Upload
varana
View
26
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
TIC Working Group E Evolutionary System Architecture. Walter Arabasz & David Oppenheimer. March 3, 2005. Working Group Members. Walter Arabasz, Chair (Univ. of Utah, NIC & TIC) Glenn Biasi ( Univ of Nevada, Reno ) Ray Buland (USGS Golden & NEIC) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
TIC Working Group ETIC Working Group EEvolutionary System ArchitectureEvolutionary System Architecture
Walter Arabasz&
David OppenheimerMarch 3, 2005March 3, 2005
Working Group Members...Working Group Members...
Walter Arabasz, Chair Walter Arabasz, Chair (Univ. of Utah, NIC & TIC)(Univ. of Utah, NIC & TIC) Glenn Biasi (Glenn Biasi (Univ of Nevada, RenoUniv of Nevada, Reno)) Ray Buland Ray Buland (USGS Golden & NEIC)(USGS Golden & NEIC) Art Lerner-Lam Art Lerner-Lam (Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory & IRIS)(Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory & IRIS) Phil Maechling Phil Maechling (Univ. of Southern California & SCEC)(Univ. of Southern California & SCEC) Tom Murray Tom Murray (USGS Anchorage & AVO)(USGS Anchorage & AVO) David Oppenheimer David Oppenheimer (USGS Menlo Park, NIC & CISN)(USGS Menlo Park, NIC & CISN) Rick Schult Rick Schult (Air Force Research Lab, Hanscomb AFB)(Air Force Research Lab, Hanscomb AFB) Tony Shakal Tony Shakal (California Geological Survey/Strong-Motion (California Geological Survey/Strong-Motion
Instrumentation Program & CISN) Instrumentation Program & CISN) Mitch Withers Mitch Withers (Univ of Memphis & NIC)(Univ of Memphis & NIC)
ChargeCharge
• Define an Define an evolutionary pathevolutionary path for transforming for transforming existing elements of ANSS into a functional existing elements of ANSS into a functional nationwide systemnationwide system—with emphasis on steps that —with emphasis on steps that can be taken in the near term (1-3 yrs), based on can be taken in the near term (1-3 yrs), based on realistic ANSS funding projections realistic ANSS funding projections
• Clarify key system performance goals [relevant to Clarify key system performance goals [relevant to system design] and characterize “where we are system design] and characterize “where we are now”now”
• Account for geopolitical realities as well as Account for geopolitical realities as well as abstract ideals in designing an ANSS system abstract ideals in designing an ANSS system architecturearchitecture
Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline
Guiding Principles (Baldrige and Road Map)Guiding Principles (Baldrige and Road Map)
Review key system performance goalsReview key system performance goals
Characterize “where we are now”Characterize “where we are now”
Discuss (in detail) 3 architectures for an Discuss (in detail) 3 architectures for an ANSS systemANSS system
RecommendationsRecommendations
Baldrige National Quality Baldrige National Quality ProgramProgram
A NIST-sponsored program for a systems-level A NIST-sponsored program for a systems-level approach to organizational excellenceapproach to organizational excellence
Provides assessment, self-improvement, and Provides assessment, self-improvement, and planning toolsplanning tools– Leadership Leadership – Strategic PlanningStrategic Planning– Customer (and Market) FocusCustomer (and Market) Focus– Measurement, Analysis, and KnowledgeMeasurement, Analysis, and Knowledge– Human Resource FocusHuman Resource Focus– Process ManagementProcess Management– Organizational Performance ResultsOrganizational Performance Results
Road Map for PartnershipRoad Map for Partnership
How do we reconcile state/local ownership,How do we reconcile state/local ownership,investment in, and ongoing support of investment in, and ongoing support of significant infrastructure for seismic significant infrastructure for seismic monitoring with the prescriptions of ANSSmonitoring with the prescriptions of ANSSdecision makers?decision makers?
