Supercomputers: Government Plans and

Policies

March 1986

NTIS order #PB86-205218
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Supercomputers: Government

Plans & Policies–A Background Paper, OTA-BP-CIT-31 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, March 1986).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 86-600508

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
Foreword

Supercomputers: Government Plans and Policies, presents a review of the Federal Government’s large-scale computing programs and examines the networking and software programs within selected agencies. Certain management and

institutional questions pertinent to the Federal efforts are also raised and discussed.

This background paper was requested by the House Committee on Science

and Technology. Within the past 2 years, there has been a notable expansion in

the Federal supercomputer programs and this increase prompted the committee’s

request for a review of issues of resource management, networking, and the role

of supercomputers in basic research.

OTA gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the many experts, within

and outside the government, who served as workshop participants, contractors,

and reviewers of this document. As with all OTA reports, however, the content

is the responsibility of OTA and does not necessarily constitute the consensus

or endorsement of the workshop participants or the Technology Assessment Board.

Director

.,.

I l l
OTA Project Staff—Supercomputers: Government Plans and Policies

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Frederick W. Weingarten, Communication and Information Technologies Program Manager

Project Staff

Prudence S. Adler, Study Director

Contractor

Susan P. Walton, Editor

Administrative Staff

Elizabeth A. Emanuel Shirley Gayheart*

Patricia M. Keville Audrey Newman

*Deceased, Dec. 1 I, 1985.

iv
Supercomputers Workshop Participants

Kent K. Curtis

Director

Division of Computer Research

National Science Foundation

James Decker

Deputy Director

U.S. Department of Energy

Sidney Fernbach

Consultant

Control Data Corp.

Robert Gillespie

Gillespie, Folkner & Associates

Ira Fuchs

Educom

Albert Brenner

Director

Consortium for Scientific Computing

Paul Schneck

Director

Supercomputing Research Center

Institute for Defense Analyses

Jacob Schwartz

Director

Division of Computer Sciences

Courant Institute of Mathematical

Sciences

New York University

Joe Wyatt

Chancellor

Vanderbilt University

Contractors

Robert Gillespie

Gillespie, Folkner, & Associates

Reviewers

John Connolly

Director

Office of Advanced Scientific Computing

National Science Foundation

Kent K. Curtis

Director

Division of Computer Research

National Science Foundation

James Decker

Deputy Director

U.S. Department of Energy

Earl Dowdy

Research Analyst

David J. Farber

Department of Electrical Engineering

University of Delaware

Sidney Fernbach

Consultant

Control Data Corp.

Craig Fields

Deputy Director

Engineering Applications Office

Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency

Robert Gillespie

Gillespie F’olkner & Associates

Randy Graves

Deputy Director

Aerodynamics Division

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

Dennis Jennings

Program Director for Networking

National Science Foundation
Sid Karin

Director

Advanced Scientific Computer Center

Lawrence Landweber

Department of Computer Science

University of Wisconsin, Madison

Lewis Peach

Numerical Aerodynamics Simulation

Program

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

Jacob Schwartz

Director

Division of Computer Science

Courant Institute of Mathematical

Sciences

New York University

Joe Wyatt

Chancellor

Vanderbilt University

Paul Schneck

Director

Supercomputing Research Center

Institute for Defense Analyses

vi
Contents

Page

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

NATIONAL POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

NATIONAL GOALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

CURRENT FEDERAL PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......11

National Science Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......11

National Aeronautics and Space Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......14

Supercomputing Research Center, National Security Agency . . . . .. .....15

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...16

NETWORKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......17

National Science Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...18

National Aeronautics and Space Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

SOFTWARE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......20

National Science Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....21

National Aeronautics and Space Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Supercomputing Research Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......21

Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...21

ISSUES:MANAGEMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ......22

Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......22

Center Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....23

Problems and Prospects for Software Development . . . . . . . . . . . . .......25

Network Design and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......27

Tables

Table No. Page

l. Partial List of Problems/Applications That Will Benefit From Use

of Large-Scale Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2. NSF/OASC Budget. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....11

3. NAS Development Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......14

4.DOE Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......15

5. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Budget. . . . ..16

6.DOE Network Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

‘7.NASA Network NAS Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......19

Figures

Figure No. Page

l. Current and Projected Supercomputers, 1960-90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Range of Federal Policies Possible With a Supercomputer 200 Times

the Current Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..10

vii
INTRODUCTION

The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)

recently completed a report entitled Information Technology R&D: Critical Trends and Issues. This report explored the structure and

orientation of selected foreign programs, issues of manpower, institutional change, new

research organizations developing out of Bell

Laboratories, and trends in science and technology policy. Four specific areas of research:

advanced computer architecture, artificial intelligence, fiber optics, and software engineering were also examined. To supplement this

earlier work, the House Committee on Science

and Technology requested that OTA examine

issues of resource management, networking,

and the role of supercomputers in basic research. This background paper will explore issues raised in the earlier R&D assessment and

examine new and ongoing Federal programs

in large-scale computer research.

Supercomputer is the term applied to the

class of the most powerful computers available

at any particular time. The cost/performance

ratio of all classes of computers, from the

largest to the smallest, continues to decrease

rapidly, and today’s desk-top computer has

the power that years ago was available only

in mainframes. Speed is gained both by improving the logical design of the computer and

by making electronic components of the machine operate faster. Hence, each generation

of supercomputers has tested many new design ideas and component technologies that

were later introduced in smaller, less expensive machines.

Since the 1950s most large computers have

shared an architecture named for John von

Neumann, a prominent mathematician who

played a major role in the invention and development of the digital computer. In the von

Neumann architecture, data and program instructions both reside in memory, and instructions are acted on one by one, sequentially by

the “processor” (other parts are the “control”

and the ‘‘memory’ ‘). Many of the supercomputers now popular, such as the Cray 1 and

the Cyber 205, are still based on variations of

the von Neumann design. Called “vector” machines, they gain their speed by breaking up

computational tasks (such as addition and multiplication) into separate “pipelines,” which allows certain problems to be executed far faster.

(See figure 1.)

Most computer scientists have concluded

that the sequential, von Neumann design can

no longer sustain the rapid growth to which

we have become accustomed (though component speeds will continue to improve). ] They

are looking elsewhere for new design ideas, and

their interest has turned to parallelism. In a

parallel machine, rather than one processor

working sequentially on the steps of solving

a problem, many processors work simultaneously on the computation. This interest in parallel design is based on three propositions:

1.

2.

3.

the parallel computer will theoretically be

far more powerful than the current von

Neumann design;

the parallel multiprocessor could be less

costly for a given task, especially when

utilizing mass production technologies;

and

parallel architectures will achieve higher —

computational speeds.

As the Federal Government sponsors more

and more research in parallel computation, it

is important to recognize this new design

direction as a key component of the government’s computer research effort. At the same

time, it must be recognized that computer

scientists and mathematicians are only beginning to understand how to use optimally the

types of highly parallel designs that computer

architects are exploring. Because of the growing importance of parallel computation, the

terms “largescale computing” and “advanced

scientific computing’ refer in this background

paper to both current vector supercomputers

that employ von Neumann architecture and

systems based on multiprocessor technologies.

‘U.S. Congress, office of TechnoIog~ Assessment, ,llicroelectronics Research and De\.elopment —A Background Paper,

OTA-BP-CIT-40 (Washington, DC: [J. S, Government Printing

office, March 1986).
2

10’

10’

10

10(

Figure l.—Current and Projected Supercomputers, 1960-90

I I I I I I

1960

Cray-”

~ -Denelcc

HEP 2

I

I

1965 1970 1975

..,1 v Cray X-MP148

Approximate year of introduction

I 1 I r I 1 I 1

1980 1985 1990 2005

SOURCE Sidney Fernbach
3

Federal interest in largescale computing de ● the availability of these machines to memvices is based on many concerns including: bers of the scientific, research, and inthe ability of selected Federal agencies to

fulfill their mission requirements in national defense, space technologies, energy

technologies, and other areas;

the viability of the U.S. supercomputer

industry, particularly in light of increasing foreign competition;

the research and development that is performed in hopes of increasing computational speed and the capabilities of these

machines; and

dustrial communities to perform new research in a variety of fields.

These and other needs have led the Federal

Government to expand its program in ways

designed to give scientists and researchers

greater access to large-scale computing facilities. This access will also foster the development of new architectures, and will lead to new

generations of information technologies and

the design and development of new software.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

● Several interagency panels were established

in 1983 by the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology

(FCCSET) Panel as a forum for discussion

on specific supercomputer issues. These

panels have succeeded in this role, and they

remain as a forum where national interests,

goals, and programs can be fully considered.

At the same time, FCCSET panels hold limited authority to alter or implement government policy based on their findings.

● No single government agency holds lead authority in advanced computer research and

access. Each agency’s programs represent

their own mission requirements. Though it

is clear that there is a need for this diversity

of government programs, there is also a need

for enhanced coordination of these efforts to

ensure that national goals are realized. This

may be especially true as greater fiscal constraints are placed on the funding agencies.

Q Federal efforts have grown substantially in

the past 2 years in response to a series of

reports that noted shortcomings in the national supercomputer program. With the

diversity of programs, program goals, and

mission requirements now underway throughout the government, it may be advisable to

assess the Federal efforts to ensure that the

original concerns noted in the reports (e.g., the

need for more research in computational

mathematics, software, and algorithms) are

still valid or have been replaced by new more

pressing concerns. If it is to be effective,

such a reexamination should:

—involve scientific and research users,

members of the private sector, and pertinent agency administrators; and

—include a broader examination of the role

of new information technologies and the

conduct of scientific research.

● It is difficult to accurately assess the Federal investment in large-scale computing

programs as the agencies employ a variety

of terms to describe comparable or similar

efforts.

●

●

●

●

●

At least over the short term, limited human

resources will be a critical factor in the success of the supercomputer programs. The

opening of seven new centers by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE) and Florida State

University, and the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration (NASA) in the

next fiscal year will generate a large demand

for expert personnel to manage and operate

the centers, but relatively few are available.

Demand will be particularly heavy in the

areas of applications software design and development, and this can only worsen as significantly different architectures proliferate.

Software is an important determinant of the

efficiency of the machines and the types of

problems that can be tackled on them. It

also influences the design of the next generation of machine. Therefore an investment

in algorithm and software development is essential and integral to any large-scale computation program.

Research in parallel computation has become a key component of the Federal Government’s computer research effort and one

result has been a proliferation of significantly different architectures. Most scientists

and researchers consider these experimental

designs necessary and fundamental to the

efforts of advancing computational speed.

Our current understanding of software and

algorithm development is inadequate to

fully realize the benefits of the new architectures. Resources need to be directed to:

–develop an understanding of the new architectures,

—define the research necessary to move

soft ware and algorithms from current

generation supercomputers to other supercomputers and architectures, and

–develop software and algorithms for the

new architectures.

