HPC Funding Models Need to Encompass More Than Just the Purchase Price

By Andrew Jones

February 8, 2012

Beyond the question of how much funding should be invested in high performance computing resources, it is also important to strive for the optimum funding model: how funding is tied to the service and how it enables and drives user behavior. As it turns out, these models are wrapped up in an IT culture that is often at odds with the way HPC is used.

This article was inspired by recent topical discussions on funding and charging models for HPC in academic institutions in both the UK and the USA, including particularly a series of blog posts by Brock Palen. The issues are by no means limited to academic institutions, and in fact are equally pressing for industry users and providers of HPC resources.

For many of the biggest supercomputers in the world, there is always a separation between the big lump of cash for the machine and funding for the on-going operation, which is often due to different funding routes for each. However, the reality for most HPC systems outside the national supercomputing services, especially academic institutional and industry HPC systems, is that the funding and the service delivery are intricately linked.

To start, let’s constrain this discussion to in-house HPC resources. (I’ll come back to discuss cloud computing and other external models in a future article). The discussion takes in funding, measurement, professional experts, and finally culture changes.

Where does the funding come from?

Beyond the lump sum donation, there are essentially three models for funding HPC resources: through overheads, usage fees, or a combination of these two. I often call this latter model “baseline-plus.” Under the overheads model, the corporate or departmental HPC facility is provided to users as part of the infrastructure of the business or university and is including in the overheads of the business. There may be accounting, i.e., recording usage of the resources by each user, but not charging. Under the usage fees model, accounting leads directly to the users being billed for their actual consumption of resources.

Under the baseline-plus model, some elements of the service, like storage, may be included in the overheads whereas others, like CPU-cycle, may be charged according to consumption. Or the combination may be applied to everything, essentially subsidizing the usage fees by partially including the costs in overheads. Or a combination may be used to provide a service free of charge for “normal” consumption levels but apply charges for extreme usage, such as large storage requirements, large memory jobs, high core-count jobs, and so on.

Finding the model that keeps everyone happy

To see the benefits and issues of each model, let’s start with the viewpoint of the user – always a good place to start. The preferred model for users is almost always going to be “free,” that is, the overheads model. On the face of it, this offers the least burden on the user’s part. They just do whatever science or engineering simulations they need and pay as much attention to the costing of the HPC resources as they do to the company internet connection or the office lighting. However, this can also lead to tension when some users may suspect others of consuming an “unfair” share of the common resource.

At the other extreme, the “charge for everything” model is likely to be least favored by most users, simply because it creates a culture of having to justify every usage of the resource. That may be seen as a good thing by senior management, since the HPC resource is likely to represent a significant investment. However, it might limit the freedom of the researcher or engineer to “just try this,” that is, engage in speculative work that isn’t tied to a clear goal, but which may spark significant innovation.

In theory, the baseline-plus model allows the best of both worlds, enabling speculative work and reduced attention to monitoring consumption, whilst ensuring users who dominate consumption are seen to contribute. However, the potential complexity of the model – what is included in the core service and what is charged at usage – can lead to both confusion and debate amongst users about the “right” way to configure the complexity.

Shifting to the HPC manager’s viewpoint, the instinct is often to prefer the overheads model, as this usually works in practice as a predictable way to budget the resource. The usage fees model is often seen as least desirable because it turns every HPC manager into a sales person trying to keep their customers coming back for more, and involves an uncertain budget.

Allowing for growth and innovation

In all of this discussion so far, we have assumed a static size budget and resource. In reality, the critical aspects of these models is one in which the HPC provision evolves.

Under the overheads model, growing the resources, for example, buying a larger supercomputer or providing more support staff, usually means going back to management with a case to increase the budget. Without a direct link between the end users and the resource provided and consumed, that case is harder to make.

With usage accounting (not necessarily charging) this becomes easier. Changing the balance of the HPC provision, such as providing more large memory nodes, or more cores instead of storage space, is almost impossible because each user will see a different need.

