December, 2009Kent Milfeld, TG Allocations Coordinator

Allocation Stats RAAR Report

MRAC/LRAC Cycles Oversubscription

Allocation Submission Support (time permitting) Processing Interfaces

Dec. 2009 TRAC Meeting

48% Allocation/Requested60% Allocation/Available48% Allocation/Requested60% Allocation/Available

Sept. 2009 TRAC Meeting

41% Allocation/Requested112% Allocation/Available41% Allocation/Requested112% Allocation/Available

Startups:

Request and Allocation Trends

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 = “Proposals” submitted by PIs RECOMMENDED = Awards recommended by TRAC

committee members based on merit review AVAILABLE = Amount of time made available by the

RPs for that allocation period ALLOCATED = Awards actually made, based on

TRAC recommendations and availability

(reconciliation = Resolves recommended available difference– includes resolution on individual systems. )

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 difficultto predict. (From Oct. 2008 to July 2009 oscillations seemed to

dampen.)

Eliminate MRAC/LRAC waves 90% of the Requests 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 during Review period. (Provides 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. (Encourages PIs to report ALL funding.)

For non-funded requests, science is reviewed by TRAC (no change from previous process)

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.

NSF will no longer apply restrictions on requests with NIH funding.

Funding Categories are: NSF and non-NSF {NSF} and {NIH, DOE, DoD, Labs, Commercial}

Adjustments will be applied across all requests, by a “uniform” process to eliminate oversubscription.

NSF Funded Requests have “priority” when Recommended Allocations have to be adjusted for oversubscription.

Smaller requests are to be reduced less than large requests.

Factors for adjusting recommended allocations to availability Across-the-board reductions (X factor, set by

oversubscription) Funding source (priority given to NSF-funded

research, Y factor) Size of award (priority given to small awards, Z

Scaling Factor)

R = RN RO+

Fractional Parts of Recommended Allocation: 1*R = (FN + FO)*R = RN + RO

Where FN + FO are the fractions of NSF and non-NSF Funding, and R=Recommended Allocation.

(1 - X) * Rx = RN RO+(1 - X) * Recommended Alloc. Adjustment by (1-X)(no priority)

Adjustment for non-NSF (Other) by Y.

Rxy = RN RO+(1 - X) * (1- Y*X) *

Adjust for size, linear scale.

Allocated, A = Rxyz = Size Scale * Rxy

1 - Rxy – Rxy-min

Rxy-max

Z * * Rxy A=Rxyz =

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. 2009 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. 2009 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

PHY… PHY… CHE… CHE…

Count SUs (M) Count SUs (M)

Sept. 09 35 105 39 105

Dec. 09 33 102 38 102

* RequiredForms

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 requiredUpdate PI InformationAdd/remove CoPIsAdd/remove new/expire grantsModify 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)

Answers: