HPCwire: Much Ado About Petascale

The Leading Source for Global News and Information Covering the Ecosystem of High Productivity Computing

HPCwire >> Blogs

Blog: From the Editor

August 10, 2007

Much Ado About Petascale

On Wednesday, the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced the award recipients for two highly coveted petascale supercomputers. The NSF selected the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) for the "Track 1" grant, while the University of Tennessee was selected for "Track 2." The Track 1 system represents a multi-petaflop supercomputer; Track 2 represents a smaller system that's expected to come in at just shy of a petaflop. The National Science Board met on Monday to approve the funding for the two supercomputers.

Specific information about the machines was not revealed and will not be forthcoming until the award process is completed -- probably sometime in the fall.

UIUC is slated to receive $208 million over four and a half years to acquire and deploy the multi-petaflop machine, code named "Blue Waters." It will be operated by the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) and its academic and industry partners in the Great Lakes Consortium for Petascale Computation. The system is expected to go online in 2011.

The sub-petaflop will be installed at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville Joint Institute for Computational Science. The $65 million, five-year project will include partners at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC), and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

Here's where it gets interesting. Most of the information stated above was already known last week when an NSF staffer accidentally posted the names of the winning proposals on an NSF website. Before the information could be removed, the supercomputing community had gotten wind of the decisions. And, as you might imagine, a lot of people on the losing end of the awards are already questioning the selections.

One could pass this off as sour grapes by the losers, but I have a sense something else is going on here. According to my sources, people have been concerned about the NSF petascale awards process almost from the start. In a New York Times piece on the NSF grants earlier in the week, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Horst Simon was quoted as saying:

"Several government supercomputing scientists said they were concerned that the decision might raise questions about impartiality and political influence. The process needs to be above all suspicion. It's in the interest of the national community that there is not even a cloud of suspicion, and there already is one."

Although nobody was willing to go on the record with me, I learned some interesting tidbits from a few individuals who were close to the proposals. Since there is no way to confirm any of this, take all of the following with a grain of salt.

To be begin with, the Track 1 supercomputer bid by UIUC appears to be an IBM PERCS system -- the same system being developed for DARPA's High Productivity Computing Systems (HPCS) program. The Track 2 supercomputer bid by the University of Tennessee appears to be a Baker-class Cray machine, essentially a precursor to the company's HPCS Cascade architecture. I'll get to why this may be significant in just a moment.

Putting aside the Track 2 award, let's look at the Track 1 proposals. According to my sources, there were four bids:

1. Carnegie Mellon University/Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (plus partners?): This group bid a system based on Intel's future terascale processors. Intel has demonstrated an 80-core processor prototype that has achieved a teraflop. I'm not sure of the peak performance for the proposed system; it may be as high as 40 petaflops.

2. University of California, San Diego/San Diego Supercomputing Center along with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and others: The "California" bid was a million-core IBM Blue Gene/Q system, reputed to be in the 20-petaflop range. The host site is rumored to be Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

3. University of Tennessee/ORNL (plus others?): This group proposed a 20-petaflop Cray machine. If true, we can assume it was a Cascade machine (Marble- or Granite-class) .

4. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign/NCSA along with the Great Lakes Consortium for Petascale Computation: They proposed and won with an IBM PERCS. It's thought to be a 10-petaflop system.

As it turned out, at 10 petaflops the winning bid was the least powerful machine in the bunch, peak performance-wise. Even at that, if the system goes live in 2011 as planned, it may very well be the most powerful supercomputer in the world. Keep in mind though that the Japanese are also planning to launch a 10-petaflop machine in the same timeframe.

There may be a number of reasons why the NSF made the selection in favor of PERCS, and I sure would be interested to know what they are. The system is almost certainly not the best in the group in terms of performance-per-watt. I would guess both the Blue Gene/Q and the Intel Wonder machine would be more energy-efficient. Since we don't know enough about software support for any of these multi-petaflop systems, it's difficult to compare them on their ability to field big science applications.

One other unusual aspect to the Track 1 selection is that, as HPC centers go, UIUC/NCSA doesn't have an established reputation for cutting-edge supers. It's been content to do its work with a number of smaller HPC systems. The PERCS machine is supposed to be housed at UIUC, but no facility yet exists that can accommodate it. We have to assume that all this is going to change.

In defense of the selection, NCSA is one of the five big regional supercomputing centers in the United States and could conceivably grow into this role. The PERCS machine is a pretty safe bet, technology-wise, since DARPA HPCS is helping to fund this effort and investing in IBM is usually a conservative strategy. Certainly, IBM is enthusiastic about the PERCS architecture and especially the POWER7 processor that it is to be based on.

Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect to this process is that a lot of questions will remain unanswered. This is a result of the rather opaque nature of the NSF review process. To be sure, the review criteria are spelled out in Section VI of the NSF Track 1 solicitation, but the actual process is not. Who are the reviewers and how did they qualitatively balance the different criteria? One assumes that the reviewers composed responses to each proposal, but only the awarded proposals go into the public record, and I'm not sure if the feedback from the NSF will be included.

There has been some talk that there were too few qualified proposal reviewers. The argument was that because most of the HPC brain trust had a vested interest in one of the four proposals, there were no qualified reviewers without conflict of interest baggage. I'm not sure if I buy that. The HPC population seems too large and spread out for that to be an issue. Nonetheless, this seems to be an issue with some in the community.