The usage fees model solves this problem. As usage grows, the resource can be increased with the fee income. The type of resource provided can also be changed to meet the needs of users as they direct their fee-paying usage onto different elements of the service.

However, the pure usage fees model creates other problems. What about the resources that the HPC manager knows users will need but which users are resistant to paying directly for? Code performance expertise is a common example of this, as is interconnect bandwidth.

What gets measured is what gets the focus

This leads to another key aspect of the models, namely what to measure (and thus charge for in the fees or baseline-plus models).

The most common unit of consumption to measure is CPU usage. Users are accounted for how many CPU-hours they consume and are charged appropriately. The price of the CPU-hour includes the cost of running the system, but to many users, that’s not fair. For example, why should I pay a high price per CPU-hour when I don’t need that fast interconnect that is driving the price up? Or, I’ve never used the support team, so why can’t I have a discount price? That other user consumes way more memory or disk than me, surely he should pay more? And so on.

It’s temptingly easy to respond by having separate charges for different elements of the service – CPU-hours, support staff, disk usage, high memory nodes, etc. However, this rarely works well in practice for either users or HPC managers.

Measuring CPU-hours alone is horrendously bad practice though. The processors are often the cheapest part of the supercomputer to buy — behind memory and interconnect and maybe disk — and certainly small compared to operating costs, like power and staff salaries.

Idle processor cores are seen as “a bad thing,” but the memory probably cost as much to buy and nearly as much to sit there consuming electricity. Yet few HPC services monitor memory utilization. Or interconnect utilization.

Science and business output, not busy CPUs

And, speaking of utilization, there are competing interests of users and HPC managers. For users, high utilization means more contention for resource, for example, longer job queues, and is a bad thing. For HPC managers, high utilization means demand and provision are, in theory, closely matched, which is an efficient use of budget.

But efficient use of the budget should be tied to the science or engineering outputs achieved, not to the detailed consumption of the resource that enables that innovation. Which is better budget use, a low utilization system that is available on the timescales of the researchers’ or engineers’ needs (and gives them freedom to try out new ideas or support customer requests at short notice) or a high utilization system that means only planned business can be done?

The complexity of matching the model to the needs of the business, both funders and users, means that the strategy for HPC provision is rarely as simple as assumed. That’s why there is a role for professionals who have experience in finding the best model for a given situation. “HPC manager” or the equivalent is a valuable and distinct role within the organization, as is the potential support from independent experts available to provide consulting advice.

The wrong culture?

Perhaps a key part of the answer is that HPC is not really IT. It is built using computer technology but it is really a scientific instrument or engineering facility. I have written about this before. So maybe we need to move away from the funding, measuring and user cultures inherited from traditional IT.

The success of an optical telescope in astronomy might be measured by what new objects are observed, not by the amount of time an eyeball is attached to the end of it. The success of a wind tunnel might be measured by the quality and quantity of the design information gained, not necessarily the amount of time the fan is spinning. It is expected that the instrument or facility will be supported by experts whose profession is the technology of the instrument and that this will be a fundamental part of the funded resource, not an optional extra.

What can you see as cultures from the traditional IT world that are holding back HPC’s potential?

Subscribe to HPCwire's Weekly Update!

Be the most informed person in the room! Stay ahead of the tech trends with industy updates delivered to you every week!

GTC 2019: Chief Scientist Bill Dally Provides Glimpse into Nvidia Research Engine

March 22, 2019

Amid the frenzy of GTC this week – Nvidia’s annual conference showcasing all things GPU (and now AI) – William Dally, chief scientist and SVP of research, provided a brief but insightful portrait of Nvidia’s rese Read more…

By John Russell

ORNL Helps Identify Challenges of Extremely Heterogeneous Architectures

March 21, 2019

Exponential growth in classical computing over the last two decades has produced hardware and software that support lightning-fast processing speeds, but advancements are topping out as computing architectures reach thei Read more…

By Laurie Varma

Interview with 2019 Person to Watch Jim Keller

March 21, 2019

On the heels of Intel's reaffirmation that it will deliver the first U.S. exascale computer in 2021, which will feature the company's new Intel Xe architecture, we bring you our interview with our 2019 Person to Watch Jim Keller, head of the Silicon Engineering Group at Intel. Read more…

