitoring devices, oceanographic probes, seismographs,

space satellite-based instruments, and so on. Remote

use and control of these instruments is possible

through the network infrastructure.

Services To Support and Enhance

Scientific Communication

These services include electronic mail and conferencing systems, bulletin boards, and electronic

journals through which researchers can communicate with each other. They also will include scholarly bibliographic reference and abstracting services, and online card catalogs linked to key research

libraries.

"Digital Libraries" and Archives

These resources would contain collections--ac

reference materialsbooks, journals, sound recordings, photographs and films, software, and other

types of informationarchived in digital electronic

form. These also include major scientific and

technical databases such as the human genome

database, time-series environmental data from satellites, and astronomical images. Some visionaries see

the network eventually providing access to a connection with a "Global Digital Library," a distributed collection of facilities that would store electronically most of the world's most important information.

Facilities for Analyzing and Displaying

the Results of Computations

Rcsearchers who simulate large, complex systems

must develop ways to interpret these simulations to

replace examining enormous quantities of computergenerated numbers. These researchers need to interact with the model; directly controlling the computer

is the next step. Researchers are developing new

ways to "see" their models by visualizing them

directly or by tn.! of methods such as holograms that

provide three-dimensional views. Other researchers

are developing tactile systems that, through special

gloves and visors, allow a person to "feel" simulated objects or act as if they were moving about in

a simulated environment ("virtual reality"). Researchers on the network will draw on specialized

centers of technology and expertise to help them

develop interfaces with computations and databases.

The Current Federal Picture

Recent Studies

Over the last 8 years, the key Federal science

agencies and private groups have assessed the role of

information technology in science and engineering

research. These studies have concluded that computers and communication technology are critically

important to R&D and the competitive position of

the United States in the global economy. The studies

pointed out shortcomings in the current system and

recommended Federal actions.

i7
Chapter 1High-Performance Computing and Information Infrastructure for Science and Engineering 9

The Lax Report

In 1982, the Panel on Large Scale Computing in

Science and Engineering issued a report that became

known as the "Lax Report" after its chairman, Peter

Lax. It was jointly funded by the NSF and the

Department of Defense. The panel noted that the

U.S. research establishment seriously lacks access to

high-performance computing. It found that this

deficiency harms U.S. preeminence in R&D and

threatens the current strong position of the U.S.

computer industry. To remedy this, the panel recommended a national supercomputer program consisting of four basic components:

1. establish national supercomputing centers and

develop "a nation-wide interdisciplinary network through which users will have access to

facilities";

2. support research in software and algorithms

particularly work on parallelism and other new

computer architectures for high-performance

computing in the future;

3. support education and training programs for

new users in order to assist the research

community in using supercomputer applications; and

4. support research aimed at developing new,

faster, supercomputers.

Variation of these four elements are repeated in the

subsequent proposals and initiatives.

Thr. ilardon/Curtis Report

At the request of Congress, NSF undertook an

internal review of the Lax Report designed to form

a program plan. The 1983 report, which became

known as the Bardon/Curtis Report, offered an

ambitious program plan with several recommendations for NSF:

1. "greatly increase its [NSF's] support for local

computing facilities, including individual workstations, systems for research groups, specialized

computer facilities, and local area networks";

2. establish 10 supercomputer centers;

3. support the establishment of networks to link

users with the supercomputer centers; and

4. "support a program of academic research ii

the areas of advanced computer systems de -

sign."

National Academy of Sciences/COSEPUP

In 1989, the Committee on Science, Engineering,

and Public Policy of the National Academy of

Sciences (NAS) published a report, Information

Techrology and the Conduct of Research,8 which

examined the needs of science for new technological

initiatives. This report, prepared by a panel chaired

by Donald Langenberg, emphasized the changing

form of research and its increased dependence on

new information technologies. The report advised

against leaving the design and operation of these

programs only to the technical experts. Systems

designers must learn what the users need, then

design the system. The panel made two recommendations to do this:

"The institutions that support U.S. research,

including universities, industry, and Government should develop and support policies,

services, and standards that help researchers

use information technology more widely and

productively, and

"The institutions supporting the nation's researchers, led by the Federal government,

should develop an interconnected national information technology network for use by all

qualified researchers."

The panel recognized that industry, the universities, libraries, professional societies, and the Federal

Government share responsibilities for this. The

Federal role, according to the committee, should

include leadership and coordination in the development of technologies and services to support the

research and education needs in addition to funding.

National Association of State Universities

and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC)

In 1989, NASULGC issued a report, Supercomputing for the 1990's: A Shared Responsibility, on

the need to make high-performance computing

available for academic research, that contained

recommendations for the Federal Government and

universities. It points out that a computing infrastructure would have to include facilities operated

by a variety of institutions beyond the Federal

Government. Federal policy, it suggests, should be

tailored to encouraging and leveraging private,

regional, and local efforts. Recommendations for

Federal action include:

INAS report.
10 Seeking Solutions: High-Performance Computing for Science

supporting the national supercomputer centers

and maintaining them at the technological

leading edge;

"fostering and encouraging university, state,

and iegional supercomputing facilities" (of

which the report identified 27);

supporting the development of a national network; and

assuring the "constancy" of support.

These recommendations reflect concern that the

support of NSF national centers would draw funds

away from computing at non-NSF centers. The

report notes that the non-NSF centers will also play

an important role in the future of scientific computing. NASIMGC further observes that changing

policies and unpredictable funding disrupts operations and discourages the development of facilities.

EDUCOM

EDUCOM is an association of higher education

institutions. It functions as a clearing house for

information and expertise about computers and

communication technologies. EDUCOM's university consortium created and manages BITNET, a

private, shared network that serves the networking

needs of academics at a low cost. Its Networking and

Telecommunications Task Force examined the Federal networking and computing initiatives and has

produced several policy statements and reports.

A statement, released in March 1990, focuses on

the network. It makes a series of specific recommendations on implementing the NREN, but its statement of the basic goal for a network is broad:

MEN). . . is to enhance national competitiveness and productivity through a high-speed, highquality network infrastructure which supports a

broad set of applications and network services for the

research and education community.9

Common Themes

The series of reports strikes some common

themes. Threc points, in particular, are important to

the current policy debate.

First, the network has become the key element.

Seen first as simply a means to access expensive oi

highly specialized computing resources (similar to

the initial intentions for ARPANET), the network

has become the basic foundation for the information

infrastructure, connecting researchers and students

not only to computers, but providing access to a wide

range of services.

The network is actually an internet, a family of

networks (networks within networks), the design

and operation of which needs coordination and

leadership from the Federal science agencies. OTA's

forthcoming report on the NREN will explore these

issues in depth.

Second, educational needs are now part of the

NREN plan although it is undecided how wide the

range of users and institutions will be. In any event,

this will affect network architecture and operating

policies. Once referred to as a National Research

Network (NRN), it is now known as a National

Research and Education Network (NREN). This

evolution was natural. It is impossible to separate

education from research at the graduate level. There

are also strong arguments for including undergraduates, secondary schools, and even primary schools in

the system. To better coordinate the educational

community's views on how the NREN may assist

education, the Department of Education and State

and local educators must be actively involved in the

policy process.

The question of scope of the network extends to

research in non-science scholarly disciplines, some

of which are not well-funded by Federal programs.

The wide range of services offered, including access

to libraries, bibliographic services, electronic mail,

bulletin boards, computer conferencing, and so on,

extends the network's potential scholarly beneficiaries beyond just scientists and engineers.

A third commonly raised issue in the reports is the

need to look beyond mere hardware. Computers

need software that make them accessible and usable

by researchers. A network needs software tools and

data-bases that allow scientists to communicate

effectively with one another. Databases need inquiry

systems (search engines), indices, tables of contents,

directories, hypertext, and other tools to enable users

to search, identify, and retrieve the information they

need for their work. To properly develop an infrastructure that is useful to all science, attention must

be paid to software as well as hardware.

Other groups also rely on access to scientific

information. Public interest groups with concerns of

9EDUCOM, The National Research and Education Network. op. cit., footnote 4, p. 3.
Chapter 1High-Petformance Computing and Information Infrastructure for Science and Engineering 11

public safety and health, the environment, energy,

defense policy, and so on, rely on access to scientific

publications and databases and attendance at conferences and seminars. The press, particularly the

specialized scientific and technical press, must

access conferences, journals, and other forms of

electronic communication.

In most cases, these applications, which enable

effective access and use of information, are neither

simple nor obvious. Developing them will require

significant research and software development as

well as better understanding of how information

technology can best assist scholars in their work.

The answers to these questions will also depend on

the nature and breadth of the constituency for the

network. Different users will have different skills,

analytical strategies, and research styles depending,

in part, on the traditions of their particular disciplines and their level of training.

The Government's Role Is Changing

The Federal Government has major responsibilities for the health of basic and academic research in

the United States, both as a user of the products and

from its role in supporting science and engineering

to advance the economy and improve the quid' y of

life. The government is already participating heavily

in the development and management of the existing

R&D information infrastructurehi using it, funding it, and in setting policies. The government must

deal with additional responsibilities resulting from

the new infrastructure. The challenge will be to

organize and assemble a government entity to: 1)

identify and determine promising technological

directions for the high-performance computing infrastructure; 2) evaluate progress over the course of

the High-Performance Computing (HPC) initiative;

and 3) make course corrections at the appropriate

times.

First, facilities need to be highly interconnected.

They must connect physically and logically with the

network. Digital signals must conform to standards

and protocols in the same way that electrical

appliances must plug into standard 110 volt, 60 Hz

AC power outlets. Users must be able to transmit and

receive communications, programs, and data seamlessly and transparently to and from each nook and

cranny in the system. Government policies and

programs must be coordinated if interconnectability

is to be achieved.

33-982 - 91 - 2 2

Second, many of the shared resources cut across

agencies, institutions, disciplines, and programs.

This feature of sharing is most obvious in the

physical network; but it is also true for many of the

computing facilities, data archives, and network

services such as directories, bulletin boards, and

electronic mail. Thus, many policy decisions regarding the use and access to these resources and services

must be made at an interagency level. Furthermore,

new private networks and service corporations now

provide networking services to public and private

customers. The policies of these private entities will

become more important as the network moves

towards full commercialization.

Third, the facilities will be expensive and require

large capital investments. The Federal Government

will be asked to share these costs with States, local

governments, other countries, research and educational institutions, industrial users, service providers, and individual users. Private entities may be

expected to contribute substantially as well. But

while technological risks may be acceptable to

private companies. The commercial risks may be

unacceptable without government support.

Fourth, many of the resources on the network will

be unique and of great nationaleven international

importance, e.g., a supercomputer dedicated to

global climate modeling or the human genome

database. Access to these scarce resources must

reflect a cooperative set of goals, to determine

access, decide who can use it, and to set national

priorities. Federal policies are needed to balance and

ensure equitable access and security. The Executive

Office of the President (OSTP) and congressional

committees may be called on to referee conflicts

among competing interests from time to time. A

well-organized Federal management system responsible for policy oversight and operation of the HPC

and network infrastructure can anticipate or avoid

many problems, and thus reduce the need for

political resolutions.

Finally, the government must assist in advancing

the state of computer and communication technologies to hasten the development of more powerful

high-performance computers, faster data communications, and more effective software. Several studies

by NAS, OSTP, and others have identified "Grand

Challenges in Research" of critical national importance, but which are currently unachievable because
12 Seeking Solutions: High-Performance Computing for Science

of inadequate computing power.1° What is needed

are computers that are hundredseven thousands

of times faster than the best now available. Similarly, the "data explosion" demands better and

faster storage technology to archive large data sets.

The rapidly growing communication needs of science require switched wide-area digital communication networks capable of moving billions of units of

information per second to and from researchers.

The Structure of Federal Policy

Researchers foresee computers that will soon

perform a trillion arithmetic steps ("teraflops'') per

second, data communication systems that can transmit billions of units of data ("gigabits") per second,

and electronic storage systems that can tore correspondingly large amounts of information and absorb

and disgorge it at rates matched to the speed of the

computers and communication lines. New hardware

will require new streamlined software to operate the

high-speed computers and communications networks efficiently.