Advanced data communication networks

are important to the conduct of research

science and technology, because they pro4
vide nationwide (and sometimes international) access to resources and information.

Networks can:

—expand interconnections between research

communities,

—encourage greater joint or collaborative

efforts, and

–broaden access to a variety and number

of resources.

c Government and private networks are proliferating, many employing a variety of

technologies, standards, and protocols. This

diversity may merit concern in the near future if it makes use of the networks difficult for users.

● NSF is establishing NSFnet, a network that

will link researchers with the large-scale

computing resources. It is also NSF’s intention that NSFnet will be the basis of a

5

national research network for scientists,

researchers, and interested members of

the industrial community. The coupling of

NSFnet and a national research network

could have far-reaching implications, and

merits an in-depth and detailed study by an

organization such as the National Academy

of Sciences. In the interim, there are key issues regarding technology development and

management operations of NSFnet that

need to be considered by NSF:

—NSFnet is developing quickly and choices

made today, of pilot projects for example,

may affect the future configuration of a

national research network; and

—the industrial community has not been included in plans for NSFnet, which may

restrict private researchers’ access to resources and NSFnet users access to industrial resources.
NATIONAL POLICY

Over the past few years, a combination of

events has broadened awareness of and interest in Federal programs for the design and use

of largescale computing facilities. Prompted

by a decline in the computational facilities and

services at American universities and colleges,

particularly scientific researchers’ lack of ade

quate access to large-scale computing facilities, NSF convened a panel of scientists to review the situation in 1982. The Department

of Defense (DOD), DOE, and NASA joined

NSF in sponsoring the panel, which was

chaired by Peter Lax of New York University.

Unlike previous studies, which explored the

needs of specific segments of the research community, this panel (referred to as the “Lax

panel”) examined the large-scale computing

needs of the entire U.S. research community.

The panel noted two key problems: access to

supercomputer facilities was limited and R&D

on new architectures was insufficient to meet

the perceived need for more sophisticated computers. The panel recommended four actions:

1. provide the scientific research community

with increased access to supercomputing

facilities and experimental computers

through high bandwidth networks;

2. increase research in computational mathematics, software, and algorithms;

3. train personnel to use these facilities; and

4. conduct R&D of large-scale computing

systems.2

A second report sponsored by NSF, the

Bardon-Curtis report, outlined how NSF could

respond to the problems noted by the Lax

panel. The Bardon-Curtis report laid the

groundwork for the new NSF supercomputing

centers. The report recommended that NSF

take six steps:

1. enhance coordination between Federal

and private programs and supercomputer

research projects;

2. increase support for local scientific computing facilities;

‘National Science Foundation, Report of the Panel on Large

Scale Computing in Science and Engineering, 1982.

6

3

4,

5

6.

elicit proposals for supercomputer research centers, and support up to 10

centers within 3 years;

support networks to link universities and

laboratories with each other and with supercomputer centers, thus providing access to facilities, file transfer capability,

and scientific communication;

create an advisory committee to assist

and oversee NSF’s decisions concerning

computer services and networks; and

support academic research and training

programs in the areas of advanced computer systems design, computational

mathematics, software, and algorithms.3

While the Lax panel was studying largescale computing needs in the United States,

the Japanese Government was working intensively to develop two programs, the National

Super Speed Computer Project and the FifthGeneration Computer Project. These programs, both designed to meet Japan’s domestic supercomputer needs, also give entry into

the international marketplace. The National

Super Speed Computer Project is a lo-year

program that seeks to develop a machine onethousand times faster than a current supercomputer. The Fifth-Generation Computer

Project is focusing on development of a machine with artificial intelligence applications.

Both projects are supported by Ministry of International Trade and Industry, and private

companies. Recently, three Japanese companies, Fujitsu, Nippon Electric Corp. and

Hitachi, announced supercomputers that appeared to be faster than U.S. machines.

In 1983, the British Government also announced a research effort in this area based

on the recommendations of the Alvey Committee, the committee that formulated the British response to the Japanese Fifth-Generation

Program. The British effort is focused on artificial intelligence and largescale integrated circuits, software engineering, and man/machine

3M. Bardon and K. Curtis, A Natiomd Computing Environment for Academk Research, National Science Foundation, July

1983.
7

interfaces. The European Economic Commu- tronics, software, office automation, advanced

nity has initiated the ESPRIT project, which information processing, and computer inwill fund research in advanced microelec- tegrated manufacturing.
NATIONAL GOALS

Together, foreign competition and pressure

from the academic community have heightened concern over what the U.S. Government role should be in the development and

use of advanced scientific computers and largescale facilities. Several themes have emerged

from the various reports that describe and elucidate the national role and goals with respect

to large-scale computing machines.

The advancement of science is one of the

most commonly cited goals.

Perhaps the most significant applications of

scientific computing lie not in the solution of

old problems but in the discovery of new

phenomena through numerical experimentation. They [supercomputers], permit the solution of previously intractable problems, and

motivate scientists and engineers to explore

and formulate new areas of investigation.”4

Integral to achieving this goal are education

and access. Because computers and computing have become essential tools in scientific

and engineering research many trained and

knowledgeable personnel are needed to operate and to use them. With access to these machines and facilities, researchers can be trained

in large-scale computing and also conduct research using high-performance machines.

The reports also stress that the United

State’s economic strength and ability to compete internationally both now and in the future are dependent on the continuing development of and access to large-scale computing

machines. Supercomputers are now integral in

the design of aerospace, automotive, chemical,

pharmaceutical, and microelectronic products.

Over the last two decades, the United States

has led the industrialized world in computer

technology; each succeeding generation of supercomputer has led to new and innovative applications and designs. The relationship between a large-scale computing program to

advance the state of the art in numerous fields

— .

4N ational Science Foundation, Report of the Panel on Z.arge

Scale Computing in Science and En@”neering, 1982, p. 6.

8

and the U.S. position in the international marketplace is quite clear and is discussed in

depth in two OTA reports: Information Technology R&D: Critical Trends and Issues and

International Competitiveness in Electronics.5

As the number of supercomputers available

to the scientific and research communities increases, more and more applications will be

employed expanding the commercial and economic benefits to the United States. Clearly,

the potential benefits from employing largescale computing machines within the defense,

industrial, and scientific communities are

enormous.

The development of supercomputers in support of national defense and national security

programs are critical goals of a national program. High-performance computing is needed

to verify arms control, analyze intelligence

data and information, and protect national

security secrets. Supercomputers have always

been essential in defense programs for military

preparedness, and the design of weapon systems and ballistic trajectories.

Largescale computing facilities are also central to R&D in such fields as atmospheric

sciences, aeronautics, nuclear reactor theory

and design, and geophysics. “Research at the

forefront of contemporary and future science

and technology will demand adequate access

to supercomputer power. ”6 With the help of

supercomputers, scientists can now tackle

problems and investigations in areas not possible before. Problems such as simulating the

circulation of the oceans and the atmosphere,

and the effects of carbon dioxide buildup in

the atmosphere are examples of questions previously too large and too time-consuming to

attempt solution on computing facilities. “The

————

‘U.S. Con&ess, Office of Technology Assessment, Information Technology R&D: Critical Trends and Issues, OTA-CIT268 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1985); and U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, International Competitiveness in Electronics, OTA-ISC200 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1983).

‘U.S. Department of Energy, The Role of Supercomputers

in Energy Research Programs, February 1985, p. 4.
9

—. - — .

Table 1 .—Partial List of Problems/Applications That Will Benefit From Use of Large-Scale Facilities

Use of supercomputers In engineering:

Automobile design

Aircraft design

Digital simulation

Nuclear power system safety

Stress/strain analysis of structures

Use of supercomputers In manufacturing:

Robotics

Assembly

System control

Plant design

Computer-aided design

Use of supercomputers In support of national security

missions:

Command and control

Embedded systems

Weapons systems design

Mapping

Intelligence collection and analysis

Use of supercomputers In exploring environmental

questions:

Weather modeling and climate

Satellite imaging

Chemical flow models

Use of supercomputers in medicine and health-related

issues and problems”

Diagnosis

Biochemical processes

Design of drugs

Genetic research

Use of supercomputers in economics research:

Real-time models of world economic relationships

Prediction effects of phenomena

Use of supercomputers In chemistry:

Design of catalysts

SOURCE Off!ce of Technology Assessment

story of numerical weather prediction and climate modeling is one of a never-ending fight

for faster computers, because they raise the

level of realism we can put into our models and

hence the level of realism we can expect in our

results. (See table 1.) As increased availability of large-scale computing facilities has

extended the range of problems to be investigated by the scientific and research communities in the United States, it has also sharpened interest in facilities on either side of the

supercomputing spectrum; those not nearly as

.

‘hlerr}; Ilaisel, “Questions for Supercomput,ers, ’” (ia[her

Scatter, San Diego Supercomputer Center, ,Januar? 1986, p. ,5.

Design of membranes

Design of new materials and chemicals

Use of supercomputers in energy research and

development:

Petroleum exploration

Reservoir modeling

Power grid modeling

Fusion engineering

Exploration support

Use of supercomputers in support of new computer

design and development:

Simulation of new computer architectures

Supercomputer design

Computer graphics

Examples of scientific research employing

supercomputers:

Cell growth in biological systems

Lattice quantum chromodynamics

Quantum calculations of molecular energy surfaces

Molecular dynamics simulations on genetically

engineered proteins

General circulation models of the atmosphere to study

the cllmatic effects of aerosols

Simulation and condensed matter physics

Free oscillations of the earth

Determination of the structure of an animal virus.

human rhinovirus-14

Simulations of DNA molecules in an aqueous

environment

Simulations of the origins of the universe

Neural modellng of the frog retina

Simulations of interactions between enzymes and

inhibitor molecules

powerful as the Cray 2 or Cyber 205, dubbed

the minisupercomputers, and those machines

not yet available, the next generation.