There is also speculation that the review group was influenced by one or more individuals who were (or are) involved in the HPCS program. If true, this could have unfairly steered the selection toward the HPCS systems from Cray and IBM, instead of more speculative architectures. There's no way to tell if this occurred, but the results suggest this is a possibility.

I suppose it could be argued that what's good enough for DARPA is good enough for the NSF. But keep in mind that the HPCS mission is to create productive and commercially viable supercomputing systems for a range of government and industrial applications; the NSF petascale goal is to find big systems to do big science. Obviously, there's some overlap here, but it's reasonable to imagine that these two missions could lead to different computing platforms.

For its part, the NSF sticks by its reviewers and its selection process. Leslie Fink, representing NSF's Office of Legislative and Public Affairs sent me the following response to my inquiry about the review process:

"Identities of the reviewers are ... confidential," said Fink. "NSF has a strict conflict of interest policy, and heroic efforts are made to ensure panel members are not in conflict with the proposers. Basically, what happens in review stays in review."

I guess the big frustration here is that because of the lack of transparency, much of the story will remain hidden. Short of a Congressional inquiry, the NSF isn't obligated to provide the rationale for awarding these grants, and the losing bids will never be made public. It's possible that the reviewers did manage to find the best way to spend the taxpayer's money. I hope so. But since the process takes place behind closed doors, we'll never know.

------

As always, comments about HPCwire are welcomed and encouraged. Write to me, Michael Feldman, at editor@hpcwire.com.

Posted by Michael Feldman - August 10 @ 12:00AM

(Digg, Technorati, more)

Discussion

There are 0 discussion items posted.

Join the Discussion

You must be a registered user in order to comment on HPCwire stories.

Members enjoy:

	Access to Special Content, including Podcasts, Webcasts, and Whitepapers and more!
	Ability to take an active role in the discussions that are shaping the HPC technology discipline!
	Special offers available only to HPCwire members!

Become a Registered User Today!

Registered Users Log in Here to Comment

Email Address:	Password (case sensitive)

Remember me	Forgot Password?

Michael Feldman

Michael Feldman is the editor of HPCwire.

More Michael Feldman

Feature Articles

Moscow State University Supercomputer Has Petaflop Aspirations

The Moscow State University supercomputer, Lomonosov, has been selected for a high-performance makeover, with the goal of tripling its processing power to achieve petaflop-level performance in 2010. T-Platforms, who developed and manufactured the supercomputer, is the odds-on favorite to lead the project.
Read More...

Intel Ups Performance Ante with Westmere Server Chips

Right on schedule, Intel has launched its Xeon 5600 processors, codenamed "Westmere EP." The 5600 represents the 32nm sequel to the Xeon 5500 (Nehalem EP) for dual-socket servers. Intel is touting better performance and energy efficiency, along with new security features, as the big selling points of the new Xeons.
Read More...

The Week in Review

The ACM Turing Award goes to the creator of the modern personal computer; and Voltaire announces a mid-range InfiniBand switch and new technology that accelerates distributed applications. We recap those stories and more in our weekly wrapup.
Read More...

Read more HPCwire features...

Top Headlines

Intel Partners See 'Easy' Upgrade Path With Xeon 5600 Chips

Mar 18 | ChannelWeb | Westmere parts already showing up in HPC machines. Read more...

AMD: OEMs primed for Opteron 6100s

Mar 17 | The Register | But what about the tier ones? Read more...

Arrival of the Desktop Supercomputer

Mar 17 | Cadalyst Magazine | A new generation of workstations is changing the nature of technical computing. Read more...

Scheduling HPC In The Cloud

Mar 17 | Linux Magazine | Latest iteration of Sun Grid Engine able to tap into Cloud. Read more...

Tailoring Medicine with Supercomputers

Mar 16 | Bio-IT World | Biotech firm builds genetic models from patient data. Read more...

Read more headlines...

Featured Whitepapers

Virtualization for Aggregation And The vSMP Architecture™

Jan 12 | | In-depth look at vSMP Foundation server virtualization technology, technical implementation, use cases and capabilities. The technical whitepaper provides an architectural overview and details on the three vSMP Foundation products: vSMP Foundation for SMP, vSMP Foundation for Cluster and vSMP Foundation for Cloud.

Copper Cable Technologies for High Performance Computing

Jan 18 | | This white paper discusses Gore’s copper cable assemblies, and how they continue to exceed the standards for providing reliable, cost-effective solutions for high-performance computer applications.

View the White Paper Library

Multimedia

Webcast: Virtualized Data Center Roundtable

Join this online panel discussion for live Q&A with leading industry experts, analysts, and end-users to discuss the latest innovations, best practices, barriers to implementation, and measurable benefits of server virtualization with a particular focus on today's real world solutions.

Webcast: Watch SC09 Birds of a Feather Video: Scalable Fault-Tolerant HPC Supercomputers

Learn about scalable fault-tolerant architectures and examples of energy efficient and scalable supercomputing clusters using dual QDR InfiniBand to combine capacity computing with network failover capabilities with the help of programming languages such as MPI and a robust Linux cluster management package.

Webcast: High Performance Computing for a Smarter Planet

LIVE@SCO9: The IBM team discusses new innovations in hardware, software and services that help clients better understand their workloads and get insight from their R&D efforts. Technology demonstrations include the soon-to-be-released Power7 HPC processor, the DCS990 system with 2.4 petabytes of storage, the xCAT management tool, secure HPC cloud computing and more. Winners of two HPCwire Readers' and Editors’ Choice Awards! Take the IBM virtual tour at SC09 or more information go online to: http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/deepcomputing/sc09.html