Developing, Managing, and Funding

Major Resources

A striking trend in information technology is the

development of inexpensive input and output devices

computers, telephones, facsimile machines, and so

onthat are affordable and easy to use. But the

opposite is happening in the development of advanced computers and communications technology.

High-performance computers, data networks, and

archiving facilities are extremely expensive to build

and operate. They are complicated technologies that

require experts to develop and operate. Such expensive and complicated systems must be located in a

few central facilities and made available to network

users through such installations as the National

Supercomputer Centers, NSFNET, the planned Human Genome Data Archive, and so on.

Allocating Resources and Assuring

Equitable Access

The network raises a number of allocation and

access issues that must be resolved. The number of

high-perfbrmance computers and elaborate research

instruments, such as telescopes or particle accelerators, are limited because of their high capital and

operating costs. Universal access is not feasible, yet

these facilities are critical to certain types of

research. An equitable, fair process for allocating

time on these facilities is crucial.

Network utility features, such as electronic mail,

bulletin boards, journals, and so on, are basic to

research in any field. Without them, one is locked

out of the profession of science, Every researcher

must have access to these services.

Updating Information Policies

Policies that currently govern the existing networks were developed to resolve conflicts over

access and control of the information, e.g., protecting the privacy and confidentiality of communications and data on the network, or enforcing intellectual property rights. There are many more information policy questions concerning the rights and

responsibilities to various electronic forms of communication that must still be addressed. Should

"electronic mail" be protected like first class mail?

Should bulletin board operators be legally responsible for messages placed on their boards? Does the

First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protect

the sender? Should intellectual property protections

be granted to electronic databases? If so, what form?

Answers to these and other information policy

questions will determine how the network is used

and what services will be offered.

Adapting Science Policy

Just as an information infrastructure may change

the way science is done,it may also lead to the need

to change Federal science policy to accommodate

these changes. High-performance computers may

loOSTP defines (Jrand Challenges as ".. ,a fundamental problem in science or engineering, with potentially broad economic, political. and/or

scientific impact. that could be advanced by applying high performance computing resources." Examples include: 1) Computational fluid dynamicsfor

the design of hypersonic aircraft or efficient automobile bodies and recovery of oil; 2) Computer based weather and climate forecasts, and understanding

of global environmental changes; 3) Electronic structure calculations for the design of new materials such as chemical catalysts, immunological agents

and superconductors; 4) Plasma dynamics for fusion energy technology and for safe and efficient military technology; 5) Calculations to improve the

understanding of the fundamental nature of matter, including quantum chromodynamics and condensed matter theory; and Machine vision to enable

real-time analysis of complex images for control of mechanical systems. See Office of Science and Technology Policy, The Federal High Performance

Computing Program (Washington, DC; 1989). p. 8,

0 1
Chapter IHigh-Peiformance Computing and Information Infrastructure for Science and Engineering /3

change research priorities and create new ways for

research groups to organize and work together.

Determining the Type of Technology

The purpose of the technology will drive future

policies. Management questions arising from the

design and operation of a nationwide, ultra-high

speed communication network may differ in nature

from the problems of supporting and operating

National Supercomputer Centers. But decisions

related to both will collectively determine how

effectively a national information infrastructure will

be used in research and education.

On the other hand, information policy issues

that relate to the information that flows through the

network-connected facilitiesare seamlessly

linked. Although the technical means for protecting

and controlling information moving over the system

may differ from computer to computer, or application to application, information policies arc less

dependent on the nature of the technology than on

the generic issues. Privacy protection, access control, data security, and intellectual property psqection are problems that need to be addressed ih;ross

the board. Similarly, changes in the framework of

Federal Government support and oversight of science policy will affect all technologies, disciplines,

and agencies.

Deter mining Access

Depending on how one views the NREN, it is seen

serving widely different user groups. ranging from a

few federally funded high-end researchers engaged

in "Big Science," to the scholarly community, to

education from kindergarten through secondary

schools. Both technical design decisions and policy

will affect these various users in different ways.

Who the intended user will be is a critically

important consideration in making NREN policy. It

is a subject dealt with in detail in a forthcoming OTA

Report that focuses on the network as a broadband

advanced communication infrastructure to simultaneously deliver data, video, and voice service.

Major Strategic Concerns

The mutual dependence and interconnectedness

of a national information infrastructure will force the

Federal Government to develop long-term strategies

to guide the overall development of the NREN: this

must be done in concert with a coordinated program

to provide high-performance computer-based tools

for science, research and education.

Breadth of Scope

Long-Range Planning Needs

Creating the infrastructure, the network, and its

related resources, is not a one-time job. There are

misconceptions that information infrastructure is a

static concept only needing to be plugged in. This is

not so; new applications will appear and the

capabilities of technology will continue to grow and

change. The system will, therefore, be a continually

evolving assembly of technologies and services.

Therefore planning and operating the NREN must be

considered a dynamic process. An institutional

framework must be developed to ensure its success.

Studies on information technology and science

(including OTA's) rely on anecdotal examples,

"gee-whiz" speculation about future applications,

and the subjective views of the research and

education community. These arguments are persuasive and sufficient to justify the support for the

NREN, but they do not contribute sufficiently to

long-term management and planning for the operation of the infrastructure. The Federal investment in

computer, communication, and data resources for

science and engineering should be based on a

periodic assessment of needs and changing technologies. This assessment should include:

surveys of existing resourcespublic, private

nonprofit, and commercial, such as:

specialized and general purpose highperformance computing facilities;

Federal, State, and local data communication

network s;

scientific and technical databases; and

software packages for research uses.

utilization levels of existing facilities by categories such as:

field of research;

government, academic, or industrial use; and

research, graduate education, undergraduate

education, or pre-college education.

Barriers to efficient use of facilities, such as:

policy or legal barriers;

lack of standards for interconnection of

systems; and

user difficulties such as lack of training,

inadequate user interfaces, or lack of software and services.

9
14 Seeking Solutions: High-Performance Computing for Science

Projections of future computing needs (particularly, assessments of the need for new, largescale research initiatives.)

Although NSF attempts to keep tabs on the

computational and information needs of the science

community, the pace of technological development

and massive new science projects make such information more important during periods of tight

budgets. These data are difficult to compile, and

special efforts are needed to provide such planning

data to those decisionmakers responsible for anticipating future national computing needs.
Chapter 2

Policy Considerations for High-Performance Computing

Currently the National Science Foundation (NSF)

sponsors five leading edge computational centers,

the four national supercomputer centers and the

National Center for Atmospheric Researcher (NCAR)

(see app. A). When the centers were established, one

goal of the NSF initiative was to nationally provide

researchers with access to leading edge technology.

Prior to the NSF program, U.S. researchers and

scientists had little opportunityoutside of Federal

laboratoriesto access supercomputers. Since their

creation, the centers have been extremely successful

in providing access to supercomputing resources to

academic and industrial researchers.

The success of the NSF centers has made them the

target of a debate over funding strategies for their

support. It is noteworthy that they are not the only

such facilities funded by the Federal Government or

.,ven by NSF. Computers, especially large-scale

computers, always have required relatively large

institutional structures to operate. The Department

of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Defense

(DoD) fund many more computational centers at a

considerably higher cost than the NSF. Government

establishment and support of scientific computing

facilities date back to the earliest days of computing.

Furthermore, high-performance computing is becoming increasingly important to all of science and

engineering. The issue is not whether science,

education, and engineering in the United States need

high-performance computing centers, but rather how

these centers should be supported, and how the costs

of that support should be allocated over the long

term.

It is imperative that the United States: 1) continue

to steadily advance the capabilities of leading edge

computer technology; 2) provide the R&D community with adequate computing resources; and 3)

expand and improve the use of high-performance

computing in science and engineering.

Advancing Computer Technology

Computers lie on the nearly seamless lines

between basic research, applied research, and the

development of new technologies. A program intended to advance the state-of-the-art of highperformance computing must include:

15

physics research on fundamental devices, superconductors, quantum semiconductors, optical switches, and other advanced components;

basic research in computer science and computer engineering, including theoretical and

experimental work in computer architecture

and a variety of other fields such as distributed

systems, software engineering, computational

complexity, data structures, programming languages, and intelligent systems;

applied research and assembly of experimental

laboratory testbed machines for exploring new

concepts;

experimentation, evaluation, and development

of software for new prototype computers, e.g.,

the Connection Machine, Hypercube or neural

nets;

development of human resources and facilities

for computing research needed to support a

high-performance computing initiative, which

requires additional trained researchers and

research facilities;

research and development of new technologies

for data storage and retrieval (this may be the

biggest technological bottleneck in the future);

and

creation of new algorithms tailored for advanced architectures to meet the needs of

scientists and engineers for greater computional capabilities.

Difficulties and Barriers

Funding

The term "computational science" is used to

define research devoted to applying computers to

computationally intensive research problems in

science and engineering. It is focused on developing

techniques for using high-performance computing to

solve scientific problems in fields such as chemistry,

physics, biology, and engineering. Though growing,

the base funding level for computer and computational science and engineering is currently low.

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

(DARPA), NSF, DOE (particularly national laboratories such as Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore

Laboratory), the National Institute of Science and

Technology (NIST), National Aeronautics and Space
16 Seeking Solutions: High-Performance Computing for Science

Administration (NASA), and the National Institutes

of Health have all contributed to improving the

state-of-the-art of computer technology and its

application to science and technology. There is,

however, no clear lead agency to focus a national

high-performance computing program.

A significant or substantial increase in the support

of computational science as part of a highperformance computing initiative would require a

relatively large additional investment. There is

disagreement among researchers in the various

disciplines about increasing funding for computational science. Some fear that investments in this

area would reduce funds avaih.ble for other research

activities.

Procurement Regulations

In addition to the expense involved, obtaining

prototype machines for experimental use has become more difficult because of some agency interpretations of Federal procurement law. In the past,

research agencies have stimulated the development

of advanced computer systems by purchasing early

models for research use. Contracts for these machines were sometimes written before the machine

was manufactured. The agency would then participate in the design and contribute expertise for

software development. This cooperative approach

was one key to advancing high-performance computing in the 1960s and 1970s. Unfortunately, the

process has become more difficult as Federal

procurement regulations for computing systems

have become tighter and more complex.

Policy Issues

Federal support of computing R&D is intertwined

with the political debates over technology policy,

industrial policy, and the appropriate balance of

responsibility between the Federal Government and

the private sector in developing computer technology. Computing researchers study basic, and often

abstract, r licepts including the nature of complex

processes and algorithms. But, the results of their

work can have important practical implications for

the design of computer hardware and software.

Computing research is often based on the study of

prototypes and artifacts rather than natural phenomena. Consequently, Fe:feral support is sometimes

viewed as technologicalrather than scientific---in

nature. Moreover, Federal defense procurement

directly supports the U.S. computer and software

industry. Because of this relationship with industry,

the High Performance Computing Initiative : .variably blends the role of traditional Federal science

policy with Federal efforts to support precompetitive activities of a strategically important industry.

This has led to confusion and debate over the goals

and appropriateness of the proposed High Performance Computing Initiative.

Providing Access to Resources

Federal support for educational and research

computer resources must broker their use among

many different users with different needs at many

different institutions. Policies that serve some users

well may shortchange others. There are three general

objectives that serve all: 1) provide funds for

acquiring computer hardware and software; 2) assist

in meeting operational expenses to maintain and

manage facilities; and 3) ensure that scarce computational resources are distributed fairly to the widest

range of users.

No single Federal program for supporting scientific computing is likely to serve the needs and

policy objectives for all facilities and user groirkm

Support must come from a variety of coordinated

programs. For example, since the inception of NSF's

Advanced Scientific Computing programs, debates

over support of the national supercomputer centers

have reflected many different, and often contradictory, views of the roles the centers should play and

the constituencies they serve.

Difficulties and Barriers

Diversity of Sources

Computers are expensive to buy and to operate.