The minisupercomputers, such as the Intel

Personal Supercomputer, the IPSC, or that of

Convex Computer Corp., the C-1, present the

scientist with a cost-effective alternative to a

supercomputer with hands-on availability and

large-number crunching capabilities. But there

are problems still intractable on current generation supercomputers in fields such as hydrodynamics, fusion, plasma physics, and others

that drive scientists to design new architectures with increased computational capabilities. (See figure 2.)
10

Figure 2.—Range of Federal Policies Possible With a

Supercomputer 200 Times the Current Capabilities

“benchmark”

,~1

10 h rs

Large

product Ion

1

1 hr

Small

production

0.1

f+ min

KEY.
Table l.— Partial List of Problems/Applications That

Use of supercomputers in engineering:

Automobile design

Aircraft design

Digital simulation

Nuclear power system safety

Stress/strain analysis of structures

Use of supercomputers in manufacturing:

Robotics

Assembly

System control

Plant design

Computer-aided design

Use of supercomputers in support of national security

missions:

Command and control

Embedded systems

Weapons systems design

Mapping

Intelligence collection and analysis

Use of supercomputers in explorlng environmental

questions:

Weather modeling and climate

Satellite imaging

Chemical flow models

Use of supercomputers In medicine and health-related

Issues and problems”

Diagnosis

Biochemical processes

Design of drugs

Genetic research

Use of supercomputers in economics research:

Real-time models of world economic relationships

Prediction effects of phenomena

Use of supercomputers in chemistry:

Design of catalysts

SOURCE office Technology Assessment

story of numerical weather prediction and climate modeling is one of a never-ending fight

for faster computers, because they raise the

level of realism we can put into our models and

hence the level of realism we can expect in our

results. (See table 1.) As increased availability of large-scale computing facilities has

extended the range of problems to be investigated by the scientific and research communities in the United States, it has also sharpened interest in facilities on either side of the

supercomputing spectrum; those not nearly as

7 Merry Maisel, “Questions for Supercomputers, ” Gather

Scatter. San Diego Super-computer Center, ,January 1986. p. 5.

9

Will Benefit From Use of Large-Scale Facilities

Design of membranes

Design of new materials and chemicals

Use of supercomputers in energy research

development:

Petroleum exploration

Reservoir modeling

Power grid modeling

Fusion engineering

Exploration support

and

Use of supercomputers in support of new computer

design and development:

Simulation of new computer architectures

Supercomputer design

Computer graphics

Examples of scientific research employing

supercomputers:

Cell growth in biological systems

Lattice quantum chromodynamlcs

Quantum calculations of molecular energy surfaces

Molecular dynamics simulations on genetically

engineered proteins

General circulation models of the atmosphere to study

the climatic effects of aerosols

Simulation and condensed matter physics

Free oscillations of the earth

Determination of the structure of an animal virus,

human rhinovirus-14

Simulations of DNA molecules In an aqueous

environment

Simulations of the origins of the universe

Neural modeling of the frog retina

Simulations of interactions between enzymes and

inhibitor molecules

powerful as the Cray 2 or Cyber 205, dubbed

the minisupercomputers, and those machines

not yet available, the next generation.

The minisupercomputers, such as the Intel

Personal Supercomputer, the IPSC, or that of

Convex Computer Corp., the C-I, present the

scientist with a cost-effective alternative to a

supercomputer with hands-on availability and

large-number crunching capabilities. But there

are problems still intractable on current generation supercomputers in fields such as hydrodynamics, fusion, plasma physics, and others

that drive scientists to design new architectures with increased computational capabilities. (See figure 2.)
10

Figure 2.—Range of Federal Policies Possible With a

Supercomputer 200 Times the Current Capabilities

102

State-of-the-art ——— 4 da —

“benchmark”

10’

10 hrs

Large

production

1

1 hr

Small

production

0.1

6 min

KEY.
CURRENT FEDERAL PROGRAMS

This section will briefly review the Federal

large-scale computing programs in the pertinent agencies to illustrate the scope and nature of the [J. S. Government’s investment in

large-scale computing programs and facilities.

The OTA review will describe five major programs at: NSF, NASA, DOE, the Supercomputing Research Center, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

The programs vary in nature, ranging from

those of DOE and NSF, which combine R&D

funding and access to facilities, to DARPA,

which is focused on R&L) of advanced computer research.

National Science Foundation

Within the past 2 years, NSF has broadened

its large-scale computing program efforts in

direct response to the Lax and Bardon-Curtis

reports and the pressures and problems they

cited. To rectify two commonly cited problems, NSF established an Office of Advanced

Scientific Computing (OASC). The new office

is designed to provide U.S. researchers with

access to supercomputers or advanced computing services; and encourage the growth and

development of advanced scientific computing

in the United States.

~NSF is providing researchers with increased

access to advanced computing services in several ways. In July 1984, NSF funded three

operating computer centers (phase 1), at Purdue University, University of Minnesota, and

Boeing Computer Services in Seattle. This action presented qualified researchers with immediate opportunities to conduct research at

these computing facilities and at the same

time become familiar with four supercomputers: the Cyber 205, the Cray 2, the Cray

1A, and the Cray 1S. The majority of users

of the three centers are current NSF grantees,

who also comprise the bulk of new proposals

soliciting computer center time. Since those

original grants were made, three other facilities were funded. Colorado State houses a

Cyber 205; Digital/Vector Productions has a

Cray X-MP; and AT&T Bell Laboratories now

has a Cray X-MP. The OASC allocated 22,000

hours of supercornputer time to NSF researchers in fiscal year 1985; 5,000 hours had been

used by the end of fiscal year 1985. At the beginning of fiscal year 1986, time is being used

at a rate of over 1,000 hours per month.

The new supercomputer centers represent

a major new Federal investment. Over the

next 5 years, NSF will invest approximately

$200 million in five more centers (phase II) at

Cornell University, the Consortium for Scientific Computing near Princeton (a consortium

of 13 universities), the University of California at San Diego (a consortium of 19 universities and research institutions), the University of Illinois, and the Pittsburgh Center (a

consortium of 10 to 20 universities). (See table 2.) NSF funds serve also as “seed” money,

and have already generated interest and support in other sectors. In addition to Federal

funding, the centers receive some money from

State governments and industry. For example, the State of New Jersey, private industry,

and consortium members have already committed $39.3 million to the John von Neumann

Center for Scientific Computing near Princeton, New tJersey. Private industry is also expected to fund specific research projects at

these five centers.

Each of the five new supercomputer centers

are expected to develop a different research

Table 2 .—NSF/OASC Budget (in millions)

Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal

year year year

1985 1986 1987

Centers: ‘-

Phase I ... ... .$ 9.7 $ 33 $ 2.3

Phase !1 . . . . . 19.3 25.1 34.5

Training . . . . . . . . . . . ... 0,5 1.0 1.0

Networks:

NSFnet ... . . 3.7 5.0 6.5

Local access . . 2.2 1,8 .5

New Technologies.

Cornell Center ... ... . . . . 4.9 5.2 6.2

Other experimental access .0 2.3 1.0

Software . . . . .9 1.5 1.6

Total ... ... ... ... $4i.4 $45.2 $53.6

SOURCE John Connolly Director Off Ice of Advanced Sclentlflc Comput!ng, Na

Ilonal Science Foundation

11
12

emphasis. The Center for Theory and Simulation in Science and Engineering, located at

Cornell University, has been designated an experimental center where research will focus on

parallel processing and software productivity.

Researchers there use an IBM 3084 QX mainframe computer attached to FPS 164 and 264

scientific processors. IBM has donated both

equipment and personnel to support this center. An important aspect of the Cornell program is the plan to bring in interdisciplinary

teams of scientists to develop new algorithms.

Unlike the other center programs, this program focuses on experimental equipment, and

this configuration means that it will serve a

few users with large needs, rather than a large

number of users in need of computing cycles.

The John von Neumann Center, located near

Princeton, will be managed by the Consortium

for Scientific Computing, which represents 13

universities.s At first, the von Neumann Center will use a Cyber 205, then later will upgrade the facilities to include an ETA-10. The

center was established to provide researchers

with access to the facilities for scientific research and to develop new architectures and

algorithms.

The San Diego Supercomputer Center, located at the University of California at San

Diego, is managed by GA Technologies and

supported by a consortium of 19 universities

and research institutions. 9 The State of California is committing $1 million per year to this

center. The San Diego Supercomputer Center

will use a Cray X-MP/48 and plans to use a

Cray-compatible minisupercomputer pledged

“Members are: University of Arizona; Brown University; Columbia University; University of Colorado; Harvard University; Institute for Advanced Study-Princeton, iNJ; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; New York University; University

of Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania State University; Princeton

University; University of Rochester; and Rutgers University.

‘The members are: Agouron Institute, San Diego, CA; California Institute of Technology; National Optical Astronomy Observatories; Research Institute of Scripps Clinic; Salk Institute

for Biological Studies; San Diego State University; Southwest

Fisheries Center; Stanford University; University of California at Berkeley; University of California at Los Angeles; University of California at San Diego; Scripps Institution of Oceanography; University of California at San Franciso; University

of Hawaii; University of Maryland; University of Michigan;

University of Utah; University of Washington; and the University of Wisconsin.

by Scientific Computer Systems. At this center, the focus will be on providing research

time on the supercomputer facilities. Members

of the consortium believe that the center will

develop strengths in particular disciplines,

such as microbiology.

The fourth center, the National Center for

Supercomputing Applications is located at the

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Like the San Diego Center, it will use a Cray

X-MP/24 and upgrade to a Cray X-MP/48. The

Illinois center will be closely affiliated with the

Center for Supercomputer Research and Development, a program supported by DOE and

NSF. The Illinois center will provide computing cycles to the research community, and

through a visiting scholar program, it will also

focus on the development of new architectures

and algorithms. The Illinois center has received extensive support from the State of

Illinois.

The Pittsburgh Center for Advanced Computing will not be funded at the same level as

the other phase II centers, although NSF is

committed to its long-term operation. A Cray

1S donated by NASA prompted the establishment of this new center, which will be dedicated to providing time on the Cray facilities.

A Cray X-MP/48 and SSP will be delivered in

April 1986 to update the center’s facilities. The

University of Pittsburgh Center will be managed by Carnegie-Mellon University with participation by Westinghouse Electric Corp.

The funding cycles of these centers vary.

The phase I centers will be funded for 2 years,

through 1986, after which phase II centers will

begin full operation. ’” Funding for each phase

II center will be approximately $40 million per

center over a 5-year period. Prototype centers

(e.g., Cornell University), will be funded for 3

years at $20 million. NSF projects that the

program will require between $300 million and

$500 million within 5 years. This will cover the

costs of network development and of establishing 11 to 13 supercomputer centers nationwide, with two systems per center. This estimate is based on an analysis of projected

‘“Phase I centers are now going through year two funding

cycles.
———.—

CURRENT FEDERAL PROGRAMS

This section will briefly review the Federal

large-scale computing programs in the pertinent agencies to illustrate the scope and nature of the U.S. Government’s investment in

large-scale computing programs and facilities.

The OTA review will describe five major programs at: NSF, NASA, DOE, the Supercomputing Research Center, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

The programs vary in nature, ranging from

those of DOE and NSF, which combine R&D

funding and access to facilities, to DARPA,

which is focused on R&D of advanced computer research.