By HPCwire Editorial Team

HPE Extreme Performance Solutions

HPE and Intel® Omni-Path Architecture: How to Power a Cloud

Learn how HPE and Intel® Omni-Path Architecture provide critical infrastructure for leading Nordic HPC provider’s HPCFLOW cloud service.

powercloud_blog.jpgFor decades, HPE has been at the forefront of high-performance computing, and we’ve powered some of the fastest and most robust supercomputers in the world. Read more…

IBM Accelerated Insights

Insurance: Where’s the Risk?

Insurers are facing extreme competitive challenges in their core businesses. Property and Casualty (P&C) and Life and Health (L&H) firms alike are highly impacted by the ongoing globalization, increasing regulation, and digital transformation of their client bases. Read more…

What’s New in HPC Research: TensorFlow, Buddy Compression, Intel Optane & More

March 20, 2019

In this bimonthly feature, HPCwire highlights newly published research in the high-performance computing community and related domains. From parallel programming to exascale to quantum computing, the details are here. Read more…

By Oliver Peckham

GTC 2019: Chief Scientist Bill Dally Provides Glimpse into Nvidia Research Engine

March 22, 2019

Amid the frenzy of GTC this week – Nvidia’s annual conference showcasing all things GPU (and now AI) – William Dally, chief scientist and SVP of research, Read more…

By John Russell

At GTC: Nvidia Expands Scope of Its AI and Datacenter Ecosystem

March 19, 2019

In the high-stakes race to provide the AI life-cycle solution of choice, three of the biggest horses in the field are IBM, Intel and Nvidia. While the latter is only a fraction of the size of its two bigger rivals, and has been in business for only a fraction of the time, Nvidia continues to impress with an expanding array of new GPU-based hardware, software, robotics, partnerships and... Read more…

By Doug Black

Nvidia Debuts Clara AI Toolkit with Pre-Trained Models for Radiology Use

March 19, 2019

AI’s push into healthcare got a boost yesterday with Nvidia’s release of the Clara Deploy AI toolkit which includes 13 pre-trained models for use in radiolo Read more…

By John Russell

It’s Official: Aurora on Track to Be First US Exascale Computer in 2021

March 18, 2019

The U.S. Department of Energy along with Intel and Cray confirmed today that an Intel/Cray supercomputer, "Aurora," capable of sustained performance of one exaf Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Why Nvidia Bought Mellanox: ‘Future Datacenters Will Be…Like High Performance Computers’

March 14, 2019

“Future datacenters of all kinds will be built like high performance computers,” said Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang during a phone briefing on Monday after Nvidia revealed scooping up the high performance networking company Mellanox for $6.9 billion. Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Oil and Gas Supercloud Clears Out Remaining Knights Landing Inventory: All 38,000 Wafers

March 13, 2019

The McCloud HPC service being built by Australia’s DownUnder GeoSolutions (DUG) outside Houston is set to become the largest oil and gas cloud in the world th Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Quick Take: Trump’s 2020 Budget Spares DoE-funded HPC but Slams NSF and NIH

March 12, 2019

U.S. President Donald Trump’s 2020 budget request, released yesterday, proposes deep cuts in many science programs but seems to spare HPC funding by the Depar Read more…

By John Russell

Nvidia Wins Mellanox Stakes for $6.9 Billion

March 11, 2019

The long-rumored acquisition of Mellanox came to fruition this morning with GPU chipmaker Nvidia’s announcement that it has purchased the high-performance net Read more…

By Doug Black

Quantum Computing Will Never Work

November 27, 2018

Amid the gush of money and enthusiastic predictions being thrown at quantum computing comes a proposed cold shower in the form of an essay by physicist Mikhail Read more…

By John Russell

The Case Against ‘The Case Against Quantum Computing’

January 9, 2019

It’s not easy to be a physicist. Richard Feynman (basically the Jimi Hendrix of physicists) once said: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourse Read more…