For larger machines, usage crosses many disciplines

and users are associated with many different acadc *c institutions and industrial organizations. Supplying computer time can be a significant burden on

research budgets, and support is often found by

pooling funds from several sources.

No Natural Limits

Researchers seem to have an insatiable appetite

for computer time. This perplexes policymakers

who are used to dealing with expenditves for fixed

cost items. One can estimate the number and kind of

laboratory apparatus a chemist might need or

microscopes a biology laboratory can use, based on

the physical requirements of the researchers. How-
Chapter 2Policy Considerations for High-Performance Computing 17

ever, the modeling of a complex organic chemical

molecule for the design of a new pharmaceutical

could saturate significant supercomputer resources.

The potential use for supercomputer capacity appears to be limitless.

Administrators at research laboratories and government funding agencies have difficulties assessing

computing needs and justifying new expenditures,

either for purchase of additional computer time or

for investments in upgrading equipment. It is even

harder to predict future needs as researchers conceive new applications and become more sophisti- cated in developing innovative computer uses.

Those conflicting demands on the Federal sciencc

budget require careful balancing.

Disincentives to Investment

Support for computing resources may come from

individual institutions themselves by underwriting

the capital investment. The capital investment and

operation costs are partially recaptured through fees

charged back to the users. However, this model has

not worked successfully, for a couple oi reasons.

First, a multimillion dollar high-performance

computer is a risky investment for an individual

research institution. The risk is even greater for

experimental machines whose potential use is difficult to anticipate. The institution must gamble that:

1) there is sufficient potential demand among

research staff for the facilities; 2) federally supported researchers will have adequate funds to cover

:he costs: and 3) researchers with funds will choose

to use the new computer rather than an outside

facility.

Networks expand the possible user community of

the facility, but they also provide access to competing systems at other institutions. In the past,

researchers were, by and large, captive users of their

own institutional facilities. Networks free them from

this bondage. Now, researchers can use "distributed" computer resources elsewhere on the network.

Faced with a wider "market" for computer time,

research institutions may have less incentive to

invest in more advanced systems, and instead

upgrade local area networks to link with the

NSFNET high-capacity backbone. On the other

hand, networks can improve the efficiency and

cost-effectiveness of computing by distributing computing capabilities.

Pricing policies for computer time must be

carefully scaled to recover the costs of capital

investments in hardware. High-computing costs can

result in loss of revenue as researchers seek better

rates at other institutions. The government requires

that federally supported researchers pay no more

than nonsupported researchers for computer time.

But to ensure that operations break even, computer

centers are forced to charge a rate equal to the costs

divided by usage. This policy seems reasonable and

equitable on the surface, but it results in higher rates

for computer time whia machine usage is light and

lower rates as it gows. This pattern produces an

upside-down market similar to that of the electric

utilities before capital costs forced them to shave

peak loads by charging a premium for power during

periods of high usage. This is the reverse of airline

rates where fares are lower when seats are empty and

higher when planes are full.

Support Strategies

These disincentives and barriers have tended to

limit investments in high-performance computers

for research at a time when an increasing amount of

important research requires access to more computational capacity. The Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) High Performance Computing

Initiative, funding agencies' program plans, and pending legislation are aimed at balancing the

Nation's R&D needs with high-performance computing capacity.

Foul basic funding strategies to achieve this goal

are described below;

Fully Support Federally Owned and

Operated Centers

The most expedient strategy is to establish

government-owned and operated facilities. The government could directly fund investments for hardware and software. and the centers' operational

costs. There current!), are several government funded

and operated computational centers administered by

the mission agencies. (See app. A, table A-1.)

Government-financed computational centers pro- vide a testbed for prototype machines and novel

architectures that can help bolster the U.S. computer

industry against foreign competition. Software development, critically needed for high-performance

computing, is commonly a major activity at these

centers.

6
18 Seeking Solutions: 1-1:jh-Petforhiance Computing for Science

A Federal high-performance computing initiative

could select specific computational centers for full

funding and operation by the Federal Government.

A Federal agency might be needed to supervise the

creation and management of the centers. Hardware

would be owned or leased by the government. The

center might be operated by a government contractor. The personnel, support staff und services, could

either work directly for the government or a government contractor. These centers would be in addition

to the existing mission agency computing centers.

Federally owned and operated computational

centers currently exist under the management of

several Federai mission agencies. The national

laboratoriesLos Alamos, Sandia, and Livermore

are operated by the DOE. Much of their work

relates to national security programs, such as weapons research. NASA, DoD, Ind the Department of

Commerce operate high-performance computing

centers. NASA's centers primarily conduct aerospace and aerodynamic research. DoD operates over

15 supercomputers, whose research ranges from

usage by the Army Corps of Engineers to Navy ship

R&D to Air Force Llobal weather prediction to

intelligence activities of le National Security Agency

(NSA). However, they do not fill the general needs

of the science ?nd education community. Access to

these mission agency centers is limited, and only a

small portion of the science comr.mity can use their

facilities. The Federal Government could similarly

own and operate computational centers for academic

missions as well.

While federally owned and operated computing

centers might risk experimentation with novel,

untested computer concepts that academic or industrial organizations cannot afford, there is a possibility that this strategy could blossom into an additional

layer of bureaucracy. The advantages of having

direct government control over allocating computer

time based on national priorities and acquiring

leading :Age technologies is offset by the risk of

having government mana6ers making decisions that

should best be made by practicing scientists and

engineers as is currently done at the NSF centers.

Such shortcoming in systems management may be

overcome by using nongovernment advisors or

boards of governors, but centers could find it

difficult to ensure stable year-to-year funding as

national budgets tighten and competition for research dollars increases.

Fully or Partially Support Consortia

or Institutionally Operated Centers

Federal science agencies can provide partial or

full support to institutions for purchasing new

computers. This is currently done by NSF and DOE.

NSF provides major funding for four national

supercomputer centers and the National Center for

Atmospheric Research (NCAR) facility. DOE partially funds a supercomputer facility at Florida State

University. The agencies provide .1. Js for the

purchase or leasing of computers and also contribute

to the maintenance of the centers and their support

staff. This has enabled the centers to maintain an

experienced staff, develop applications software,

acquire leading edge hardware, and attract computational scientists.

The government, through the NSF, provided seed

funds and support to establish the centers and

operate them. The NSF centers are complete computional laboratories providing researchers with leading edge technology, support services, software

development, and computer R&D. The States and

institutions in which the NSF centers are located

have contributed about 35 percent of the expenses of

the centers, and in addition the private sector has also

contributed to the centers through direct funding and

with in-kind contributions. Private firms are able to

become partners with and use the centers' resources

in return for their contribution. The national centers

have attracted a user base exceeding that of the

mission agency computational centers and including

ncarly every aspect of research, science, and education in U.S. universities.

The allocation of resources at these centers differs

from that of the mission agency centers. The process

of obtaining computing time at these centers is more

open and competitive than at government-operated

centers. The competitive process is aimed at fair

bliocation of the computing resources through a peer

review process. Government subsidization of the

operation of the compudng centers has increased the

use of computational resources, and increased the

user base. For example, before the NSF national

centers, there were only three or four places in the

United States where high-performance computers

were available if the research was not funded by

mission agencies. Now, a growing number of States

and universities operate computational centers to

support research.

r, I
Chapter 2Policy Considerations for High-Performance Computing 19

Some individuals have proposed that certain

high-performance computing centers be assigned

specialized missions. For instance, one center might

emphasize biomedical research, or fluid dynamics;

another, the responsibility for one of the other

"grand challenges," such as global warming. NCAR

is often used as an example of a successful disciplineoriented computational center to be used as a model

for further specialization.

NCAR's computational center is partially funded

by the NSF, but its research is specific to its mission

in atmospheric science. In this way, it differs from

the other four national NSF centers. NCAR's

research includes climate, atmospheric chemistry,

solar and solar-terrestrial physics, and mesoscale

and microscale meteorology. The center houses a

ccre staff of researchers and support personnel, yet

its computational tools and human resources are

available to the international atmospheric research

community. Computer networks enable researchers

around the Nation to access NCAR's facilities.

NCAR, through its staff, research, hardware, and

networks, has become a focal point for atmospheric

research.

The advantage of a subject or discipline-specific

computational center is that it focuses expertise and

concentrates efforts on selected, important national

problems. The staff is familiar with the type of work

done within the disciplines and often knows the best

ways to solve specific problems using computational science. Computers can be matched to fill the

specific needs of the center rather than attempt to use

a general purpose machine to serve (sometimes

inadequately) the needs of diverse users. Experts in

the field would have a central focus for meeting,

comparing and debating research fmdings, and

planning future research strategies much as atmospheric scientists now do at NCAR.

There are also disadvantages to disciplinespecific centers. The "general" high-performance

computing centers are a focal point for bringing

together diverse users and disciplines. Researchers,

scientists, computer scientists and engineers, and

software engineers and designers work collaboratively at these centers. This interdisciplinary atmosphere makes the centers a natural incubator for the

advancement of computational science, which is an

essential component of research, by fostering communication among experts in various fields. It is

noteworthy that NCAR, a mission-specific center,

has a general purpose supercomputer identical to

that at the general high-performance computing

ceniers (i.e., a Cray Y-MP). Moreover, many atmospheric scientists also compute at the other NSF

supercomputing centers.

The NSF centers were established to foster

research and educational activities so that academic

research could keep up with the needs and progress

of the Federal research laboratories, the U.S. industrial research and engineering community, and

foreign competitors, but subsidizing a select group

of centers may create an impression of "elitism"

within the science and technology community. The

current funding of NSF centers authorizes only four

federally funded centers. There has been no open

competition for other computational centers in the

NSF process since the selection in 1983-8A, so

equity within the community is often questioned.

But the centers' plans are reviewed annually, and a

comprehensive review was undertaken in 1989-90

that cuhninated in the closure of the Princeton

University center. Some nonfederally funded State

and university centers question why these installations are perpetually entitled to government funds

while others are closed out of the competition.1

NSF's subsidization of its centers tends to establish a hierarchy within the computational cornmunity. However, objective competition among the

centers would be hard to referee since the measures

for determining eminence in computation are imprecise and subjective at best. The government must be

leery of creating proclaimed "leaders" in computational science, because it risks setting limits instead

of pushing the aontiers of computing.

Provide Supercomputing Funds to Individual

Research Projects and Investigators

The Federal Government could choose to support

computational resources from the grass-roots user

level instead of institutional grants. Federal science

agencies could provide funds to researchers as part

of their research grants to buy and pay for computer

services. In this way, the government would indirectly support the operational costs of the centers.

Capital improvement would likely still need support

'Gillespie. Polkner & Associates, Inc.. "Access to High-Performance Computer Resources for Research,"contractor report prepared for the Office

of Technology Assessment, Apr. 12, 1990, p. 36.
20 Seeking Solutions: High-Petformance Computing for Science

from the Federal Government because of the unpredictability of funding through user control and the

need for long-term planning for maintaining and

upgrading computer technology.

Some believe that funding the researcher directly

for purchasing computer services would create

competition among computational centers that could

lead to improvements in the efficiency of the

operation of computer centers and make them more

responsive to the needs of the users. If scientists

could choose where to "purchase" supercomputing

services, they would likely choose the center that

provides the best value and customer service.

Scientists could match the services they seek with

the specialties of each center to meet their individual

needs. Proponents of funding computer services

through individual research grants believe that

creating efficient, market-oriented computational

centers should be a goal of the high-performance

computing program.

Centers vying for users might be captured by the

largest users since they would have the most

computing funds to spend. Well-funded users could

force centers to cater to their needs at the expense of

smaller users by the sheer purchasing power they

represent. The needs of small users and new users

could be slighted as centers compete for the support

from big users. Competition among centers for users

could have a downside if it should lead to isolation

and lack of cooperation, and interfere with communication among the centers.

Upgrades and new machines involve large financial investments that use.-derived funds may not be

able to provide. The uncertainty of future funding in

a competitive environment would make long-range

planning difficult. High-performance computers generally must be upgraded about every 5 years because

the technology becomes outdated and maintenance

too costly. National centers aimed at maintaining

leading edge technology must upgrade whenever

state-of-the-art technology emerges. Therefore, supplemental funding would be required tor capital

outlays even if user funds were used to offset

operational expenses.