National Science Foundation

Within the past 2 years, NSF has broadened

its large-scale computing program efforts in

direct response to the Lax and 13ardon-Curtis

reports and the pressures and problems they

cited. To rectify two commonly cited problems, NSF established an Office of Advanced

Scientific Computing (OASC). The new office

is designed to provide U.S. researchers with

access to supercornputers or advanced computing services; and encourage the growth and

development of advanced scientific computing

in the United States.

NSF is providing researchers with increased

access to advanced computing services in several ways. In July 1984, NSF funded three

operating computer centers (phase 1), at Purdue University, University of Minnesota, and

Boeing Computer Services in Seattle. This action presented qualified researchers with immediate opportunities to conduct research at

these computing facilities and at the same

time become familiar with four supercomputers: the Cyber 205, the Cray 2, the Cray

1A, and the Cray 1 S. The majority of users

of the three centers are current NSF grantees,

who also comprise the bulk of new proposals

soliciting computer center time. Since those

original grants were made, three other facilities were funded. Colorado State houses a

Cyber 205; Digital/Vector Productions has a

Cray X-MP; and AT&T Bell Laboratories now

has a Cray X-MP. The OASC allocated 22,000

hours of supercomputer time to NSF researchers in fiscal year 1985; 5,000 hours had been

used by the end of fiscal year 1985. At the beginning of fiscal year 1986, time is being used

at a rate of over 1,000 hours per month.

The new supercomputer centers represent

a major new Federal investment. Over the

next 5 years, NSF will invest approximately

$200 million in five more centers (phase II) at

Cornell University, the Consortium for Scientific Computing near Princeton (a consortium

of 13 universities), the University of California at San Diego (a consortium of 19 universities and research institutions), the University of Illinois, and the Pittsburgh Center (a

consortium of 10 to 20 universities). (See table 2.) NSF funds serve also as “seed” money,

and have already generated interest and support in other sectors. In addition to Federal

funding, the centers receive some money from

State governments and industry. For example, the State of New Jersey, private industry,

and consortium members have already committed $39.3 million to the John von Neumann

Center for Scientific Computing near Princeton, New Jersey. Private industry is also expected LO fund specific research projects at

these five centers.

Each of the five new supercomputer centers

are expected to develop a different research

Table 2.– NSF/OASC Budget (in millions)

Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal

year year year

1985 1986 1987

Centers:

Phase I . . . ... $ 9.7 $ 3.3 $ 2.3

Phase II ... ., ~ ~ “ 19.3 251 34.5

Training . . . . . . ... 0.5 1.0 1.0

Networks:

NSFnet . . ... ., . . ... 3,7 5.0 6.5

Local access . . . . 2.2 1.8 .5

New Technologies

Cornell Center ... ... .. . 4,9 5,2 6.2

Other experimental access ., . 0 2.3 1.0

Software . . . . . . . . . . . . ,9 1.5 1.6

Total ... . . ... ... ... $41,4 — $45. 2 $53.6

SOURCE John Connolly Dlrec-tor Off Ice of Advanced Sclentlf!c ComputlngI Na

tlonal Sc(ence Foundation

11
12

emphasis. The Center for Theory and Simulation in Science and Engineering, located at

Cornell University, has been designated an experimental center where research will focus on

parallel processing and software productivity.

Researchers there use an IBM 3084 QX mainframe computer attached to FPS 164 and 264

scientific processors. IBM has donated both

equipment and personnel to support this center. An important aspect of the Cornell program is the plan to bring in interdisciplinary

teams of scientists to develop new algorithms.

Unlike the other center programs, this program focuses on experimental equipment, and

this configuration means that it will serve a

few users with large needs, rather than a large

number of users in need of computing cycles.

The John von Neumann Center, located near

Princeton, will be managed by the Consortium

for Scientific Computing, which represents 13

universities.8 At first, the von Neumann Center will use a Cyber 205, then later will upgrade the facilities to include an ETA-10. The

center was established to provide researchers

with access to the facilities for scientific research and to develop new architectures and

algorithms.

The San Diego Supercomputer Center, located at the University of California at San

Diego, is managed by GA Technologies and

supported by a consortium of 19 universities

and research institutions. 9 The State of California is committing $1 million per year to this

center. The San Diego Supercomputer Center

will use a Cray X-MP/48 and plans to use a

Cray-compatible minisupercomputer pledged

‘Members are: University of Arizona; Brown University; Columbia University; University of Colorado; Harvard University; Institute for Advanced Study-Princeton, NJ; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: New York University; University

of Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania State University; Princeton

University; University of Rochester; and Rutgers University.

The members are: Agouron Institute, San Diego, CA; California Institute of Technology; National Optical Astronomy Observatories; Research Institute of Scripps Clinic; Salk Institute

for Biological Studies; San Diego State University; Southwest

Fisheries Center; Stanford University; University of California at Berkeley; University of California at Los Angeles; University of California at San Diego; Scripps Institution of Oceanography; University of California at San Franciso; University

of Hawaii; University of Maryland; University of Michigan:

University of Utah; University of Washington; and the University of Wisconsin.

by Scientific Computer Systems. At this center, the focus will be on providing research

time on the supercomputer facilities. Members

of the consortium believe that the center will

develop strengths in particular disciplines,

such as microbiology.

The fourth center, the National Center for

Supercomputing Applications is located at the

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Like the San Diego Center, it will use a Cray

X-MP/24 and upgrade to a Cray X-MP/48. The

Illinois center will be closely affiliated with the

Center for Supercomputer Research and Development, a program supported by DOE and

NSF. The Illinois center will provide computing cycles to the research community, and

through a visiting scholar program, it will also

focus on the development of new architectures

and algorithms. The Illinois center has received extensive support from the State of

Illinois.

The Pittsburgh Center for Advanced Computing will not be funded at the same level as

the other phase II centers, although NSF is

committed to its long-term operation. A Cray

1S donated by NASA prompted the establishment of this new center, which will be dedicated to providing time on the Cray facilities.

A Cray X-MP/48 and SSP will be delivered in

April 1986 to update the center’s facilities. The

University of Pittsburgh Center will be managed by Carnegie-Mellon University with participation by Westinghouse Electric Corp.

The funding cycles of these centers vary.

The phase I centers will be funded for 2 years,

through 1986, after which phase II centers will

begin full operation. Funding for each phase

II center will be approximately $40 million per

center over a 5-year period. Prototype centers

(e.g., Cornell University), will be funded for 3

years at $20 million. NSF projects that the

program will require between $300 million and

$500 million within 5 years. This will cover the

costs of network development and of establishing 11 to 13 supercomputer centers nationwide, with two systems per center. This estimate is based on an analysis of projected

‘

[

’Phase I centers are now going through year two funding

cycles.
—

13 —

needs of the 20 disciplines funded by NSF. By

1990, one-third of these disciplines will require

two or more large-scale computing facilities;

one-third will require one facility; and the

remaining one-third less than one-half of a

facility. This totals 22 to 24 state-of-the-art

large-scale facilities and minisupercomputers. ” These projections were made prior to the

passage of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation. In a recent briefing on the NSF program, program staff stated that no more centers would be established.

An important facet of the establishment of

these centers is the creation of a new network

to allow users to communicate with one other,

both at the centers and around the country.

The stated goal of the NSF networking program is to provide the research community

with universal access to the large-scale research facilities. This network is intended to

be the basis for a national research network

for the academic community and eventually

will connect with international networks. The

NSF strategy appears to be twofold: 1) immediate access through existing networks, such

as ARPANET (the first long-haul computer

network developed under contract by

DARPA); 2) followed by development of highspeed networks that will be the backbone of

the new network, connecting all of the data

centers. To carry out this strategy, the program will soon begin funding pilot networking projects.

OASC also intends to fund projects in five

areas of software productivity and computational mathematics: computer science research

on programming environments, development

of software tools, numerical analysis, algorithm development, and increasing research

effectiveness in using advanced computers. ‘z

The fiscal year 1985 budget for this program

was almost $1 million, but only $500,000 was

committed to new grants, some funded jointly

with the Divisions of Mathematical Sciences

and Computer Research. The funded proposals

‘‘ I,arrJ’ I,ee, National %ience Foundation, personal communication. ,June 7, 1985,

1’Ibid., ,June 14, 19x5.

have focused on algorithm development and

numerical techniques. In fiscal year 1986, $1.5

million is earmarked for software proposals.

Other divisions of NSF also support research on large-scale facilities, networking,

software engineering, and related areas.

Projects funded by the Division of Computer

Research over the past 20 years are now the

basis for many information technologies in use

or have lead to prototype development elsewhere (many of the DARPA projects described originated within the Division of Computer Research). Projects may be directly

related to the work planned at the new centers

and in OASC, but the focus is varied and distinct from that of OASC. Unlike OASC, the

other divisions place a greater emphasis on

funding projects that use multiprocessor technologies. For example, two NSF projects with

this emphasis, now in the prototype stage, are

the Texas Reconfigurable Array Computer

project at the University of Texas, Austin, and

the Cedar project at the University of Illinois.

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

NASA has used supercomputers at various

locations around the country for several years

in support of a number of mission programs.

Until recently, however, NASA has funded

very little advanced scientific supercomputer

research designed to create or develop new architectures or machines, although the agency

did fund the development of the Massively

Parallel Processor (MPP), now being used for

image processing. IS (See table 3.)

NASA’s three research centers have supercomputers: Ames, Langley, and Lewis. The

Goddard Space Flight Center also has supercomputer facilities (Cyber 205) though it is not

designated as a research center. ”

“MPP, a limited application computer, has o~rer 16,000 processors operating simultaneously’ and a custom integrated circuit containing eight complete processors.

“Ames, Cyber 205, X-hi P, I.angley, modified Cyber 205:

I,ew’is, Cra~’ 1 S and awaiting an X-hi P: and hlarshall Space

Flight center has an RFP out to purchase a supercomputer in

the near future.

((wnf~nued (JII n(’xr pago
14

Table 3.—NAS Development Budget (in millions)

Fiscal Fiscal

year year

1986 1987

SOURCE: Randy Graves, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

One of NASA’s major supercomputer programs is the Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation (NAS) Program. NAS is designed to

solve problems of aerodynamic and fluid dynamics, but it is also intended to:

. . . act as the pathfinder in advanced largescale computer system capability through

systematic incorporation of state-of-the-art

improvements in computer hardware and software technologies.15

When NAS becomes operational in fiscal year

1986, it will be available to interested individuals from NASA, DOD, other government

agencies, industry, and universities. The NAS

processing system will employ state-of-the-art

high-speed processors (designated HSP 1 and

2), a mass storage system, a support-processing subsystem, a workstation subsystem, a

graphics subsystem, and a long-haul communications subsystem. HSP-1 will be a Cray 2

supercomputer with four processors configuration and 256 million words of memory. The

HSP-2, to be developed as NAS becomes operational, is expected to achieve four times the

computational capabilities of a Cray 2 and will

include upgraded subsystems and graphics capabilities and expanded wideband communications. 16

(continued from previous page)

Ames Research Center utilizes the Cray IS–upgraded to XMP for computational aerodynamic research; Lewis Research

Center uses the Cray 1S for internal computational fluid me

chanics, and for thermal and structural performance analysis

of propulsion system components; Goddard Space Flight Center utilizes their Cyber 205 for atmospheric science investigations.

MNASA ~gt,imony, House Science and Technology Committee, June 25, 1985.

‘6Lewis Peach and Randy Graves, NASA, personal communication, February 1985.

In fiscal year 1984, anticipating the arrival

of the Cray 2, NASA began software development projects. This work has been carried

out both at Cray Research and on a Cray XMP at Ames. Early in the process, NASA

chose a UNIX operating system.

In conjunction with the new facilities,

NASA plans to establish a network to link all

of NASA communications including computer

facilities. High-speed communications between the four large-scale computing centers,

an integral part of the network, will be facilitated through satellite and terrestrial links.

The NAS center will be included in this network and in ARPANET and MILNET (the

Defense Data Network) for access by the private sector and university researchers.

Department of Energy

DOE has a long history of using supercomputers and supporting architecture development for them. Since the 1950s, a DOE laboratory has acquired the first or one of the first

manufactured units of nearly every largescale

computer. DOE’s National Laboratories still

hold the greatest concentration of users of supercomputers; approximately 35 percent of

the supercomputers in use in the United

States are located in these laboratories.

DOE uses supercomputers to support a variety of its missions. The nuclear weapons pr~

gram relies on large-scale computers to aid in

highly complex computations in the design

process. The Magnetic Fusion Energy and the

Inertial Confinement Fusion Programs are

heavily dependent on supercomputers as well.

The machines are required to model the complex behavior of hot plasmas, including the effects of electric and magnetic fields, atomic

physics, the interaction with intense radiation,

and various boundary conditions. To this end,

DOE hopes by fiscal year 1986 to have an installed base of 26 supercomputers throughout

the agency and its laboratories.17

17 Briefing, DOE, J~u~ 1985; 18 in support of defense Pro

grams, 3 in support of magnetic fusion energy, 2 in support

of the energy sciences, 2 in support of the naval reactors pre

gram, and finally, 1 in support of the uranium enrichment

program.
15

More recently, DOE has started using largescale computers to support other programs in

the Office of Energy Research (OER) in addition to Fusion Energy Research, known also

as the Supercomputer Access Program. In

February 1983, noting that various disciplines

in OER needed supercomputing time, DOE

set aside 5 percent of the National Magnetic

Fusion Energy Computer Center (NMFECC)

facility at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory

for the energy research community through

the Energy Sciences Advanced Computation

Program. This supercomputer time, first available in June 1983, was immediately filled, and

the hours requested exceeded the availability

by an order of magnitude. ’8

In addition to providing access to largescale

computational facilities for research purposes,

DOE also funds supercomputer research to

accelerate the development of systems designed and built in the United States. Historically, DOE laboratories needed the fastest

computers available to fulfill their missions.

As a result, the laboratories have traditionally

played a key role in applying each succeeding

generation of supercomputers, and developing

software, since initially most machines have

arrived without usable software. The DOE Applied Mathematical Sciences Research Program within OER supports new computer architectures and also mathematical and

computer science research. Recently, program

emphasis has shifted to new parallel multiprocessors. DOE has supported numerous

projects and prototypes, such as the Hypercube machine, a California Institute of Technology project; the Ultracomputer at NYU;

and the Cedar project at the University of Illinois.

The Magnetic Fusion Energy Computer

Network, established in 1974, provides access

to these supercomputer facilities, while also

satisfying other communication needs. Lo-

— — —

“U.S. Department of Energy, The Role of Supercornputers

in L’nergy Research Programs, February 1985, p. 1. Two Cray

1 computers at the National Magnetic Fusion Energy Computer

Center (N MFECC) and a Cray X-MP will be used in fiscal year

1985 as well to help meet the Class VI needs of the energy research community.

cated at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the network includes one Cray 2, one

Cray X-MP, and two Cray 1 computers that

provide large-scale computing capability for

the program. The four largest fusion contractors are linked by satellite communications,

and others have access through telephone

lines.

DOE and Florida State University, in a cooperative agreement, established the Florida

State University Supercomputer Computational Research Institute in 1985. The new institute was established to explore aspects of

energy-related computational problems, algorithms, and architectural research. DOE

and the State of Florida will both contribute

to the development of the institute. The State

will provide 10 faculty positions and the computer facility; DOE will provide 69.5 percent

of the funds to establish the institute; and

Control Data Corp. will contribute equipment

discounts and some personnel. (See table 4.)

Supercomputing Research Center,

National Security Agency

Recognizing a need for research in supercomputing, the Institute for Defense Analyses has established the Supercomputing Research Center (SRC) for the National Security

Agency. The new “center of excellence” in parallel processing will focus its development efforts on algorithms and systems, and also conduct research on national security programs.

Still relatively new, the research agenda for

the center has not been set, although basic reTable 4 .—DOE Budget (in millions)

Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal

year year year

1985 1986 1987

Energy research . . . . . . . . . . $17.8 $20.55 $22.1

Florida State University . . 7.0 8.5 0

SCRI

Additional funds in support of

supercomputer operations at:

Oak Ridge. Sandia(2),

Los Alamos Scientific

Laboratory(2), Livermore,

MFE Center: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170.0

SOURCE Jam;s Decker Deputy Director Dep~rtment of Energy
16

—

search in parallel algorithms, operating systems, languages and compilers, and computer

architectures (including in-house construction)

are the areas that will be investigated.lg

The center will perform both classified and

unclassified research. It is recognized that participation by the academic and industrial communities is essential and some exchange of information will be allowed.

Budget figures are not available though

staffing levels and facility data are available:

100 professionals; 70 support staff; 100,000

square feet/permanent facility including current supercomputer and other equipment.20

Defense Advanced Research

Projects Agency

DARPA supports a large number of research projects that seek to advance the state

of the art in multiprocessor system architectures. Unlike other programs, DARPA does

not use supercomputers to fulfill agency mission requirements, but rather funds promising research projects that may advance the

knowledge and design of current computer architectures. Support is directed towards fulfilling the goals of the Strategic Computing

Program, which seeks to create a new generation of “machine intelligence technology."21 

The program is partly focused on symbolic

processing for artificial intelligence applications.

‘

g

’’ Parallel Processor Programs in the Federal Government, ”

draft report, 1985, p. 1.

‘“Paul Schneck, Director, Supercomputing Research Center,

personal communication, December 1985.

*’Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Strategic

Computing, 1983, p. 1.

DARPA funds several stages of R&D, from

simulation to prototype construction and finally to benchmarking, a procedure using a set

of programs and files designed to evaluate the

performance of the hardware and software of

a computer in a given configuration. In fiscal

year 1985, DARPA expanded the multiprocessor program and funded a greater number of

research projects. DARPA’s efforts represent

the bulk of government R&D in multiprocessor research, surpassing programs of DOE and

NSF. Multiprocessor projects supported by

DOD include the Butterfly Multiprocessor,

which can accommodate up to 256 commercially available microprocessors, the Connection Machine, contains 64,000 processors, and

the NONVON machine, with up to 8,000 large

and small processors. DARPA has also participated in joint funding of projects with

other agencies, such as the Cosmic Cube

project at California Institute of Technology.

(See table 5.)

Table 5.— Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency Budget (in millions)

Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal

year year year

1985 1986 1987

13Baslc Research and Exploratory

Development for Advanced Computer

Research (this figure includes funding

figures for other areas such as machine

Intelligence and robotics) $1241 $125 $125

Machine Architecture 204 40 40

Distributed Computing and Software

Systems 17.8 18 18

Network and Research Facilities 26.7 27 27

Total $1890 $21o $210

SOURCES FCCSET Panel on Advanced Computer Research (n the Federa/

Government, summer 1985, and Cra!g Fields, personal communication February 1985
NETWORKS

A number of networks are operating or being created to support government computational programs by linking the users and the

computational resources. Networks allow

large, diverse, and geographically dispersed re

search communities to share resources in this

case, large-scale computing facilities, exchange

information, and share software.

As most commonly used, the term “network” refers to a communications system designed to provide links between two or more

of a large collection of users. As used in the

computer community, the term applies more

specifically to a system that provides data

transmission links among a set of computers

—called “hosts’ —and among users of those

computers, who link to the network by means

of a “terminal.” The term “network” commonly is applied to the entire assemblage of

computers, communication lines, and user terminals.

A wide variety of networks already exist.

They extend in scale from so-called “local area

networks” that connect desk-top computers

within an organization, to national and international networks, such as ARPANET, that

connect thousands of users with several very

powerful machines. Networks use many different data transmission speeds, encoding techniques, and protocols (basic sequences of message that tell the network what is to be done)

that attune them to particular types of data

communication and use. Because of these variations, different networks can be very difficult to interconnect, even when they use the

same fundamental communications technology-e.g., satellites or fiber optics—and the

same type of computers. Because such incompatibility can be a barrier to development and

use of networks, some standards organizations

are developing common descriptive models

and interconnection standards at both the national and international level. The combination

of activities by the standard organizations and

the numerous networking activities will eventually lead to common standards and protocols that will satisfy the differing needs of

the individual networks.

The scientific and research communities are

already using several networks. ARPANET,

developed and operated by DOD, hosts over

200 computers at nearly 100 universities, government laboratories and private sector research companies. CSNET is a data communications network linking computer scientists

and engineers at over 120 university, government, and commercial sites throughout the

United States and Canada, with gateways to

Europe and the Far East. BITNET is a network of more than 350 computers at over 100

higher education and research institutions,

with direct links to counterparts in Canada

and Europe. Commercial value-added networks, such as TELENET, TYMNET, and

UNINET, provide users with low-speed terminal access and moderate speed host-to-host

access.

The concept of a network as it is used by

most government agencies, goes beyond the

notion of supercomputer access for remote

users. Rather, networks are viewed as effective means to make the fullest possible use of

the resources. Three networking programs are

described below: NSF, DOE, and NASA.

The first recommendation of the Lax panel

called for ‘‘increased access for the scientific

and engineering research community through

high bandwidth networks to adequate and

regularly updated supercomputer facilities

and experimental computers. ’22 The development of NSFnet is designed to meet this need,

as is the new NASA network in part. DOE already has a highly successful and efficient network, MFENET. With the substantial activity in this area it is important to be cognizant

of the plans of the Federal programs.

National Science Foundation

A major new effort within OASC is the creation of a network to link researchers with the

large-scale computing facilities. The new net-

~ZNation~ Science Foundation, Report of the panel on Large

Scale Computing in Science and Engineering, 1982, p. 10.