Key System GoalsKey System Goals
Rapid Parametric Information Data Exchange Information Distribution Quality Control Security Public Archive One earthquake, one report Reliability
Where We Are NowWhere We Are Now
“20 Questions” distributed prior to WG-A, but compared against proposed standards
Report discusses survey and provides link to all responses
No seismic network meets proposed standards
Effort will be substantial to meet proposed standards
Where-We-Are Now Where-We-Are Now FindingsFindings Standardization of algorithms lacking Need for reconciliation of multiple reports
of earthquakes Limited centralized waveform archiving No standardized error estimates Inadequate metadata Uneven exchange of waveform data
between networks Little strong motion processing
Where-We-Are Now Where-We-Are Now FindingsFindings No uniformity of magnitude calculation Moment tensor calculations produced
only by AEIC, CISN, and NEIC ShakeMaps produced only by PNSN, CISN,
Utah, and Nevada Parametric data publicly available only
from NEIC, AEIC, CISN, and Utah
Consider 3 ANSS Consider 3 ANSS ArchitecturesArchitectures Decentralized
– Processing occurs at regional centers– Product conflict resolved nationally– Backed up by national facility
TIC Plan– Like Decentralized but one center per region
Centralized– All processing at a “national facility” or IPS– Raw data (waveforms, picks) forwarded from data
concentrators– Always authoritative, but backed up by regions
WEB EQalert
EOCOES
Archive(s)
Stations
ANSSCentralSite
Regional Seismic Networks
WEB
EQalert
Decentralized Processing
Info outlet
Data processingConcentratorWaveformsProducts
OFR 02-92 Nomenclature
ProsPros
Similar to current situation
Robust since data close to processing
Autonomy fosters local solutions
Primary role justifies local funding
Local knowledge utilized
Regional data sharing sufficient to monitor
Facilities at risk from earthquakes
Difficult to standardize data exchange
Rules required to resolve authoritative information
Expensive to staff 7X24 Difficult to integrate global
data sets into local archive Duplication of efforts
potentially wasteful
ConsCons
WEB EQalert
EOCOES
Archive(s)
Stations
ANSSCentralSite
RegionalCenters
OFR 02-92 Nomenclature
WEB
EQalert
TIC Plan
Stations
Subregional SeismicNetworks
Info outlet
Data processingConcentratorWaveformsProducts
ProsPros
Similar to “Decentralized” model
Processing could be performed in areas of lower seismic hazard
Fewer units decreases complexity of system
Similar to “Decentralized” model
Potentially expensive to establish new regional centers, and given current level of funding, unlikely to receive much support
Uneven work loads from region to region
ConsCons
WEB EQalert
EOCOES
FEMA,NOAA…
ANSS ArchiveIRIS, NCEDC, and SCECDC
Stations
IPS
RSNs NEIC
OFR 02-92 Nomenclature
WEB
EQalert
Waveform
s or
picks & snippets
products
Integrated Processing Service
continuous?
Info outlet
Data processingConcentratorWaveformsProducts
ProsPros
Simplifies standardization and delivery Comprehensive view of earthquake Integrates global data for large US
quakes Eliminates conflicting reports Minimizes 7X24 cost IPS could be located in area of minimal
seismic risk Experienced staff respond Local scientists unburdened from
technical response during crises All products go into a central DBMS Continuous waveform archive possible Distribution of RT waveforms to R&D
groups Single connection for Earthscope
USArray and PBO data streams
Data less robust due to long paths Loss of local knowledge Requires methodologies for
local/regional/global Regional identity (funding?) diminished Local incentive to invent diminished Data analyst motivation diminished Could take years to develop Single point of algorithm, hardware, and
distribution failure Transfer of software back to regional
networks disruptive Full waveform exchange costly over
DTS; impacts campus traffic if over Internet
ConsCons
WG-E RecommendationsWG-E Recommendations
Software management group (SMG) (person?) should – write guidelines for ANSS software
oversight with TIC/NIC review/approval– develop specifications for next
generation of ANSS software– include cost estimates and milestones– address regional and global needs– complete work by 10/31/2005 (?)
Recommendations Recommendations continuedcontinuedSoftware should – be open source if possible– evaluated in its full context of
development, ownership, and maintenance
– permit centralized, decentralized, and “hybrid” modes of operation. One size does not fit all.
Recommendations Recommendations continuedcontinuedTIC should– allow/invite comment on specifications– have authority to modify specifications
based on comments– ensure specifications have broad
political and technical support across ANSS
Recommendations Recommendations continuedcontinuedANSS management should – review document in early FY06 &
allocate funding– Invite universities to participate in
development of software projects– Conduct a benefit-cost analysis in FY06
or FY07– Adopt Baldrige National Quality
Program
Recommendations Recommendations continuedcontinued ANSS management and principal
stakeholders should develop a standard MOA that – defines how partners will participate in ANSS– considers political issues (regional/state/local,
centralized/decentralized/hybrid, “Road Map for Partnership”)
– defines performance standards to be met
Recommendations Recommendations (finally..)(finally..)Regarding OFR 02-92, WGE – Abandon concept of one primary center
per ANSS region
Closing thoughtsClosing thoughts
WGE was unable to reach full consensus on the end state. Geopolitical realities are clearly a paramount challenge
Network operators are justifiably concerned about self-preservation
We have the opportunity to be visionary