Critics of direct funding of researchers for supercomputer time claim that the money set aside for

supercomputing should be dedicated solely for that

use. They believe that if researchers were given

nonearmarked funds for computer services, they

might use them instead to buy minisupercomputers

or graphic workstations for themselves, or to fund

graduate students. They believe that much of the

money would never reach the supercomputing

centers, leading to unstable and unpredictable budgets. Direct funding of researchers for computing time

was tried in the 1970s, and led to many of the

problems identified in the Lax report.

Proponents of user-controlled funding believe

that researchers can best decide whether supercomputing is necessary or not for their projects, and if

minisupercomputers would suffice, then perhaps

that is the best option.

Provide Incentives for State/Private

Institutions To Supply Computational Services

Universities are heavily investing in information

technologies and computational resources for the

sciences. These non-Federal efforts should be encouraged. The government could provide matching

funds to State and private institutions to contribute

to the capital costs for computers and startup. Even

a small amount of government seed money can help

institutions leverage funds needed to establish a

computing center. Supplemental assistance may be

needed periodically for upgrading and maintaining

up-to-date technology.

Some believe that temporary fmancial seeding of

new centers is the best way for the Federal Government to subsidize supercomputing. Providing matching funds for several years to allow time for a center

to become self-sufficient may be the best strategy for

the Federal Government to assist in achieving

supercomputing excellence.

After the seed period expires, centers must

eventually upgrade their machines. Without additional funds to purchase upgrades they might fall

behind new centers that more recently purchased

state-of-the-art technology. Should this happen, a

number of computational centers might be created,

but none of them may end up world-class centers.

Expanding and Improving Usage

High-performance computers are general analytical tools that must be programmed to solve specific

computational problems. Learning how to use the

potential power of high-performance computers to

solve specific problems is a major research effort

itself. Research on how to apply high-performance

computers to problems goes hand-in-hand with

research on how to design the computers them-
Chapter 2Policy Considerations for High-Peiformance Computing 21

selves. A Federal program to advance highperformance computing must strike a careful balance by supporting programs that advance the

design of high-performance computers while at the

same time advancing the science and engineering of

computing for the R&D community.

It is important to distinguish computational science from computer science and engineering. Computer science is the science in which the object of

intellectual curiosity is the computer itself. Computational science is the science in which the computer

is used to explore other objects of intellectual

curiosity. The latter discipline includes fields of

basic research aimed at problems raised in the study

of the computer and computing. They are not driven

by specific applications. Although distinct, the two

fields are closely related; researchers in each area

depend on results and questions raised in the other.

Broader applications of computers often flow

from advances made in research computing. Research in visualization, driven by the need to better

understand the output of scientific calculations, has

led to computer graphics technology that has revolutionized the movie and television industry and has

provided new tools for doctors, engineers, architects, and others that work with images.

To advance the science of using high-performance computing, Federal programs must support five

basic objectives:

1. Expand the capabilities of human resources

Individuals educated, trained, or skilled in

applying the power of high-performance computers to new problems in science and technology are in high demand. They are sought by

businesses, industries, and an assortment of

institutions for the skills they bring to solving

complex problems. There is a shortage of

scientists, engineers and technicians with such

skills. A Federal high-performance computing

initiative must ensure that the pipeline for

delivering trained personnel remains full.

2. Develop software and hardware resources

and technologiesThe research and development of technologies that can be applied to

major research problems"grand challenges" must continue. Special efforts are

needed to ensure progress in the development

of software in order to harness the power of

high-performance computing for the solution

of R&D problems.

3. Strengthen the scientific underpinnings of

computationThis can be accomplished

through the support of computer science and

engineering as well as computational science.

4. Construct a broadly accessible, high-speed

advanced broadband networkSuch a network will provide the scientific and educational community with access to the facilities,

the data, and the software needed to explore

new applications.

5. Develop new algorithms for computational

scienceAlgorithms are mathematical formulas used t?, instruct computers (part of

computer programs and hardware). They are

the basis for solving computational problems.

New and better algorithms are needed . improvit the performance of hardware and

software in the computing environment.

Difficulties and Barriers

Computer and computational sciences compete

with many other disciplines, for science funding.

They are relatively young fields and are growing

from a small funding base. Funding levels for

computing research is relatively small compared

with the more mature disciplines. Stimulating

growth in computer and computational science

encounters a "chicken and egg" problem.

The size and level of activity of a research field is

partially related to funds available. A Federal

initiative designed to increase the research activity

in computer ?nd computational sciences must anticipate additional demands for Federal research funds.

Furthermore, to maintain a healthy level of research

activity, adequate funds to ensure future gyowth

must be provided or talent will abandon the field to

seek research money elsewhere. The small number

of researchers working in computer and computational science may be cited as justification for not

increasing levels of support, yet low levels of

support limit the number of researchers and research

positions.

Computational science is, in all but a few disciplines, a relatively new field. New researchers

looking to establish their careers need assurance that

their work will oe recognized and accepted by their

peers. Peer acceptance affects both their ability to

obtain research funds and to publish articles in

scientific journals. If computational methods are

new to the field, the researcher may face a batth to
22 Seeking Solutions: High-P-.:Iormance Computing for Science

gain acceptance within the traditional, conservative

disciplines.

In many cases, researchers are in the early stages

of understanding how to program radically new

types of computers, such as massively parallel

computers and neural nets. Researchers wishing to

use such a computer need the assistance of those

who can program and operate these computers for

the duration of a project. There is currently a scarcity

of such talent.

A NSF program dedicated to computational

science and engineering may be needed. The program could fund computational scientists from a

cross section of traditional disciplines such as

biology, chemistry, and physics. Funds for programs

aimed at developing human resources, such as

fellowships, young investigator grants, and so on,

may also need to be earmarked for computational

science. Direct funuin for computational. sciences

would overcome the tendency of the disciplines to

favor the funding of conventional research and their

reluctance to try new methodologies.

Computational Centers

The most difficult issues, which programs in

NSF's Advanced Scientific Computing Division are

addressing, stem from the problems in putting

leading edge technology in the hands of knowledgeable users who can explore and develop its potential.

In the mid-1980s, NSF formed five national

supercornputer centers. Three of themthe University of California at San Diego, Pittsburgh, and

University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbanawere

based on Cray supercomputers. One, at Cornell

University, installed modified IBM computers, and

the Princeton Center was based on a machine ta be

built by ETA, a subsidiary of Control Data that has

since gone out of business. Subsequently, NSF did

not renew the Princeton Center for a second 5-year

period.

There have been many changes in the highperformance computing environment since the establishment of those centers. These changes include:

1) the evolution of the mini-supercomputer, 2) the

establishment of other State and institutional supercomputing centers, 3) the increase in use and interest

in applications of high-performance computing to

research, 4) the emergence of the Japanese as a force

in the design, manufacturing, and use of highperformance computers, and 5) the emergence of a

national network. Because of these changes

particularly in light of budget pressures and the high

cost of the programquestions are being asked

about the future directions of NSF support for these

centers.

The basic conflict arises from several concerns:

1. the need for the NSF programs that support

computational centers to determine what their

ultimate goals should be in an environment

where technological changes and user needs

are constantly changing;

2. the need of computer centers and their researchers for stable, predictable, and long-term

support in contrast to the reluctance of the

government to establish permanent institutions that may make indefmite claims on

Federal funding; and

3. the view that any distribution of NSF highperformance computing funds should be openly

competitive and based on periodic peer review.

Purposes for Federal High-Performunce

Computing Programs

Leading Edge Facilities

Leading edge facilities provide supercomputing

to academe and industry and provide facilities for

testing and experimenting with new computers.

Academics are provided an opportunity to train with

leading edge technology; researchers and engineers

learn about new computer technology.

A leading edge facility's responsibilities go beyond merely providing researchers access to CPUs

(central processing units). Manufacturers of highperformance computers rely on these centers to test

the limits of their equipment and contribute to the

improvement of their machines. Leading edge technology, by its nature, is imperfect. Prototype machines and experimental architectures are provided

a testbed at these centers. Scientists' experiences

with the technology assist the manufacturers in

perfecting new computing equipment. Bottlenecks,

defects, and deficiencies are discovered through use

at the centers. Moreover, user needs have led to the

creation of new applications software, computer

codes, and software tools for the computers. These

needs have forced the centers to take the lead in

software development.

31
Chapter 2Policy Consideranons for High-Performance Computing 23

Several computational centers have industrial

programs with large corporate sponsors. These

corporations benefit from leading edge computational centers in two ways. First, industry gains

access to the basic research conducted at universities

on supercomputers. Second, industry learns how to

use leading edge computer technology. The support

services of these facilities are available to corporate

sponsors and are a major attraction for these

corporations. Corporate researchers are trained and

tutored by the centers' support staff, and work with

experienced academic users. They gain a knowledge

of supercomputing, and this experience is taken back

to their corporations. Participating comorations

often leave the programs when they gain sufficient

knowledge to operate their own supercomputer

centers.

A high-performance computing plan that establishes and maintains leading edge facilities benefits

a broad range of national interests. Academics learn

how to use the technology, manufacturers use their

experiences to improve the technology, and industry

gains an understanding of the value of supercomputing in the work place.

Increasing the Supply of Human Resources

An important aspect of any high-performance

computing program is the development of human

resources. National supercomputer centers can cultivate human resources in two ways. First, researchers

and scientists are taught how to use highperformance computers, and new users and young

scientists learn how to use modern scientific tools.

Second, national centers provide an atmosphere for

educating and cultivating future computer support

personnel. Users, teachers, and technicians are

critical to the future viability of supercomputing.

Producing proficient supercomputer users is an

important goal of a high-performance computing

program. Researchers with little or no experience

must be trained in the use of the technologies.

Education must begin at the graduate level, and work

its way into undergraduate training. Bringing supercomputer usage into curricula will help familiarize

students with these tools. The next generation of

scientists, engineers, and researchers must become

proficient with these machines to advance their

careers. The need for competent users will increase

as supercomputers proliferate into the industrial

sector. Already there are repoe .f a shortage of

supercomputer trained scientists arid engineers.2

Support staff is an essential element of computational centers. The support services, which include

seminars and consultation and support, educate the

next generation of users. Support personnel are the

trouble-shooters, locating and correcting problems,

and optimizing computer codes. The NSF national

centers have excellent staff, some of whom have

moved to responsible positions at State and universityoperated centers. The experience they gained at the

NSF national centers contributes to the viability of

new high-performance computing operations in

industry and elsewhere in academe. The importance

of the services that support personnel provide is

often overlooked by policymakers, yet their contributions to supercomputing are invaluable. The

greatest asset of a proficient high-performance

computing center is the staff, not the computer. A

high-performance computing program must emphasize the importance of developing human resources

by producing educated users and users who will

educate.

Advancing Computational Science

High-performance computer centers are a focal

point for bringing together diverse users and disciplines. Researchers, scientists, computer scientists

and engineers, and software engineers and designers

work collaboratively at these centers. This interdisciplinary atmosphere makes the centers a natural

incubator for the advancement of the computaional

sciences, which is an essential component of supercomputing. A national high-performance computing

program could promote the computational sciences

by fostering communication among experts in various fields.

Researchers and scientists know what questions

to ask, but not necessarily how to instruct computers

to answer them. Computational scientists know how

to instruct computers. They create the computer

instructions sets, computer codes, and algorithms for

computers so that researchers can most efficiently

utilize the technology. The development of computer codes and software is often a collaborative

effort, supported by previous codes, software tools,

and support staff, many of whom are computational

scientists. Providing the methodology for utilizing

2Michael Schroeder. "How Supercomputers Can Be Super Savers," Business Week, Oct. 8, 1990, p. 140.

32
24 Seeking Solutions: High-Performance Computing for Science

these tools is as important as providing the tools

themselves.

Developing New "ftware Applications

New algorithms and codes neost be developed to

allow optimum use of supercomputer time. One of

the more frequent criticisms of many highperformance computing operations has been the use

of suboptimal codes. Supercomputer time is wasted

when outdated or less than optimal codes are used.

Creating codes is a specialty in itself. The development of codes is so labor intensive and time

consuming that using an outdated code, as opposed

to creating a new one, is sometimes more time

efficient, although it may waste costly supercomputer time. A high-performance computing program

could advance the usage of new and efficient codes

by promoting computational science.

Providing Access to More Supercomputing CPUs

Supercomputing CPUs offer researchers computing power and speed unattainable from conventional

mainframes. High-performance computer centers

provide, at a minimum, access to supercomputing

cycles. Supercomputing CPUs currently are a scarce

resource in high demand. Any Federal highperformance computing program will increase the

amount of supercomputing cycles available to researchers. It is uncertain, however, how much

increase in CPUs the government should provide.

Supercomputers are used in the advanc -nent of all

scientific disciplines, for both "big" : "little"

science projects. All areas of research Ix it from

high-performance computing. Notwithst4 ig any

reasonable level of effort, the governmet. will be

unable to provide enough supercomputing resources

to meet all researchers' needs. They will always seek

more and faster supercomputing power.

Computer facilities whose main goal is to provide

supercomputing CPUs are often called "cycle shops."

The NSF centers are not cycle shops. At cycle shops,

support services are minimal: A skeletal support

staff, enough personnel to keep the machines up and

running, is all that is required. This limits cycle

shops' usefulness to primarily experienced users.

Only proven technology can be used. Training,

education, and software development are not major

activities at such facilities. User applications have to

be "canned" and ready for use. These centers are the

antithesis of leading edge facilities. Cycle shops are

more economical for experienced users in need of

large amounts of CPU time. This is not the majority

of users, however.

Improving Data Storage Capabilities

Increasing importance is being placed on data

storage capabilities. Researchers now realize the

limits of current data storage technologies. A

high-performance computing program can stimulate

research in high-capacity storage and retrieval technologies.

Data storage technologies do not have the public

appeal and visibility that supercomputers do. For

this reason, they have been overlooked in supercomputing R&D, yet data storage is an integral part of

high-performance computing. Supercomputers often

use and produce large data sets. Computational

centers are increasingly running into data memory

and storage problems. New technologies for gathering data, e.g. satellites and automated sensors, are

placing even greater demands on storage facilities.

These data are often used in computing, and are

converted into new data sets that require additional

storage.

The Federal Government could take the initiative

in R&D on new storage technologies, emphasizing

its importance to high-performance computing. rDe

amount of data handled at supercomputing centers

will increase as the user base multiplies, and as data

sharing increases through the use of high-capacity

communications networks through the National

Research and Education Network (NREN). Storage

technologies are currently pushing their limits, and

breakthroughs are needed if they are not to become

the limiting factor in high-performance computing.
Chapter 3

High-Performance Computers: Technology and Challenges

Computers and the R&D Process

Scientists use the theories and techniques of

mathematics for building and describing models in

logical ways and for calculating the results they

yield. As early as the third century B.C., the

Alexandrian scholar Eratosthenes estimated the

circumference of the earth to an accuracy within 5

percent of what we now consider to be the correct

figure. He did so by making assumptions about the

nature of the physical universe, making measurements, and calculating the results.' In essence, he did

what modern scientists do. He constructed a hypothetical model that allowed him to apply mathematical toolsin this case, trigonometry and arithmetic

to data he collected.

Scientific models are used both to test new ideas

about the physical universe and to explore results

and conclusions based on those models. Eratosthenes discovered a new "fact"the size of the

earth. Had his calculations, instead, confirmed a

result already discovered by some other means, he

would have accomplished a different research purpose; he would have provided evidence that the

modei of the universe was correct. Had they differed

with known fact, he would have had evidence that

the model was incorrect. Science advances, step by

step, through a process of building models, calculating results, comparing those results with what can be

observed and, when observations differ, revising the

models.

Modes of Research Computing

Just as mathematics is central to science, computers have become basic instruments of research to

modern science and play a wide variety of roles.

Each of the roles is based on mathematical modeling, using the interactive solution of thousands of

equations.

To Perform Complex Calculations

Sometimes the basic mathematics and structuic

a physical process are well known--the equati,.

that describe the flow of air around a solid object, for

example. Researchers may wish to calculate the

results of this process in experimental designs such

as a new aircraft wing or the shape of an automobile.

Calculating results from flow equations are enormously

time-consuming even on the most powerful computers of today. Scientists must simplify these problems

to fit the capabilities of the computers that are

available. They sacrifice accuracy and detail in their

model to achieve computability.

1b Build New Theories and Models

At other times, researchers seek to understand the

dynamics of a process, like the aging of a star or

formation of a galaxy. They create computer models

based on theories and observe how the behavior of

those models do or do not correspond to their

observations.

To Control .r,erimental Instruments and

Analyze Data

Most modern scientific instruments have some

computational power built in to control their performance and to process the measurements they

make. For many of these, from the largest particle

accelerators or space platforms to more modest

instruments, the computer has become an integral

and indispensable part.

Such research instruments generate enormous

flows of informationsome at rates up to several

trillion units (terabits) a day. Unpackaging the data

flow, identifying the elements, and organizing those

data for use by scientists is, itself, a sizable

computational task. After the initial steps, still more

computer power is needed to search this mountain of

data for significant patterns and analyze their

meanings.

lb Better Understand and Interact With

Computer Results

At the most basic level, computers produce

numbers; but numbers usually represent a physical

object or phenomenonthe position of an atom in

a protein molecule, the moisture content in a cloud,

the stress in an automobile frame, or the behavior of

an explosive. To make sense to researchers, the

streams of numbers from a computer must be

1Thumas S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution (Cambridge, MA: 11arvard University Press, 1985), p. 274.

25
26 Seeking :olutions: High-Performance Computing for Science

converted to visual displays that are easier to

understand when seen by the eye. Researchers are

now concentrating on visualizationpictorial displays that incorporate images, motion, color, and

surface texture to depict characteristics of an analysis on a computer screen.

Some researchers are exploring more advanced

techniques that use other senses such as sound and

touch to convey results to the human mind. By

incorporating all of these technologies, they may

eventually be able to create what is called "virtual

reality," in which a scientist equipped with the

proper gear could interact directly with a model as

though he or she were standing in the midst of the

phenomenon that was modeled. A biochemist could

"walk" around and about a protein molecule, for

example, and move atoms here and there, or a

geologist could explore the inside of an active

volcano.

To Provide "Intelligent" Assistance

Computer operatior re not restricted to only

computational operations on numbers. The popularity of word processors shows that computers can

manipulate and perform logical operations on symbols, whether they represent numbers or not. Experts

in the "artificial intelligence" community have

been exploring how computers can assist researchers

in ways other than direct computation of results.

They have worked on systems that can prove

mathematical theorems or perform tedious manipulations of algebraic expressions, systems that help

chemists fmd new forms of molecules, and natural

language inquiry systems for databases.

A national research and educational network

(NREN) would create a critical need for such help in

the future so that scientists are not overwhelmed by

the complexity and amount of information available

to them. New tools such as "knowbots"small

autonomous programs that would search databases

throughout the network for information needed by

the researcherhave been proposed.

Implications for Federal Programs

The traditional view of the "scientific computer"

as one specifically intended for high-speed aritlunetic computation is changing as researchers use

computers for an increasingly rich variety of tasks.

Any Federal initiative supporting computational

science must create an environment that supports a

wide variety of machines with improved capabilities, many of which serve specialized user communities.

Numerical computation is still critically important, but so are applications such as database

manipulation, artificial intelligence, image production, and on-line control of experimental instruments. Even the design of computers meant to o

numerical calculations is becoming more specialized to address specific types of problems.

The NREN is a crucial element of efforts to make

high-performance computing widely available to the

U.S. research community. Members of research

groups who need these specialized computers are

widely scattered throughout the country, and so are

the computers they need.

The Evolution of Computer

Technology

Government and Computer R&D

Like much of the new electronics technology of

the day, computers in large measure grew out of

work done during World War II for defense research

programs. After the war, many engineers and

scientists who staffed those programs took their

knowledge into the private sector to begin the

commercial U.S. computer industry.

The Federal Government remains a major purchaser, user, and force in shaping computer technology. Its influence is particularly strong in scientific

computing; many computational researchers either

work for the government in national laboratories or

are substantially funded by government agencies.

The computing needs of the defense agencies, and

the weapons programs of the Department of Energy

(earlier the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)),

demanded continual advancement of the speed and

power of scientific computing.

Computers that meet the specifications of scientific users were not, until recently, commercially

successful or widely available. As a result, Federal

agencies needing these large scientific machines had

to fund their development. Control Data's 6600

computer in the mid-1960s was among the first large

scientific machines designed for national defense

needs to be marketed successfully in the private

sector.

35
Chapter 3High-Performance Computers: Technology and Challenges 27

Even though scientific computers were not originally successful in the nongovernment market, their

technology was. The "Stretch" computer, designed

and built by IBM for the AEC, provided many

innovations that were later used in the design of the

IBM 360 series that was the basic IBM product line

for over a decade. Federal science agencies such as

the National Science Foundation (NSF), Defense

Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and

the Office of Naval Research (ONR) have also

contributed over the years to the development of

computer architecture through their computer science and engineering research programs.

The government role in support of basic and

applied research in computing and in testing prototype machines and making them available to researchers is critical to the well-being of small

specialized firms in high-performance computing.

Government support for research in computer

architecture has gone through cycles. In the early

days, it was in research laboratories that computer

scientists first developed many of the architectural

concepts that formed the basis for general purpose

computers. As computers became more complex and

their manufacture a more refmed art, academic

research on computer design waned. Perhaps the

decreased interest in architecture research resulted

from the notion at that time that the major computer

design issues had been settled and the development

of new generations of machines should be left to the

industry. The academic research that continued was

mostly paper-and-pencil design simulated on conventional computers.

During the last decade, advances in microelectronics created opportunities to explore radical new

designs with relatively inexpensive off-the-shelf

chips from manufacturers, or custom designs. Experts were predicting the end of performance impro's, ements that could be wrung from traditional

design concepts, while the costs for coaxing performance improvements were increasing dramatically. As a result, computer scientists and engineers

are again exploring alternate approaches, and academic research has now returned to the development

and testing of prototypes, this time in cooperation

with industry. Now, as then, the basic question is

whether these experimental designs are more efficient and effective for performing specific types of

calculations.

3

Computer scientists and engineers basically look

in three directions to improve the efficiency and

increase the speed of computers:

1. the fundamental technology of the computer

components;

2. the architecture of the computer; and

3. the software programs and algorithms to instruct and control the computers.

These three areas of investigation are distinct

fields of research, but they have an important

influence on each other. New devices allow computer designers to consider different approaches to

building computers, which, in turn, can lead to new

ways of programming them. Influences can just as

easily go the other way: new software techniques can

suggest new machine architectures. One of the

problems with intoducing radically new types of

computers into common use is that entirely new

theories of programming must be developed for

them, whereas software techniques for traditional

machines have taken place over 40 or 50 years of

development and refinement.

Fundamental Technologies

Basically, computers are complex assemblies of

large numbers of essentially similar building blocks.

These building blocksall of which are generally

different types of logical switches that can be set in

one of two states (on-off)are combined to form the

memory, registers, arithmetic units, and control

elements of modern digital computers (see box C).

The advance of computer technology at this level

can be seen as the clustering of more and more of

these basic switches into increasingly smaller,

faster, cheaper, and more reliable packages.

Integrated CircuitsElectrical engineers predict

that, by 2000, chip manufacturers will be able to put

over one billion logic gates (switches) on a single

chip. Some silicon chips already contain more than

a million gates. This level of complexity begins to

allow producers to put huge computational power on

one processor chip. By the end of the decade, it is

expected that a single chip will have the complexity

and the power of a modern supercomputer, along

with a significant amount of memory.