17
18

work, called NSFnet, is intended to be the basis for a national research network. The NSF

concept for the new network is to “leverage”

existing resources and networks with a new

national network that is limited in both funding and authority. NSFnet would then try to

take advantage of existing and new campus,

community, State, and consortium networks

–a network of networks following the DARPA

internet model. To achieve this “internet”

environment, NSF has adopted interim and

long-term standards. (Initially, DOD internet

protocol suite–TCP/IP plus existing applications–and eventual migration to 1S0/0S1 protocols.) Future plans for NSFnet are uncertain

because the network design and structure will

be based on knowledge gained during phase

I. Conceptually, the network will be designed

to link end users with end resources.

Early efforts of NSFnet have focused on

providing interim services—i.e., linking the

researcher to the resource. To this end, phase

I efforts provided funds to universities to buy

equipment such as workstations; to arrange

links between local networks, phase I centers,

and other networks; and to fund consortium

networks and pilot projects. The goal of phase

I is to provide the top 50 to 60 campuses with

shared or dedicated 56,000 bits per second circuits. NSF allocated $5.9 million to the network program in fiscal year 1985, $2.2 million

of which was for local-access projects in fiscal year 1985 only.

NSF is also trying to link three existing networks, ARPANET, BITNET, and CSNET.

OASC and DOD have signed a Memorandum

of Understanding to expand the current ARPANET by one-third, with NSF funding 25

percent of the total costs of the expanded network. It is anticipated that ARPANET will

be expanded by the time the phase II centers

become operational.

There has also been some discussion of enhancing BITNET with NSF standard protocols, because BITNET has extensive links

with the American academic community and

international connections to European Academic Research Network and Japan. The addition of CSNET to NSFnet would greatly expand the access base for users.

NSFnet will also be linked with each of the

four centers described above, which together

encompass a large percentage of the U.S. academic community. Of the four centers, only

the San Diego Center will be MFENET based,

with migration to the NSF internet standards

planned. Discussions are underway to include

regional networks, such as MERIT and the

Colorado State Network, in NSFnet.

Pilot projects proposed for phase I of

NSFnet’s development take advantage of

available technologies in an effort to enhance

the communications between the user and the

resources. OASC is now considering three projects: Vitalink Translan,23 DARPA wideband,

and workstation projects. Funding for localaccess projects has been allocated for fiscal

year 1985, and will be used to connect campus

networks and the NSF internet and for local

computing facilities for supercomputer users.

The NSF strategy is to favor service organizations on campus for handling the users concerns, rather than placing that burden on the future administrators and managers of NSFnet.24

Department of Energy

The Magnetic Fusion Energy Network

(MFENET) is an integral part of NMFECC.

This network links NMFECC, located at the

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,

with computer centers at major fusion laboratories and other facilities nationwide. Over

4,000 users in 100 separate locations use

MFENET. MFENET interconnects all computers at the center, and links remote user

service centers that support local computing,

experimental data acquisition, printers, terminals, remote user service stations, ARPANET

(via the user service center at NMFECC), and

zsvit~fim91m i9 designed to interconnect several Ethernet local area networks in order for those networks to appear

as a single large network. This would employ satellite and terrestrial lines.

“Based on discussions and briefing by D. Jennings, National

Science Foundation, June, September, and November 1985.
19

dial-up terminals (via TYMNET and commercial telephone lines) .25

The DOE fusion laboratories are linked by

dual 56,000 bits per second (bps) satellite links

to NMFECC. Many of the other users are connected to these centers by 4,800 or 9,600 bps

leased telephone lines. Other users gain access

to the centers through TYMNET, ARPANET,

direct commercial dial, or Federal Telephone

System. over 125 user service stations located

at national laboratories, universities, or elsewhere provide local computing capabilities

and, through the connection of the NMFECC,

can function as remote output and job-entry

stations. Those users not within the local dialing area of a user service station may dial

access to the main computers and other network hosts.2G

DOE and the scientific communities have

discussed expanding the resources available

through MFECC and MFENET. However,

budgetary restraints preclude this expansion

in the near future.27 (See table 6.)

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

Boeing Computer Services is currently developing the Program Support Communications Network (PSCN) for NASA. This network will serve NASA and selected user sites

by providing wideband and other transmission

services. The Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation (NAS) Program (see above) will not develop a separate network to support its program and users, but instead will employ

PSCN. PSCN will be operating by April 1986,

with completion expected in the fall of 1986.

Interim service for NAS and a limited number of users will be provided by a Long Haul

Communication Prototype, which will examine and evaluate communication requirements

of the NAS network.

PSCN is composed of several levels of service. Eight NASA centers and facilities will be

linked by satellite: Ames, Dryden, Johnson,

Kennedy, Marshall, Langley, Lewis, and Goddard. Eleven centers and facilities will be

linked via 1.5 Mbps (megabits per second)

terrestrial backbone links: Ames, Western

Launch Operations, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Dryden, Johnson, Michoud Assembly,

Slidell Computer Complex, National Space

Technology Laboratories, Kennedy, Langley,

NASA Headquarters, Wallops, and Lewis.

Four centers will be connected by 6.3 Mbps:

Ames, Langley, Goddard, and Lewis Research

Center. NASA’s three research centers (Ames,

Langley, and Lewis) will be linked through the

Computer Network Subsystem (CNS).

CNS, a subsystem of PSCN, is a high-speed

computer network linking selected NASA centers. Like PSCN, CNS will send jobs and files

between these centers, while also maintaining

updated information on the files and jobs

within the network. This subsystem is designed for high-volume data transfer; it will

use a T1 link for inter-site transfers and a

9,600 bps link for control information. (See table 7).

“D. Fuss and C. Tull, “Centralized Supercomputer Support

for Magnetic Energy Fusion Research, ” Proceedings of the

IEEE, January 1984, p. 36.

“Ibid.

“Don Austin, Department of Energy, personal communication, Aug. 14, 1985; and John Cavalini, Department of Energy,

personal communication, June 5, 1985, and December 1985.

Table 6. —DOE Network Budget (in millions) Table 7.—NASA Network NAS Budget (in millions)

—

Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal

year year year year year

1985 1986 1987 1986 1987

Energy research . . . . ~. ., . . . . . . . $2.8 $3.0 $3.3 PSCN/NAS contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.6 $2.0

SOURCE James Decker, Deputy Director Department of Energy —

SOURCE Randy Graves, National A=ronautlcs and Space Adminlstrat!on
SOFTWARE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT

A wide variety of software is necessary to

run any large computer system. Some broad

categories of software are as follows:

Operating System: The operating system

software manages the flow of work

through the machine. It has responsibilities such as assigning and controlling

physical devices attached to the computer, cataloging and keeping track of

data in the computer memory, and controlling the input of programs and data

and the output of results. It also provides

a user with a set of basic tools for accomplishing certain basic tasks common to

most computer applications.

Programming Tools and Languages:

Users developing programs can make use

of several types of automated aids.

Higher level languages allow the user to

express a program in a form that is simpler, more readable and understandable

by a human, and more closely related to

the technical language in which users

communicate their problems, than is the

basic computer “machine language. ” Programs written in these languages are easier to develop, more easily understandable

by others, and often are more easily transferred between different machines. In

addition, the compiler, which translates

the higher level language program into

machine language, can assist a user in

taking advantage of particular characteristics of a specific computer by restructuring the program during translation.

This latter advantage is particularly important for supercomputers, which have

unusual features that must be employed

efficiently to obtain the very high computation speeds.

Software engineers are developing

many other types of tools to help users

develop software, both in the programming and in the diagnostic and testing

phase. The OTA report, Information

Technology R&D, has additional discussion of the state of software engineering.

● Applications Programs: Applications programs are the software developed to solve

specific problems. They range in scale and

purpose from small, relatively simple programs designed to solve a specific problem once, to large programs usable by

many researchers to solve a variety of related problems.

Underlying these levels of software is a rapidly developing body of computational theory

flowing from mathematics and computer

science. Computational mathematics, for example, by examining how basic methods for

calculating solutions to equations behave in

terms of efficiency and accuracy, helps to develop improved methods. In particular, computer scientists and mathematicians are only

beginning to understand how to use optimally

the types of highly parallel designs computer

architects are exploring. As such knowledge

is developed, it will lead to more efficient use

of existing supercomputers, and will help computer architects design even better future machines.

Theoretical computer scientists are developing an understanding of how large, complex

computational systems behave. For example,

they study techniques for scheduling and allocating resources, they study the structure

of higher order languages, and they explore

the theoretical basis for determining whether

a program is correct.

When OTA examined the field of software

engineering in its report Information Technology R&D, it found that: “The lack of applications software for supercomputers has been

a significant barrier to their adoption and

use. ’28 Concern over the availability and use

of software of all types, not only applications

software, for large-scale computing continues

to be a critical issue, and “will grow worse in

the near future because of the proliferation of

‘“U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Information Technology R&D: Critical Trends and Issues, OTA-CIT

268 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1985), p. 64.

20
21

significantly different architectures. ’29 Applications and systems software is available for

the current generation vector machines, although in some cases, “it does not fully use

the capabilities of the machine. ”3° Also, the

amount and breadth of systems and applications software appears insufficient to satisfy

both current and projected demands generated

by the expanded Federal programs.” The software programs of NSF, NASA, SRC, and

DOE are described below.

National Science Foundation

NSF funds academic and some corporate research in software engineering, software development, computational mathematics, and

related areas. Together, the Division of Computer Research and the OASC provide over $3

million for software development, although

not all of this research is directly applicable

to the needs of advanced scientific computing.

Within the Division of Computer Research,

the Software Engineering Program, the Software Systems Science, Computer Systems Design, the Theoretical Computer Science and

Special Projects programs each fund a variety of research projects.

The OASC will be funding projects in direct

support of the supercomputing centers described above. These efforts will focus on software productivity and computational mathematics. Research will be concentrated in the

following areas: computer science research on

programming environments, development of

software tools, numerical analysis and algorithm development, and increasing effectiveness of advanced computers in research.

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

Since the mid-1970s, NASA research centers have supported algorithm development

for supercomputers (Illiac and Star-100). Agency officials noted that earlier advanced scien290 ffice of Technology Assessment 1$’orkshop, Apr. 29, 1985.

“’Ibid.

‘1 Ibid.

tific computing efforts were hindered by insufficient or inadequate software, and so designed

the NAS program schedule to avoid this problem. At both Cray and the Ames Research

Center, development work has been underway

since 1984 in the areas of operating systems

modifications, network communication, distributed file systems, batch queuing systems,

and common graphics services. The NAS Project developed a common user environment,

based on a UNIX operating system, spanning

a network of computers from multiple vendors. Except for specific user service projects,

these software projects are for the NAS facility, not ‘‘research.

Supercomputing Research Center

The SRC software efforts concentrate on

systems software development, which can be

divided into three research areas: operating

systems and compilers, language, and performance measurement. The research in these

fields will be conducted at SRC.

Department of Energy

To support its varied research programs

DOE is involved in numerous software development efforts that address systems, applications, and tools. These efforts, however, are

closely tied to other DOE programs so their

budget figures cannot be broken out. For example, at least some of the $7.8 million allocated in fiscal year 1985 for the Department

analytical and numerical methods program

was devoted to computational software. Similarly, some of the $10.4 million budgeted for

advanced computer concepts was allocated to

software engineering technologies. This past

year, OER requested that $2 million be set

aside specifically for software tool development, but the Office of Management and

Budget did not approve this request.32

“Don Austin, Department of Energy, personal communication, Aug. 14, 1985,
ISSUES: MANAGEMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS

As the Federal programs in large-scale computing continue to grow in fiscal year 1986,

several management and institutional questions arise concerning coordination, network

development, and software. These questions

may merit greater attention than they now receive given their importance and the enormity

of the task facing the agencies. Such issues are

particularly important because no single agency dominates largescale computer research or

policy. Topics discussed below are: coordination between agencies, including issues of

center management, resource allocation, and

manpower and training; the Federal role in

software design and development; and network development.

Coordination

ISSUE:

With the growing Federal efforts in large-scale

computer research and access, coordination

among agencies is necessary to the success of the

overall national program. Are the current coordinating mechanisms, the FCCSET panels, succeeding at promoting “efficiency” in national

programs while also allowing individual agencies

to accomplish their missions?

The Federal investment in large-scale computing programs is already large and is growing. Coordination among programs and government agencies is one way to realize the best

return on this investment. Coordination

among agencies is also one way to ensure that

national goals and interests are achieved,

despite agencies disparate goals. To date,

FCCSET has been the coordinating mechanism for all Federal programs, and has involved the private and academic communities

in its deliberations and actions. The FCCSET

panels successfully brought about discussions

between agencies, and established a forum for

discussion.

In 1983, FCCSET established the Panel on

Supercomputers, which was charged with exploring what the U.S. Government could do

to advance the development and use of largescale computers. Subsequently, three sub22

panels were formed focusing on issues of procurement, access, and research coordination.

Representatives from DOE, NSF, NASA,

NSA, DOD, the Department of Commerce,

and the Central Intelligence Agency are members of pertinent FCCSET subpanels.

Deliberations of the procurement subpanel,

which was chaired by a DOE representative,

focused on the question, “what should the government do to ensure that the United States

retains its lead in supercomputers?” Specific

recommendations included “guaranteed” buying of supercomputers by the government, increasing government purchasing of machines,

and designing a supercomputer 200 times the

current capabilities. After issuing a report in

late 1983, this group merged with the access

panel.”

The second subpanel, on access, also chaired

by a representative of DOE, published a report that called for upgrading current programs in a variety of ways and also recommended steps to meet the long-term objectives

of providing scientists and engineers with access to supercomputers. 34

The research coordination subpanel, chaired

by a representative of DOD, seeks to coordinate government agency programs that fund

research that contributes to the U.S. technology base. A recent report of this subpanel outlines present and proposed federally sponsored

research in very-high-performance computer

research, summarizes agency funding in this

area, including budgets for fiscal year 1983 to

1985, and presents findings and recommendations for future action.35

“&port to the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, En~”-

neering and Technology Supercomputing Panel on Recommended Government Actions To Retm”n U.S. Leadership in Supercomputers, n.d.

‘Report of the Federal Coordinating Council on ti”ence, Ew”-

neering, and Twhnology Supercomputer Panel on Recommended Government Actions To Provide Access to Supercomputers, n.d.

35R.qxx-t of the Federal Codinating Council on ti”ence, Engineering and Technology Panel on Advanced Computer Research

in the Federal Government, draft report, August 1985.
23

More recently, an ad hoc Office of Science

and Technology Policy (OSTP) panel was

established to explore avenues to improve cooperation between Federal agencies and the

private and academic sectors. Although the

committee headed by Jim Browne of the

University of Texas, Austin, has not yet published its findings, Browne in a recent briefing, recommended a higher level of interagency coordination, either through FCCSET

or a new mechanism. Browne also suggested

the formation of a “continuing policy review

committee. ’36

The call for a higher level of interagency coordination reflects the limited abilities of

FCCSET committees to substantially alter or

establish government policy. Although members of the FCCSET committees are themselves intimately familiar with their agency’s

programs, they lack authority to implement

recommendations made through the FCCSET

subpanels. Implementation and policy directives must come from either the OSTP, the administrators of each agency, or both. This remains a potentially serious gap in the overall

coordination of government programs. OSTP

may wish to consider creating a panel whose

membership would include pertinent agency

administrators, scientific and research users,

and private sector participants. Such a panel

could serve several purposes:

●

●

●

Evaluate the Federal efforts underway to

ensure that they are addressing the original concerns noted in the various reports

(e.g. Lax, Bardon, Press, and others).

Such a reexamination could be a conduit

for recommending “mid-course” corrections that may be necessary within the

Federal program.

Provide a high level of authority to implement suggestions and recommendations made by the current FCCSET

panels.

Review of the Federal efforts in largescale computing periodically. Such a panel

could review the overall health and direction of the Federal programs; identifying

“Briefing of the NSF Advisory Committee, June 1985.

new scientific opportunities made possible by the government programs; targeting specific areas of concern for FCCSET

subpanels to address; recommending and

authorizing actions that cut across more

than one agency program.

The government emphasis on funding research, rather than prototype development, is

one such issue that crosscuts most agency

boundaries, has been the focus of a FCCSET

subpanel, and remains a concern of scientists,

researchers, and government officials. Some

steps are being taken toward prototype development. DARPA’s Strategic Computing Program is actively pushing technologies from the

research stage into the prototype phase. A

much smaller effort is underway in NSF Division of Computer Research and in the DOE

program. In this case, DARPA’s efforts are

significantly greater than the others, which is

cause for concern, since the research is focused

on a specific mission and cannot have as broad

a perspective in experimental technologies as

can NSF. Also, DARPA’s funding in this area

greatly exceeds that of other agencies. At

present, a FCCSET subpanel is examining current Federal efforts in the funding of the R&D

of very-high-performance computer research.

In this instance, an OSTP panel could assist

by:

● determining if the current Federal efforts

are sufficient to develop and “support”

new experimental technologies,

● identifying the ‘‘next’ steps that would

facilitate the transfer of research results

to utilization, and

c examining the balance of agency programs in the funding of experimental

technologies.

Center Management

ISSUE:

The FCCSET subpanels on access, procurement,

and research coordination have acted as forums

for information exchange between Federal programs in large-scale computer research. Are comparable FCCSET bodies needed to discuss center management issues, such as resource policies

and funding, and manpower and training?
24

As the number of large-scale computing

sites proliferate, need continues for FCCSET

to coordinate supercomputer issues. FCCSET

can remain a single forum to consider in full

national interests, goals, and programs; the

centers are also viewed here as national resources whose significance extends beyond the

mission needs of the funding agency.

The DOE supercomputing programs, for example, are designed to achieve specific missions. Nevertheless, careful planning, an appreciation of user needs, and the establishment

of a network have allowed these supercomputing programs to become more national in

scope. NSF has considered a comparable effort–a strong program plan and well-defined

research agenda to provide the framework for

success in the NSF centers’ program. A program plan will provide the basis for decisions

on how time should be allocated at the facilities, and in turn will define the type of research performed at the sites. Soon after the

centers begin operation, research trends of

users will be evident allowing one to see both

ongoing research and also new research opportunities that have been created. This is especially important since the NSF centers’ program has no single constituency, but relies on

the support of 20 disciplines within the

agency.

FCCSET also operates as a forum for agencies and supercomputer center managers to

exchange information about experiences in

operating the centers, software, network development, and general lessons learned. For

instance, the experiences gleaned by DOE in

establishing its facilities and network will be

invaluable to NSF and NASA, despite the

agencies’ very different missions. DOE experience may be particularly germane over the

next few years, as NSF judges the success of

its funding formula or “seed money philosophy. ” Unlike other mission agencies that fully

fund their largescale facilities programs, NSF

has required the individual centers to raise additional funds to supplement the NSF grants.

Some scientists have claimed that this policy

has hindered the long-term program by streamlining center staff.

Resource Policies

Federal supercomputer programs operate

under a variety of resource or allocation policies. The NSF policies for allocation of time

on computing facilities have undergone some

changes since the phase I centers were established. Originally, NSF allocated time in

batches of 10 hours or less, with no peer review. Currently, in addition to those who request 10 hours or less, one can submit a request for time to NSF with no maximum time

limit set, and program directors there distribute hours at their discretion. If the requestor

is not an NSF grantee, an application for time

will undergo normal NSF peer review. Under

the new policy, 60 percent of the centers’ service units will be distributed by NSF, with the

remaining 40 percent allocated by the individual centers. Up to 25 percent of each centers’

allocation may be available for proprietary research. Also, if use of facilities is sold to forprofit institutions, the organization will be

charged the full cost of using the service. Each

center is expected to create a review panel of

scientists from multiple disciplines to evaluate each research proposal and to adopt standard NSF peer review principles.

At DOE, time allocation in the Supercomputer Access Program is based on scientific

merit and need. Investigators make requests

to the Office of Energy Research program directors at the beginning of each year, and the

program directors rank the proposals. These

determinations are not always final; program

administrators shift allocations during the

year to allow for immediate program needs.

This “flexible” program policy highlights the

distinction between the allocation plan of a re

search agency like NSF and a mission-directed

allocation plan, such as DOE’S.

NASA is in the process of establishing NAS

usage policy, and guidelines for user allocation. Allocation of time on the NAS system

will be made on the basis of uniqueness and

suitability of the proposal to the NAS facilities. An “announcement of opportunities”

was released recently by NASA, alerting interested researchers that the NAS system will
25 —

be available for use in fiscal year 1986. Once

NASA receives responses to this announcement, the agency will finalize its allocation policies. Generally, program managers foresee a

rough breakdown of 55 percent NASA-related

research, 5 percent university research (nonNASA sponsored), 25 percent DOD and other

government agency sponsored research, and

the remaining 15 percent, proprietary research.

Because each agency has a different mission,

each requires its own allocation policies.

FCCSET has established a mechanism for allocating time on facilities for scientists who

are funded by more than one agency. After the

NSF centers and the NAS have been operating for awhile, it may be advantageous to examine allocation policies to ensure that Federal goals, such as the advancement of science,

are attained. At present, though, a FCCSET

panel could contribute little else to the issue

of allocation.

