December, 2009 David Hart

 Allocation Stats  Processing  Interfaces

 Request and Allocation Trends Total Avail

 Dec TRAC Meeting (“MRAC Cycle”)

 Startups:

 Plenary Session for “top 10” requests.  Parallel Sessions for Others  Two Sessions, A Chair for each session  Minimal Overlap (no need to attend both sessions)  PHY/AST/ATM/CFD/ASC  CHE/MCB/DMS/DMR  Awards entered into common spreadsheet  Google Doc  Private document, accessible only by invitation.  Considerable Time Savings

 Parallel Sessions  Sept TRAC Meeting  PHY/AST/ATM/CFD/ASC FOS Session  35 Requests; 105M SUs Requested  CHE/MCB/DMS/DMR FOS Session  39 Requests; 105M SUs requested  Dec TRAC Meeting  PHY/AST/ATM/CFD/ASC FOS Session  33 Requests; 102M SUs Requested  CHE/MCB/DMS/DMR FOS Session  38 Requests; 103M SUs requested

* Required Forms POPS development team is always improving, and maintaining interface.

 Recent improvements  Auto-fill  Supporting Grants and Co-PI Information is now automatically “refilled” on renewal requests (supplements and justifications, too).  Confirmation of auto-fill now required Update PI Information Add/remove CoPIs Add/remove new/expire grants Modify Supporting percentage

 Document Upload improvements (in progress)  Single upload interface for all required docs  (Simple) Selection of Document type  Main Document, Progress Report, CV, co-PI CV, TG-related Publications, References,  Uses Submit button below entry form (no more confusion with “Save to Date”)  Upload date now appears in document list (no more confusion about revisions)

 System Selection (in redesign phase)  Present entry form is cumbersome (must scroll through pages of entry form or use index at top)  Re-evaluate necessity of collected data  Redesign input fields (& include comma notation in numbers)

Richard Moore

RAAR Report– (Recommended and Available Allocations Reconciliation)  Recommended Procedures for Handling Oversubscription  General Background  Recommendations  Solving the legacy MRAC/LRAC Cycle Problems  Review Process / Reconciliation  Defined Process to Adjust Recommended Allocations for Oversubscription

 REQUESTS = Original requests submitted from users  RECOMMENDED = Awards recommended by TRAC committee members based on merit review  AVAILABLE = Amount of time made available by the RPs for that allocation cycle  ALLOCATED = Awards actually made, based on both TRAC recommendations and availability (‘reconciliation’ or ‘normalization’ process)  Includes overall availability as well as specific machines

 Allocation award totals have traditionally been 60-70% of the Request totals.  Sept. TRAC Meeting: Requests = 810M, Available = 300M. Ouch!  Large differences in Recommended and Available Allocations require a mechanism to reduce Recommended Allocations to accommodate the available SUs (remove potential oversubscription).

 Legacy Large and “Medium” request cycles persist (MRAC/LRAC  quarterly and ½-yr cycles )  There is no simple way to normalize reductions across quarters (available and recommended allocations have to be reconciled at each meeting).  Request totals are difficult to predict. (From Oct to July 2009 oscillations seemed to dampen.)

 Eliminate MRAC/LRAC waves  90% of the requests request are “MRAC” size  10% of the requests are “LRAC” size  Recommend: Pro-actively re-distribute LRAC-type requests  By extension (1 quarter) or by early renewal (1 quarter)  TG staff contact specific users and ask them to switch cycles

 Keep Merit Review Process separate from Oversubscription adjustments  Let reviewers do what reviewers do best–> Provide Recommend Allocations based on merit:  Appropriateness of Methods  Efficient use of systems  Appropriateness of Computational Research Plan  Usage of previous allocations, publications  Allocations Officers take care of applying adjustments for oversubscription– a TeraGrid Problem

 Reviewers are not apprised of Oversubscription factor. (This will provide more consistent reviews of merit.)  Reviewers can use Funding to determine PI ability to manage and apply appropriate support to accomplish work in the Computational Research Plan. Reviewer should be blind to funding agency. (This encourages PIs to report ALL funding.)  For non-funded requests, science is reviewed by TRAC (no change from previous)  Benefits  Recommended Allocations – i.e. merit-reviewed demand - can be reported to NSF and the community.  Reconciling availability limitations is removed from merit review process – no double jeopardy.

 Adjustments will be applied across all requests, by a uniform process (as formulaic as possible).  Availability on individual machines/classes is the complicating factor  NSF has decided to no longer single out PIs with NIH funding for special restrictions on usage  However, funding source (NSF v non-NSF) will be considered  Factors to be used in reducing recommended allocations to fit availability  Funding source (preference given to NSF-funded research)  Size of award (preference given to small awards)  Across-the-board reductions  The details of how these factors will be applied are still being developed – and will be confirmed with NSF

 Recommended Allocations can be reported to NSF  Documents merit-reviewed demand  Oversubscription Adjustment (Reconciliation) criteria is removed from review process – no double jeopardy.  Funding support can be easily applied at Reconciliation stage.

 Funding  All non-NSF funded requests have equal consideration (NIH limits no longer apply– a “fair field” for all.)  When Adjustments are applied for oversubscription, NSF has priority or preference:  Adjustments for non-NSF funded projects (or proportion of non-NSF funding) will have a larger reduction factor.

 Formula: R * (F nsf + F non-nsf *R + ) * Recommended Allocation R = “global” Reduction factor F nsf = Fraction funded by NSF grants F nonnsf = Fraction funded by non-NSF grants R+ = Additional Reduction for non-NSF