This trend is influencing research in computer

design. Computer scientists and engineers use the

term "architecture" to describe the art of arranging

the flows of data and the detailed logical processes

within the computers they design. Given the com-
28 Seeking Solutions: High-Performance Computing for Science

Box CThe Building Blocks of Modern Computer Hardware

From electro-mechanical relays to vacuum tubes to silicon-based very-large-scale integrated circuits, the

electronic technologies that form the basic components of computers have steadily and rapidly advanced year by

year since the 1940s. One measure of improvement is the number of transistors (the basic building block of logic

and memory) that can be placed on a chip. Increase in transistor density is expected to continue throughout the

coming decade, although "traditional" silicon technology, the basis of microelectronics for the last few decades

may begin reaching its maximum cost/performance benefit. It may become too costly to derive future performance

advancements out of silicon.

In the past, as each type of technologymechanical switches, vacuum tubes, and transistorsreached its

limits, a new technology has come along that allowed information technology to continue improving; this

phenomenon is likely to continue. Researchers are exploring several basic technologies that, if successful, could

continue these rates of growth, not on' through this decade, but well into the next century.'

Gallium Arsenide Compounds

Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) is a compound with semiconductor properties similar to, but in some ways superior

to, silicon. Spurred in part by interest from the Department of Defense, researchers have developed GaAsto the point

where such devices are being produced for commercial application. But will it ever be cost-effective to manufacture

devices complex enough and in quantities sufficient to build full-scale computers in a cost-effective way? Some manufacturers are trying.

Cray Computer Corp. (CCC), a separate company spun off from its parent Cray Research, and Convex

Computersa manufacturer of entry-level supercomputersare attempting to use GaAs-based components for

their new machines. Although offering much greater speeds for the machine, these components have proved to be difficult to manufacture and to assemble into a large-scale mainframe. Their efforts are being watched closely. Some

experts think that some of these manufacturing difficulties are inherent and that GaAs will remain a valuable but

expensive "niche" technology, possibly useful for high-speed and costly applications, but not serving as the

"workhorse" all-purpme replacement for silicon in everyday applications.2

Su perconductivity

For years it has been known that some materials attain a state known as "superconductivity" when cooled

sufficiently. A superconductive material essentially transmits electricity without (or with low) resistance. Using

superconductivity, a switch known as a "Josephson Junction" (JJ) can be built that could, in theory, serve as the basis of computer logic and memory.

The problem has been that "sufficiently cooled" has meant very cold indeed, nearly the temperature of liquid helium, only 4 degrees Kelvin.3 Although it is possible to attain these temperatures, it requires extensive and

complex apparatus either for refrigerating or for using liquid helium, a very temperamental substance to deal with.

Problems with reliably manufacturing 11s have also been difficult to solve. Because ils could move computer capabilities beyond silicon limits if these problems were solved, some manufacturers, particularly the Japanese, have continued to explore low-temperature superconductivity.

Within the last few years, however, the discovery of materials that exhibit superconductivity higher

temperatures has led to a renewed interest in the JJ.4 "High temperature" is still very cold by normal standards, around 50 to 100 degrees Kelvin, but it is a temperature that is much more economical to maintain. Significant

materials problems still confound attempts to manufacture JIs reliably and in the bulk necessary to manufacture

computers. However, investigators have just begun exploring this technology, and many of them expect that these

1U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Microelectronics Redearch and DevelopmentBackground Paper, OTA-BP-CIT-40

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1986).

2Marc H. Brodsky, "Progress in Gallium Arsenide Semiconductors," Sciennfic American, February 1990, pp. 68-75.

3Kelvin is a unit of measurement that uses as its reference. "absolute zero," the coldest temperature that matter can theoretically attain. In comparison, MT 0 degrees Centigrade, the temperature at which water freezes, is a warm 273 degrees Kelvin.

4U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Conunercializing High-Temperature Superconductivity, OTA-ITE-388 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1988),
Chapter 3High-Performance Computers: Technology and Challenges 29

problems will be solved, in part because of the potential importance of the technology if it can be tamed. It has been

suggested that Japanese manufacturers continue to work on low-temperature prototypes in order to gain experience

in designing and building JJ-based computers that could be useful if and when high-temperature technology

becomes available.

Other Advanced Technologies

Researchers are also investigating other promising technologies, such as "optical switching" devices. Fiber

optics already offers significant advantages as a communication medium, but signals must be converted back to

electrical form before they can be manipulated. It might be attractive in terms of speed and economy if one could

handle them directly in the form of light.

Other researchers are working on so-called "quantum effect" devices. These devices use siliconand in

some cases GaAsmaterials, but take advantage of the quantum, or wave-like, behavior of electrons when they are

confined in very small areas (say, on the order of 100 atoms in diameter.)5 Again, problems of manufacturing,

particularly devices as small as this, present major difficulties to be overcome.

5Henry I. Smith and Dimitra A. Antoniadis, "Seeking a Radically New Electronics," Technology Review, April 1990, pp. 27-39.

plexity that modern chips can embody, a chip

designer can use them to build bigger, more elaborate constructs. Such a designer might be thought of

more as a "city planner"someone who arranges

the relationships between much larger structures and

plans the traffic flow among them.

Computer design is helped considerably by modern technology. First, through use of automated

design and "chip foundries" for producing customized chips (some of which can be accessed via a

network), designers can move from paper-andpencil concepts to prototype hardware more easily.

Many of the new high-performance computers on

the market use processor chips custom-designed for

that specific machine; automated chip design and

manufacture shorten the time and improve the

flexibility in producing custom chips.

Second, the market offers a variety of inexpensive, off-the-shelf chips that can be assembled to

create new and interesting experimntal designs.

One of the best known successful examples of this

type of research is a project initiated at the California

Institute of Technology. There, researchers designed

and built a customized computer to help them with

certain specialized physics calculations. They developed the first "hypercube" machine using a standard line of processor chips from Intel. Intel supported the project in the early days, principally

through the donation of chips. Later, as the design

concept proved itself and attracted the attention of

government agencies, full-scale research support

was provided to the group.

The impact of that low-budget project has been

enormous. Several companies (including Intel) are

in, or are planning to enter, the high-performance

computer market with computers based on the

hypercube design or one of its variations. Uthversities are beginning to realize the potential of specialized, low-budget machines, among them Caltech,

Ru , and Syracuse. Three NSF centers (National

enter for Supercomputing Applications, Pittsburgh

Supercomputing Center, and the San Diego Supercomputer Center) also have installed these architectures for access by the nationwide academic community.

Based on the history and trends in computer

architecture research, it appears that: 1) it is feasible

to design and build computers with architectures

customized for particular ' Isks; 2) the availability of

powerful, inexpensive chips, has prompted academic laboratories to return to research in computer

architecture; 3) new ideas in computer architecture

can likely be commercialized quickly; and 4)

universities that have access to fabrication facilities

are more likely to develop new, specialized machines.

In the past, such customized machines would have

been considered curiosities, with no chance of

competing with traditional designs. The computer

industry at that time was conservative, and users

were unwilling to take chances on new ideas. Now,

some entrepreneurs will gamble that if the system

has distinct advantages in power and cost, new

markets will open, even for systems based on radical

new design theories.

3S
30 Seeking Solutions: High-Performance Computing for Science

But bringing a new high-performance machine to

market is neither cheap nor simple. Millions of

dollarssometimes hundreds of millionsmust be

spent refining the design, developing software, anti

solving manufacturing problems, before a design

concept moves from the laboratory into general use.

The speed and ease of this transfer depends heavily

on whether the technology is evolutionary or revolutionary.

It is difficult to say which computer technologies

will become the foundation for building computers

over the next decade. Despite the fact that all of the

alternative technologies have difficulties to be

overcome, it is likely that one or more new

component technologies will be developed to fuel

the rapid growth of computer capability into the next

decade and beyond. B. advances in fundamental

technology alone will not be sufficient to achieve the

increases in computer power that are needed by

research users.

Computer Architecture

The term "computer architecture" denotes the

structural design of a computer system. It includes

the logical behavior of major components of the

computer, the instructions it executes, and hew the

information flows through and among those components. A principa/ goal of computer architecture is to

design machines that are faster and more efficient for

specific tasks.

"Supercomputer" is commonly used by the

popular media to describe certain types of computer

architectures that are, in some sense, the most

powerful available. It is not, however, a useful term

for policy purposes. First, the defmition of computer

"power" is inexact and depends on many factors,

including processor speed and memory size. Second,

there is no clear lower boundary of "supercomputer

power." IBM 3090 computers come in a wide range

of configurations, but are they "supercomputers"?

Finally, technology is changing rapidly, and with it

the conceptions of the power and capability of

various computers. Here, the term highperformance computers" (HPC) (distinguish, from

the Federal program to advance high-performance

computing referred to as the "high-performance

computing initiative") includes a vsariety of machine

types.

One class of high-performance computing consists of large, advanced, expensive, powerful machines, designed principally to address massive

computational science problems. These computers

are the ones often referred to as "supercomputers."

Their performance is liased on central processing

unit (CPU) power and memory size. They use the

largest, fastest, most costly memories. A leading

edge "supercomputer" can cost up to $20 million or

more.

A large-scale computer's power comes from a

combination of very high-speed electronic components and specialized architecture. Most machines

use a combination of "vector processing" and

"parallel processing" (parallelism) in their design.

A vector processor is an arithmetic unit of the

computer that produces a series of similar calculations in an overlapping, assembly-line fashion (many

scientific calculations can be set up in this way).

Parallel processing is the use of several processors

that simultaneously solve portions of a problem that

can be broken into independent pieces for computing on separate processors. Currently, large, main-

' frame high-performance computers such as those of

aay and IBM are moderately parallel, having from

two to eight processors.2 The trend is toward more

parallel processors on these large systems. The main

problem to date has been to figure out how problems

can be set up to take advantage of the potential speed

advantage of larger-scale parallelism.

The availability of software for supercomputer

application is a major challenge for highperformance computing in general, but it is particularly troublesome in the case of large parallel

processing systems. Parallel processing requires that

the complexity of the problem be segregated into

pieces that can run separately and independently on

individual processors. This requires that programmers approach solutiors in a very different manner

from the way they program information flow and

computations on vector processors. Until the art of

parallel programming catches up with the speed and

sophistication of hardware design, the considerable

power of parallel computing will be underutilized,

Software development for supercomputing must be

given high priority in any high-performance computing initiative.

2Th distinguish between this modest level and the larger scale parallelism found on some more experimental machines, some experts refer to this

limited parallelism as "multiprocessing."
Chapter 3High-Petformance Computers: Technology and Challenges 31

Some machines now on the market (called "minisupers" or "minisupercomputers") are based on the

structure and logic of a large supercomputer, but use

cheaper, slower electronic components and lower

performance technology. They are relatively less

expensive than high-end supercomputers. These

systems sacrifice some speed, but cost much less to

manufacture. An application that is demanding but

does not require a full-size supercomputer may be

more effiL:ently run on a minisuper.

Other types of specialized systems also have

appeared on the market. These machines gain

computction speed by using fundamentally different

architectures. They are known by colorful names

such as "Hypercubes," "Connection Machines,"

"Data Flow Processors," "Butterfly Machines,"

"Neural Nets," or "Fuzzy Logic Computers."

Although they differ in design concept, many of

these systems are based on large-scale parallelism.

Their designers get increased processing speed by

linking large numbershundreds or even thousands

of simpler, slower, and cheaper processors. But

computational mathematicians and scientists have

not yet developed a good theoretical or experimental

framework for understanding how to arrange applications to take full advantage of these massively

parallel systems. Therefore, these systems are still,

by and large, experimental, even though some are on

the market and some users have developed applications software for them. Experimental as these

systems are however, many experts believe that any

significantly large increase in computational power

must grow out of experimental systems such as these

or from other forms of massively parallel architecture or hybrid architectures.

"Workstations," the descendants of personal

desktop computers, are increasing in power; new

chips being developed will soon offer computing

power nearly equivalent to a Cray 1 supercomputer

of the late 1970s. Thus, although high-end highperformance computers will oe correspondingly

more powerful, scientists who wish to do heavy-duty

computing will have a wide selection of options in

the future. Policymakers must recognize that:

The term "supercomputer" is a fluid one,

potentially covering a wide variety of machine

types; similarly, the "supercomputer industry"

is increasingly difficult to identify as a distinct

entity.