Manpower and Training

Training and manpower concerns are twofold: how to use the available computer resources effectively, and how to make the best

use of available personnel at each site. To promote the understanding of the facilities that

leads to effective use as well as foster new use

of the large-scale computing resources, NSF

and DOD sponsored three summer institutes

to train researchers in the development of

codes, vector techniques, and networks for remote access. These institutes also gave researchers a forum to present their work and

discuss the role of supercomputers in performing it.

DOE regularly sponsors conferences and

tutorials on the supercomputer operating system (DOE’s Compatible Time-Sharing System) and on network access, both at the

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and elsewhere around the country. Special conferences

are also held that explore specific problems

and issues pertinent to members of DOE research communities.

In anticipation of the NAS starting operation, NASA’s training efforts include extensive “onboard” support, a user interface group

consisting of 40 organizations across the country, and workshops to familiarize users with

the system.

These combined efforts will help educate

professionals at universities who are not computer scientists on how to use the facilities.

Generally the pool of qualified individuals

available to support the supercomputing facilities is Iirnited. With the opening of five new

NSF centers, the Florida State University

Center, and one NASA center in fiscal year

1987, the demand for talented personnel will

grow, both for people to run the facilities and

to work through problems with research scientists. And, too few personnel are available to

meet the current and projected software demands, since too few have had access to experimental computing facilities and the number of graduate students in computational

science and mathematics is small. Two key

concerns of scientists are: the training of new

personnel to help operate the new centers and

make them effective and well utilized; and pre=

venting “raids” of experienced personnel from

an existing center to a planned center, to avoid

hurting an ongoing program. The human resource questions are of great importance in determining the success of the supercomputer programs. It may be worthwhile for a FCCSET

panel to consider a review of agency training efforts and mechanisms to ensure that greater

training efforts be undertaken, particularly in

light of the development of new architectures.

Problems and Prospects for

Software Development

ISSUE:

The availability of software for large-scale computing continues to be a critical concern. What

Federal efforts are necessary to tackle this software problem?

The greater availability of time on supercomputers as a result of the Federal investments and programs described above, can
26

both exacerbate and ease the current software

demands. As more and more users turn to supercomputers to solve their scientific problems, new software will be generated that will

increase the usefulness and capabilities of the

machines. Once a network is in place, those

who use it will share software, as well. At the

same time, until more software is developed,

users will inevitably be frustrated by their inability to access the machines easily and the

lack of standard “libraries” of applications.37

Until more scientists use large-scale computers for their research, the lack of applications

software will remain a problem. Traditionally,

manufacturers have not developed a substantial base of software (including applications

software) for their machines. In fact, it has

been stated that:

, .. it has taken over 5 years to develop software to efficiently support and utilize vector

technology .38

Also, the ability to move software from machine to machine and site to site is needed to

encourage users to experiment with the advanced scientific computing facilities. Transportability of software will be very important

in building a base of new users: “We should

be in a position where we can make it very easy

to move from one machine to another. ”39 Missing a comfortable bridge to move code/software from machines in use (e.g., a Vax) to a

supercomputer or parallel processor machine,

the scientific community may withhold its

support, because of delays in performing research and the complexity of undertaking the

research on a supercomputer. As noted in the

FCCSET report:

. . . Researchers may not use this important

scientific tool if its use proves difficult to

learn, frustrating and generally inconvenient.’”

The nurturing of new architectures will also

bring a host of software problems. The new

architectures demand “a rather fundamental

370 ffice of Technology Assessment Workshop, Apr. 29, 1985.

“D. Fuss and C. Tull, “Supercomputer Support for Magnetic

Fusion Research, ” Proc4”ngs of the IEEE, January 1984, p.

41.

3Wffice of Technology Assessment Workshop, Apr. 29, 1985.

‘“FCCSET, op. cit., Access, Section III.

rethinking of problems and a rather fundamental rethinking of strategies, ”41 in the creation

and development of algorithms. At a meeting

sponsored by NSF in December 1984, researchers concluded that a new type of research activity was necessary .42 They recommended interdisciplinary teams be formed,

consisting of mathematicians, computer scientists, and scientists from disciplines with problems to be solved, to tackle the software

needed for the new highly parallel architectures. Recently, NSF convened an ad hoc

panel to consider the establishment of a National Supercomputer Software Institute. Although the panel recommended against such

a move, it did encourage NSF to:

mount a program to encourage research on

parallel software by increasing the level of

university access to experimental parallel

computers and by funding promising research

projects at sufficient scale to allow major software developments to be undertaken either by

university groups or consortia or by joint

university-industry teams.43

Software is an important determinant of the efficiency of these machines and the types of problems that can be tackled with them. It is also

an influence on the design of the next generation

of machine. For these reasons, an investment in

algorithms and software development is integral

to any large-scale computation program.

Finally, as noted earlier, the shortage of personnel needed to meet the current and projected software demands will grow worse when

coupled with the introduction of radically

different and new architectures.

The issues of supercomputer software require better definition and resolution. To this

end, several ideas were proposed at the OTA

Workshop to address these issues:

c A follow-on study to the Lax report that

specifically addresses software issues, defines the problems, and explores possible

410 ffice of Technology Assessment Workshop, Apr. 29, 1985.

“Ibid.

‘

s

Jacob Schwartz, Chairman, Ad Hoc Panel on a National Supercomputer Institute, letter to Erick Block, Director, National

Science Foundation, Nov. 4, 1985.
27

●

●

solutions or actions. This study should be

sponsored by one or more agencies, such

as NSF, DOE, NASA, or DOD. The Lax

report recommended: “Increased research

in computational mathematics, software

and algorithms necessary to the effective

and efficient use of supercomputer systems. “44

Establishment of a software development/engineering institute separate from

each agency but supported by funding

from each of the agencies. The institute’s

charge would be to develop software and

algorithms for use on all types of largescale computing machines and to advance

the state of the art.

The formation of a new subpanel within

FCCSET to address issuesof software

and algorithm development. This group

would act as a coordinating body within

the government to keep track of agency

efforts and suggest needed improvements

and directions.

Network Design and Development

ISSUE:

The National Science Foundation has stated that

NSFnet will be the basis for a national research

network. Should NSFnet be the basis for a national research network? And until this network

is in place, how should NSFnet be administered

and managed?

Networks permit users easier access to resources and facilitate the exchange of information between and among them. “The ability of a network to knit together the members

of a sprawling community has proved to be

the most powerful way of fostering scientific

advancement yet discovered. “45 Networks

make information and resources available to

the researcher regardless of geography, thus

expanding scientists’ research base. Networks

may also provide uniform access to their resources and users without requiring the user

iiNationa] Science Foundation, Report of the panel on I=ge

Sca)e Computing in Science and Engineering, 1982.

46 Peter Denning, ‘*The Science of Computing, Computer Networks, ” American Scientist, March-April 1985, p. 127.

to know the physical location of resources or

other users.

As an increasing number of networks are de

signed, developed, and created to support Federal programs in largescale computation, their

importance will become more evident. Networks are essential to the success of these programs because they provide access to resources and information on a national scale.

The proliferation of computer networks,

combined with the expansion of Federal large

scale computing programs and the identified

need for access to these computational resources, has generated interest in the creation

of a national research network. The research

needs and goals of the NSF program require

a network that will serve a diverse, geographically dispersed group of scientists and engineers. This broad-based approach also suits

the development of national research network,

a long-term goal of certain segments of the research community. The national research network would be a broad-based telecommunications network designed to serve the complex

and diverse requirements of the national research community and address the broader issue of providing scientific information to this

community. Such a network could provide researchers with information, and a means to exchange it. Services such as file transfer,

computer-conferencing, electronic mail, and

bulletin boards could be available. It could also

stimulate the formation of major new databases and new scientific opportunities; and facilitate access to remote resources, including

large-scale computing resources.

The proposed linking of NSFnet with a national research network raises several questions and issues.

●

●

●

●

What are the goals of a national research

network?

Is NSFnet the appropriate base for a national research network?

Are the goals of NSFnet and a national

research network compatible?

Is the proposed design of a national research network the most feasible approach?
28

● What is the Federal role in the development of this national network?

• Is NSF the appropriate lead agency for

this endeavor?

Some of these questions are more easily answered than others, but all merit and need

thorough discussion. What these questions illuminate is the need, in any discussion of a national network, to keep sight of the issues of

advanced scientific computing and access to

these resources. NSFnet is developing quickly

and choices made today for pilot projects and

other elements, will affect the future configuration of a national research network.

As NSFnet develops and is used more and

more by the user communities, NSF will be

called on to be a network manager. But, with

one exception, the agency has not managed

the day-to-day operations of a large-scale

project following the project’s early stages. In

the near future the agency will need to decide

what role it will play as NSFnet evolves. NSFOASC must soon decide which of several courses

of action it should take in the management of

NSFnet. Three are outlined below:

1. Retain all management operations within

2.

3.

the OASC, including day-to-day operations (network operations), user services,

and financial services, etc. Under this option, OASC will be responsible for all

management aspects of the network including interactions with all users and

other networks.

Identify and select a private firm with

previous experience in the management

of a net work to manage daily operations

of NSFnet, including interactions with

users and other networks. Under this arrangement, NSF would retain overall policy development responsibilities.

Create a Board of Users that includes representatives from government agencies

with participating networks such as

DOD-DA RPA-ARPANET, individuals

from other participating networks such

as CSNET, and users including the center consortiums of NSFnet to assist NSF

with policy development/direction. NSF

would retain lead authority and be the

“chairman” of this Board of Users. A

qualified outside contractor could also be

made responsible for network management,

user services, etc.

Regardless of the style of management chosen by NSF for NSFnet, several other issues

need to be addressed in the near future by the

agency. For NSFnet to be successful as it is

currently designed, networks wishing to join

NSFnet must either now employ interim internet working standards, or agree to change

to these standards in the future. This shift to

compatible protocols and standards must be

tightly managed and centrally coordinated for

the strategy to succeed.

The proliferation of government and private

networks, many of which use a variety of technologies, standards, and protocols, may also

prompt concern in the near future. To address

the issue, the FCCSET has recently formed a

networking subcommittee. It is charged with

examining both individual agency networks

and community networks that are necessary

in order to fulfill agency mission requirements

and goals. The committee will also examine

the feasibility of a single computer network

infrastructure for supercomputer access and

research collaboration in the United States.

The creation of NSFnet is seen as a unique opportunity for coordinating with other Federal

agency networks.

Finally, the industrial community as such has

not been included in the NSFnet plans. This

may cause two problems: first, users within

this community may lack easy access to facilities, including the network; and second,

NSFnet communities may not be able to tap

private sector institutions with large-scale

resources.