December, 2009 Kent Milfeld, TG Allocations Coordinator

December, 2009Kent Milfeld, TG Allocations Coordinator

Allocation Stats RAAR Report

MRAC/LRAC Cycles Oversubscription

POPS (Allocation Submission) Support Processing Interfaces

Dec. 2009 TRAC Meeting

49% Allocation/Requested60% Allocation/Available49% Allocation/Requested60% Allocation/Available

Startups:

Request and Allocation Trends

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 = “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

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 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)

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. 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 for adjusting recommended allocations to availability Funding source (preference given to NSF-funded research) Across-the-board reductions Size of award (preference given to small awards)

The details of how these factors will be applied are still being developed – and will be confirmed with NSF

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

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)

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 * (Fnsf + Fnon-nsf *R+ ) * Recommended Allocation

R = “global” Reduction factor

Fnsf = Fraction funded by NSF grants

Fnonnsf = Fraction funded by non-NSF grantsR+ = Additional Reduction for non-NSF