1

Scientists need access to a wide range of

high-performance computers from desktop workstations to full-scale supercomputers, and they

need to move smoothly and seamlessly among

these machines as their research needs require.

Government policies should be flexible and

broadly based to avoid focusing on a narrowly

defmed class of machines.

Mere computational power is not always the sole

objective of designers. For example, in the case of

desktop computers like the Apple MacIntosh or

NEXT Computers, or the more powerful engineering workstations, much effort has gone into improving the communication between the machine and the

operator (user interface). Computers are being designed to be more easily linked through data

communication networks. Machines are being designed to do specialized tasks within computer

networks, such as file management and internetwork

communication. As computer designers develop a

wider variety of machines specialized for particular

tasks, the term "high performance" covers a wider

range of applications and architectures, including

machines that are oriented to numerical scientific

calculation.

Computer Performance

Computers are often compared on the basis of

computer powerusually equated to processing

speed. The convention used for measuring computer

power is "FLOPS" (floating point operations per

second). The term "floating point" refers to a

particular format for numbers (scientific notation)

within the computer that is used for scientific

calculation. A floating point "operation" refers to a

single arithmetic step, such as multiplying or dividing two numbers, using the floating point format.

Thus, FLOPS measure the speed of the arithmetic

processor. Currently, the largest supercomputers

have processing speeds ranging up to several billion

FLOPS. DARPA has announced a goal of developing in this decade a "teraflop" machine, a computer

that executes one trillion FLOPS.

Peak computer speed and computer systems

performance are two different things. Peak computer

speed is the raw theoretical performance that is the

maximum possible for the computer architecture.

Computer system performance, the actual speed

under use, is always lowersometimes much lower.

Theoretical peak speed alone is not a useful measure
32 Seeking Solutions: High-Performance Computing for Science

of the relative power of computers. To understand

why, consider the following analogy.

At a supermarket checkout counter, the calculation speed of the cash register does not, by itself,

determine how fast customers can checkout. Checkout speed is Moo affected by the speed that the clerk

can enter each purchase into the cash register and the

time it takes to complete a transaction with each

customerbag the groceries, collect money, make

changeand move on to the next. The length of time

the customer must wait in line to reach the clerk may

be the most important factor of all, and that depends

on how many clerks and cash registers are provided.

Similarly, in a computer, how quickly calculations can be set up and input to the processor and

how quickly new jobs and their data can be moved

in, completed, and the results moved out of the

computer determines how much of the processor's

speed can actually be harnessed (some users refer to

this as "solution speed"). Solution speed is determined by a variety of architectural factors located

throughout the computer system as well as the

interplay between hardware and software. Similar to

the store checkout, as a fast machine becomes busy,

users may have to wait in line. From a user's

perspective, then, a theoretically fast computer can

still deliver solutions slowly.

To test a machint!'s speed, experts use "benchmark programs," i.e., sample programs that reproduce a "standard" workload. Since workioads vary,

there are several different benchmark programs, and

they are continually being refmed and revised.

Measuring a supercomputer's speed is a complex

and important area of research. Performance measurement provides information on what type of

computer is best for particular applications; such

measurements can also show where bottlenecks

occur and, hence, where hardware and software

inprovements should be made.

One can draw some important implications from

these observations on computIng speed:

Computer designers depend on feedback from

users who are pushing their machines to the

limit, because improvements in overall speed

are closely linked to how the machines are

programmed and used.

There is no "fastest" machine. The speed of a

high-performance computer depends on the

skill of those that use and program it, and the

type of jobs it performs.

One should be skeptical of claims of peak

speeds until machines have been tested by users

for overall systems performance.

Federal R&D programs for improving highperformance computing must stress software,

algorithms, and computational mathematics as

well as research on .:nachine architecture.
Appendix A

Supercomputer Centers

The National Supercomputer Centers

In I ,zruary 1985, National Science Foundation (NSF)

selected four sites to establish national supercomputing

centers: Cornell University, lie University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign, the University of California at San

Diego, and the John von Neumann Center in Princeton. A

fifth site, Pittsburgh, was added in early 1986. Funding for

Princeton's Von Neumann Center was later dropped. The

four remaining NSF centers are described bridly below.

The Cornell Theory Center

The Cornell Theory Center is located on the campus of

Cornell University. Over 1,900 users from 125 institutions access the center. Although Cornell does not have a

center-oriented network, 55 academic institutions are able

to utilize the resources at Cornell through special nodes.

A 14-member Corporate Research Institute works within

the center in a variety of university-industry cost-sharing

projects.

In November 1985 Cornell received a 3084 computer

from IBM, which was upgrad.A to a four-processor

3090/400VF a year later. The 3090/400VF was replaced

by a six-processor 3090/600E in May 1987. In October

1988 a second 3090/600E was added. The Cornell Center

also operates several other smaller parallel systems,

including an Intel iPCS/2, a Transtech NT 1000, and a

Topologix T1000. Some 50 percent of the resources of

Northeast Parallel Architecture Center. which include two

Connection machines, an Encore, and an Alliant FX/80,

are accessed by the Cornell facility.

Until October 1988, all IBM computers were "on

loan" to Cornell for as long as Cornell retained its NSF

funding. The second IBM 3090/600, procured in October,

will be paid for by a NSF grant. Over the past 4 years,

corporate support for the Cornell facility accounted for 48

percent of the operating costs. During those same years,

NSF and New York State accounted for 37 percent and 5

percent, respectively, of the facility's budget. This

funding has allowed the center to maintain a staff of about

100.

The National Center for Supercomputing

Applications

The National Center for Supercomputing Applications

(NCSA) is operated by the University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign. The center has over 2,500 academic

users from about 82 academic affiliates. Each affiliate

receives a block grant of time on the Cray X-MP/48,

training for the Cray, and help using the network to access

the Cray.

.1 2-33

The NCSA received a Cray X-MP/24 in October 1985.

That machine was upgraded to a Cray X-MP/48 in 1987.

In October 1988 a Cray-2s/4-128 was installed, giving the

center two Cray machines. This computer is the only

Cray-2 now at a NSF national center. The center also

houses a Connection Machine 2, an Alliant FX/80 and

FX/8, and over 30 graphics workstations.

In addition to NSF funding, NCSA has solicited

industrial support. Amoco, Eastman Kodak, Eli Lilly,

FMC Corp., Dow Chemicals, and Motorola have each

contributed around $3 million over a 3-year period to the

NCSA. In fiscal year 1989 corporate support amounted to

11 percent of NCSA's funding. About 32 percent of

NCSA's budget came from NSF, while the State of

Illinois and the University of Illinois accounted for the

remaining 27 of the center's $21.5-million budget. The

center has a full-time staff of 198.

Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center

The Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (PSC) is run

jointly by the University of Pittsburgh, Carnegie-Mellon

University, and Westinghouse Electric Corp. More than

1,400 users from 44 States utilize the center. Twentyseven universities are affiliated with PSC.

The center received a Cray X-MP/48 in March 1986. In

December 1988 PSC became the first non-Federal laboratory to possess a Cray Y-MP. For a short time, both

machines were being used simultaneously; however the

center has now phased out the Cray X-MP. The center's

graphics hardware includes a Pixar image computer, an

Ardent Titan, and a Silicon Graphics IRIS workstation.

The operating projection at PSC for fiscal year 1990, a

"typical year," has NSF supporting 58 percent of the

center's budget while industry and vendors account for 22

percent of the costs. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

and the National Institutes of Health both support PSC,

accounting for 8 percent and 4 percent of budget

respectively. Excluding working students, the center has

a staff of around 65.

San Diego Supercomputer Center

The San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC) is

located on the campus of the University of California at

San Diego and is operated by General Atomics. SDSC is

linked to 25 consortium members but has a user base in

44 States. At the end of 1988, over 2,700 users were

accessing the center. SDSC has 48 industrial partners who

use the facility's hardware, software, and support staff.

A Cray X-MP/48 was installed in December 1985.

SDSC's first upgrade, a Y-MP8/864, was planned for
34 Seeking Solutions: High-Petformance Computing for Science

December 1989. In addition to the Cray, SDSC has five

Sun workstations, two IRIS workstations, an Evans and

Sutherland terminal, five Apollo workstations, a Pixar, an

Ardent Titan, an SCS-40 minisupercomputer, a Supertek

S-1 minisupercomputer, and two Symbolics machines.

The University of California at San Diego spends more

than $250,000 a year on utilities and services for SDSC.

For fiscal year 1990 the SDSC believes NSF will account

for 47 percent of the center's operating budget. The State

of California currently provides $1.25 million per year to

tht center and in 1988 approved funding of $6 million

over 3 years to SDSC for research in scientific visualization. For fiscal year 1990 the State is projected to support

10 percent of the center's costs. Industrial support, which

has given the center $12.6 million in donations and

in-kind services, is projected to provide 15 percent of the

total costs of SDSC in fiscal year 1990.

Other High-Performance Computer Facilities

Before 1984 only three universities operated supercomputers: Purdue University, the University of Minnesota, and Colorado State University. The NSF supercomputing initiative established five new supercomputer

centers that were nationally accessible. States and universities began funding their own supercomputer centers,

both in response to growing needs on campus and to

increased feeling on the part of State leaders that

supercomputer facilities could be important stimuli to

local R&D and, therefore, to economic development.

Now, many State and university centers offer access to

high-performance computers (HPC);1 and the NSF centers are only part of a much larger HPC environment

including nearly 70 Federal installations (see table A-1).

Supercomputer center operators perceive their roles in

different ways. Some want to be a proactive force in the

research community, leading the way by helping develop

new applications, training users, and so on. Others are

content to follow in the path that the NSF National

Centers create. These differences in goals/missions lead

to varied services and computer systems. Some centers

are "cycle shops," offering computing time but minimal

support staff. Other centers maintain a large support staff

and offer consulting, training sessions, and even assistance with software development. Four representative

centers are described below.

Minnesota Supercomputer Center

The Minnesota Supercomputer Center, originally part

of the University of Minnesota, is a for-profit computer

center owned by the University of Minnesota. Currently,

several thousand researchers use the center, over 700 of

which are from the University of Minnesota. The MinneTable A-1Federal Unclassified Supercomputer

Installations

Laboratory

Number of

machines

Department of Energy:

Los Alamos National Lab 6

Livermore National Lab, NMFECC 4

Livermore National Lab 7

Sandia National Lab, Uvermore 3

Sandia National Lab, Albuquerque 2

Oak Ridge National Lab 1

Idaho Falls National Engineering 1 Argonne National Lab 1 Knolls Atomic Power Lab 1 Bettis Atomic Power Lab 1 Savannah/DOE 1 Richland/DOE 1 Schenectedy Naval Reactors/DOE 2

Pittsburgh Naval Reactors/D1E 2

Department of Defense:

Naval Research Lab 1 Naval Ship R&D Center 1 Fleet Numerical Oceanography 1 Naval Underwater System Command 1 Naval Wopons Center 1 Martin Marletta/NTB 1 Air Force Weapons Lab 2

Air Force Global Mather 1 Arnold Engineering and Development 1 Wright Patterson AFB 1 Aerospace Corp 1 Army Ballistic Research Lab 2

Army/Tacom 1 Army/Huntsville 1 Army/Kwajalein 1 Army/WES (on order) 1 Army/Warren 1 Defense Nuclear Agency 1 National Aeronautics and Space

Administration:

Ames 5

Goddard 2

Lewis 1 Langley 1 Mar shal 1 Department of Commerce:

National institute of Standards

and Technology

1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric 4

Administration

Environmental Protection Agency:

Raleigh, North Carolina 1 Department of Health and Human Services:

National institutes of Health 1 National Cancer Institute 1 SOURCE: Office 1Technology Assessment estimate, September 1989.

sota Supercomputing Institute, an academic unit of the

university, channels university usage by providing grants

to the students through a peer review process.

iThe number cannot be estimated exactly. First, it depends on the definition of supercomputer one uses. Secondly, the number keeps changing as

States announce new plans for centers and as large research universities purchase their own HPCs.