By Ben Criger

ClusterVision in Bankruptcy, Fate Uncertain

February 13, 2019

ClusterVision, European HPC specialists that have built and installed over 20 Top500-ranked systems in their nearly 17-year history, appear to be in the midst o Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Why Nvidia Bought Mellanox: ‘Future Datacenters Will Be…Like High Performance Computers’

March 14, 2019

“Future datacenters of all kinds will be built like high performance computers,” said Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang during a phone briefing on Monday after Nvidia revealed scooping up the high performance networking company Mellanox for $6.9 billion. Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Intel Reportedly in $6B Bid for Mellanox

January 30, 2019

The latest rumors and reports around an acquisition of Mellanox focus on Intel, which has reportedly offered a $6 billion bid for the high performance interconn Read more…

By Doug Black

Looking for Light Reading? NSF-backed ‘Comic Books’ Tackle Quantum Computing

January 28, 2019

Still baffled by quantum computing? How about turning to comic books (graphic novels for the well-read among you) for some clarity and a little humor on QC. The Read more…

By John Russell

Contract Signed for New Finnish Supercomputer

December 13, 2018

After the official contract signing yesterday, configuration details were made public for the new BullSequana system that the Finnish IT Center for Science (CSC Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

It’s Official: Aurora on Track to Be First US Exascale Computer in 2021

March 18, 2019

The U.S. Department of Energy along with Intel and Cray confirmed today that an Intel/Cray supercomputer, "Aurora," capable of sustained performance of one exaf Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Leading Solution Providers

SC 18 Virtual Booth Video Tour

Advania @ SC18 AMD @ SC18
ASRock Rack @ SC18
DDN Storage @ SC18
HPE @ SC18
IBM @ SC18
Lenovo @ SC18 Mellanox Technologies @ SC18
One Stop Systems @ SC18
Oracle @ SC18 Panasas @ SC18
Supermicro @ SC18 SUSE @ SC18 TYAN @ SC18
Verne Global @ SC18

Deep500: ETH Researchers Introduce New Deep Learning Benchmark for HPC

February 5, 2019

ETH researchers have developed a new deep learning benchmarking environment – Deep500 – they say is “the first distributed and reproducible benchmarking s Read more…

By John Russell

IBM Quantum Update: Q System One Launch, New Collaborators, and QC Center Plans

January 10, 2019

IBM made three significant quantum computing announcements at CES this week. One was introduction of IBM Q System One; it’s really the integration of IBM’s Read more…

By John Russell

IBM Bets $2B Seeking 1000X AI Hardware Performance Boost

February 7, 2019

For now, AI systems are mostly machine learning-based and “narrow” – powerful as they are by today's standards, they're limited to performing a few, narro Read more…

By Doug Black

The Deep500 – Researchers Tackle an HPC Benchmark for Deep Learning

January 7, 2019

How do you know if an HPC system, particularly a larger-scale system, is well-suited for deep learning workloads? Today, that’s not an easy question to answer Read more…

By John Russell

HPC Reflections and (Mostly Hopeful) Predictions

December 19, 2018

So much ‘spaghetti’ gets tossed on walls by the technology community (vendors and researchers) to see what sticks that it is often difficult to peer through Read more…

By John Russell

Arm Unveils Neoverse N1 Platform with up to 128-Cores

February 20, 2019

Following on its Neoverse roadmap announcement last October, Arm today revealed its next-gen Neoverse microarchitecture with compute and throughput-optimized si Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Move Over Lustre & Spectrum Scale – Here Comes BeeGFS?

November 26, 2018

Is BeeGFS – the parallel file system with European roots – on a path to compete with Lustre and Spectrum Scale worldwide in HPC environments? Frank Herold Read more…

By John Russell

France to Deploy AI-Focused Supercomputer: Jean Zay

January 22, 2019

HPE announced today that it won the contract to build a supercomputer that will drive France’s AI and HPC efforts. The computer will be part of GENCI, the Fre Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

  • arrow
  • Click Here for More Headlines
  • arrow
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
Share This