43
Appendix AThe National Supercomputer Centers 35

The Minnesota Supercomputer Center received its first

machine, a Cray 1A, in September 1981. In mid-1985, it

installed a Cyber 205; and in the latter part of that year,

two Cray 2 computers were installed within 3 months of

each other. Minnesota bought its third Cray 2, the only

one in use now, at the end of 1988, just after it installed

a ETA-10. The ETA-10 has recently been decommissioned due to the closure of ETA. A Cray X-MP has been

added, giving the center a total of two supercomputers.

The Minnesota Supercomputer Center has acquired more

supercomputers than anyone outside the Federal Government.

The Minnesota State Legislature provides funds to the

university for the purchasing of supercomputer time.

Although the university buys a substantial portion of

supercomputing time, the center has many industrial

clients whose identities are proprietary, but they include

representatives of the auto, aerospace, petroleum, and

electronic industries. They are charged a fee for the use of

the facility.

The Ohio Supercomputer Center

The Ohio Supercomputer Center (OSC) originated

from a coalition of scientists in the State. The center,

located on Ohio State University's campus, is connected

to 20 other Ohio universities via the Ohio Academic

Research Network (OARNET). As ofJanuary 1989, three

private firms were using the center's resources.

In August 1987, OSC installed a Cray X-MP/24, which

was upgraded to a Cray X-MP/28 a year later. In August

1989 the center replaced the X-MP with a Cray Research

Y-MP. In addition to Cray hardware, there are 40 Sun

Graphic workstations, a Pixar II, a Stallar Graphics

machine, a Silicon Graphic workstation, and an Abekas

Still Store machine. The center maintains a staff of about

35..

The Ohio General Assembly began funding the center

in the summer of 1987, appropriating $7.5 million. In

March 1988, the Assembly allocated $22 million for the

acquisition of a Cray Y-MP. Ohio State University has

pledged $8.2 million to augment the center's budget. As

of February 1989 the State has spent $37.7 million in

funding.2 OSC's annual budget is around $6 million (not

including the purchase/leasing of their Cray).

Center for High Performance Computing (CHPC)

The Center for High Performance Computing is located

at the University of Texas at Austin. CHPC serves all 14

institutions, 8 academic institutions, and 6 health related

organizations, in the University of Texas system.

The University of Texas installed a Cray X-MP/24 in

March 1986, and a Cray 14se in November 1988. The

X-MP is used primarily for research. For now, the Cray

14se is being used as a vehicle for the conversion of users

to the Unix system. About 40 people staff the center.

Original funding for the center and the Cray X-MP

came from bonds and endowments from both the

University of Texas system and the University of Texas

at Austin. The annual budget of CHPC is about $3

million. About 95 percent of the center's operating budget

comes from State funding and endowments. Five percent

of the costs are recovered from selling CPU time.

Alabama Supercomputer Network

The George C. Wallace Supercomputer Center, located

in Huntsville, Alabama, serves the needs of researchers

throughout Alabama. Through the Alabama Supercomputer Network, 13 Alabama institutions, university, and

government sites are connected to the center. Under

contract to the State, Boeing Computer Services provides

the support staff and technical skills to operate the center.

Support staff are !,maied at each of the nodes to help

facilitate the use of tilt; supercomputer from remote sites.

A Cray X-MP/24 arrived in 1987 and became operational in early 1988. In 1987 the State of Alabama agreed

to finance the center. The State allocated $2.2 million for

the center and $38 million to Bo3ing Services for the

initial 5 years. The average yearly budget is $7 million.

The center has a support staff of about 25.

Alabama universities are guaranteed 60 percent of the

available time at no cost, while commercial res.,archers

are charged a user fee. The impetus for the State to create

a supercomputer center has been stated as the technical

superiority a supercomputer would bring, which would

draw high-tech industry to the State, enhance interaction

between industry and the universities, and promote

research and the associated educational programs within

the university.

Commercial Labs

A few corporations, such as the Boeing Computer

Corp., have been selling high performance computer time

for a while. Boeing operates a Cray X-MP/24. Other

commercial sellers of high performance computing time

include the Houston Area Research Center (HARC).

HARC operates the only Japanese supercomputer in

america, the NEC SX2. The center offers remote services.

Computer Sciences Corp. (CSC), located in Falls

Church, Virginia, has a 16-processor FLEX/32 from

Flexible Computer Corp., a Convex 120 from Convex

Computer Corp., and a DAP210 from Active Memory

Technology. Federal agencies constitute two-thirds of

2.1ane Ware, "Ohioans: Blazing Computer," Ohio, February 1989, p.12.

,1 4
36 Seeking Solutions: High-Performance Computing for Science

CSC's customers.3 Power Computing Co., located in

Dallas, Texas, offers time on a Cray X-MP124. Situated in

Houston, Texas, Supercomputing Technology sells time

on its Cray X-MP/28. Opticom Corp., of San Jose

California, offers time on a Cray X-MP/24, Cray 1-M,

Convex C220, and Cl XP.

3Nonis Parker Smith, "More Than Just Buying Cycles," Supercomputer Review, April 1989.

15
Index

Algorithms: 8, 15, 21, 24

Applications programs: 8

ARPANET: 5, 10

Artificial intelligence: 8, 26

Bardon/Curtis Report: 9

Bibliographic services: 10

Black hole: 5, 6

Bulletin boards: 4, 6, 10, 11, 12

California Institute of Technology: 29

Central processing units (CPU): 22, 24, 30

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy

(COSEPUP): 9

Computational science: 21, 22

Compute,

Alliant.

Apple Macintosh: 31

connection machines: 31

Control Data ETA: 22

Control Data 6600: 26

Cray 1: 31

Cray X-MP computer: 7, 19

data flow processors: 31

design: 22, 28, 29, 30, 32

fuzzy logic: 31

hypercube: 29, 31

IBM Stretch: 27

IBM 3090: 30

IBM 3090 computer: 6

IBM 360: 27

manufacture: 22

minisupercomputer: 22, 31

neural nets: 22, 31

NEXT: 31

parallel: 22, 30

specialized: 8

vector processing: 30

workstations: 4, 31

Computer architecture: 8, 27, 30

Computer conferences: 6, 10

Computer models and simulation: 2, 4, 5, 8, 25

Computer performance: 31-32

peak speed: 31

solution speed: 32

Computer science and engineering: 21

Computing

distributed: 17

specialized: 19

Cornell Theory Center: 6

Cornell University: 22

Cycle shops: 24

Data security: 13

Databases: 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 26

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA):

2, 15, 31

Defense procurement: 16

Department of Commerce: 18

Department of Defense: 15, 18

Department of Education: 10

Department of Energy: 15, 18, 26

-37-

Design, high-performance computers: 21

Digital libraries and archives: 8

Digital libraries, Global Digital Library: 8

Education: 8, 10, 13

EDUCOM, Networking and Telecommunications

Task Force: 10

Electronic

information technologies: 4, 5, 6

Journals: 6

mail: 6, 10, 12

Executive Office of the President: 11

Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering,

and Technology (FCCSET): 1, 3

Federal Government

budget and funding: 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22

funding, individual research: 12, 19

policy: 12, 16, 20, 23, 26

procurement regulations: 16

research and development (R&D): 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 15, 16,

17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 32

responsibilities, 11, 13, 15

Federal High Performance Computing and Communications

Program (HPCC): 2, 18

Fifth Generation Project: 2

Floating point operations (FLOPS): 31

Florida State University (FSU): 7, 18

Fluid flow: 6

Gallium Arsenide: 28-29

High-definition video: 6

High-performance computer, defmition: 29, 30, 31

High Performance Computing Initiative: 11, 16, 23, 24

High-speed digital communication network: 2, 4

Holograms: 8

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: 1

Human genome database: 5, 8, 11, 12

Human resources: 21

Hurricane or typhoon: 5, 7

Hypermedia: 6

Industrial cooperation: 23

Industry

computer: 2, 4, 8, 17, 23

telecommunications: 4

Information, technologies and infrastructure: 4, 6, 12

Infrastructure for research and education: 6

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: 3

Intellectual property protection: 12

Josephson Junction: 28-29

Knowbots: 26

Langenberg, Donald: 9

Languages, computer: 5, 15

Lax, Peter: 9

Lax Report: 9, 20

Libraries: 10

Logic: 5

Multimedia: 6
38 Seeking Solutions. High-Performance Computing for Science

National Academy of Sciences (NAS): 9, 11

National Mronautics and Space Administration (NASA),

7, 16, 18

National Association of State Universities and Land

Grant Colleges (NASULGC): 9-10

National Ccnter for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): 7, 15, 18,

19

National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA): 6

National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST): 16

National Laboratories

Livermore: 16, 18

Los Alamos: 16, 18

National Science Foundation (NSF): 14, 15, 27

Advanced Scientific Computing Division: 22

Computer Facilities Program: 5, 16

supercomputing centers: 8, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24

National Security Agency: 18

Nationdl Superspeed Computer Project: 2

Network

architecture: 10

BITNET: 10

high-speed broadband: 21

Internet: 10

national: 10, 22

National Research and Educational Network (NREN): 1, 7, 8,

10, 13, 24, 26

National Science Foundation (NSF): 1, 5, 6, 8

NSFNET: 6, 12, 17

State and local: 13

switched wide-area digital: 12

universal: 4, 5, 12

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP): 1, 11, 17

Parallel computers (parallelism), 8

Pittsburg Supercomputer Center: 29

Policy

industrial: 3

information: 12, 13

science: 12

Princeton University: 19, 22

Privacy: 12

Research

applied: 15

atmospheric chemistry: 19

basic: 15

biomedical: 19

fluid dynamics: 19

global climate change: 5

"Grand Challenges," 11

instruments: 8

physics: 15

Rice University: 29

Science, computational: 15, 16, 23

Scientific and engineering applications: 4

Scientific instruments

method: 5, 24

oceanographic probes: 8

satellites: 8

seismographs: 8

Search engines: 10

Senate Committee on Commerce and Transportation: 1

Silicon chips: 5

Silicon Graphics workstation: 6

Software: 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 17, 21, 23, 24, 30, 32

public domain, 8

Standards and protocols: 9, 11

State supercomputing centers: 20

Supercomputer

definition: 30

leading edge: 22

Superconductivity: 28-29

Syracuse University: 29

Technologies

automated chip design: 29

chip foundaries: 29

computer: 15

data storage: 5, 24

gallium arsenide: 5, 28

integrated circuits (IC): 27

microelectronics: 27

visual: 26

Technology, leading edge: 15

Typhoon Hope: 7

U.S. Constitution, First Amendment: 12

University of California, San Diego: 22, 29

University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana: 22, 29

Virtual reality: 8, 26

Wavefront Technologies Graphic Software: 6

World War 11: 5, 26

.17

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ; 1991 - 33-982 QL 3
Superintendent of Documents Publications Order Form

Older P,ocesung Code Charge your order. *6993 It's easy! L.

n YES, please send me the following indicated publications: To fax your orders and inquirles(202) 275-0019

copies of Seeking Solutions: High-Performance Computing for Science (20 pages), S/N

052-003-01227-8 at $2.25 each.

copies of Summary (20 pages), S/N 052-003-01226-0 at $1.00 each.

Li Please send me your Free Catalog of hundreds of bestselling Government books.

The total cost of my order is $ (International customers please add 25%.) Prices include regular domestic postage and

handling and are good through 10191. After this date, please call Order and Information Desk at 202-783-3238 to verify prices.

Please Choose Method of Payment:

(ComPany or personal name) (Please type or print) Check payable to the Superintendent of Documents

ri GPO Deposit Account

(Additional address/attention line)

(Street address)

(City, State. ZIP Code)

(baytime phone including area code)

IIHI

VISA or MasterCard Account

ri

111111111111111 U. MM

(Credit card expiration date) Thank you for your order!

(Signature)

Mail To: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

4 S

4/91

4 9
50

BEST COPY AVAILABLE