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 industry updates delivered to you every week!

Q&A with Nvidia’s Chief of DGX Systems on the DGX-GB200 Rack-scale System

March 27, 2024

Pictures of Nvidia's new flagship mega-server, the DGX GB200, on the GTC show floor got favorable reactions on social media for the sheer amount of computing power it brings to artificial intelligence.  Nvidia's DGX Read more…

Call for Participation in Workshop on Potential NSF CISE Quantum Initiative

March 26, 2024

Editor’s Note: Next month there will be a workshop to discuss what a quantum initiative led by NSF’s Computer, Information Science and Engineering (CISE) directorate could entail. The details are posted below in a Ca Read more…

Waseda U. Researchers Reports New Quantum Algorithm for Speeding Optimization

March 25, 2024

Optimization problems cover a wide range of applications and are often cited as good candidates for quantum computing. However, the execution time for constrained combinatorial optimization applications on quantum device Read more…

NVLink: Faster Interconnects and Switches to Help Relieve Data Bottlenecks

March 25, 2024

Nvidia’s new Blackwell architecture may have stolen the show this week at the GPU Technology Conference in San Jose, California. But an emerging bottleneck at the network layer threatens to make bigger and brawnier pro Read more…

Who is David Blackwell?

March 22, 2024

During GTC24, co-founder and president of NVIDIA Jensen Huang unveiled the Blackwell GPU. This GPU itself is heavily optimized for AI work, boasting 192GB of HBM3E memory as well as the the ability to train 1 trillion pa Read more…

Nvidia Appoints Andy Grant as EMEA Director of Supercomputing, Higher Education, and AI

March 22, 2024

Nvidia recently appointed Andy Grant as Director, Supercomputing, Higher Education, and AI for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA). With over 25 years of high-performance computing (HPC) experience, Grant brings a Read more…

Q&A with Nvidia’s Chief of DGX Systems on the DGX-GB200 Rack-scale System

March 27, 2024

Pictures of Nvidia's new flagship mega-server, the DGX GB200, on the GTC show floor got favorable reactions on social media for the sheer amount of computing po Read more…

NVLink: Faster Interconnects and Switches to Help Relieve Data Bottlenecks

March 25, 2024

Nvidia’s new Blackwell architecture may have stolen the show this week at the GPU Technology Conference in San Jose, California. But an emerging bottleneck at Read more…

Who is David Blackwell?

March 22, 2024

During GTC24, co-founder and president of NVIDIA Jensen Huang unveiled the Blackwell GPU. This GPU itself is heavily optimized for AI work, boasting 192GB of HB Read more…

Nvidia Looks to Accelerate GenAI Adoption with NIM

March 19, 2024

Today at the GPU Technology Conference, Nvidia launched a new offering aimed at helping customers quickly deploy their generative AI applications in a secure, s Read more…

The Generative AI Future Is Now, Nvidia’s Huang Says

March 19, 2024

We are in the early days of a transformative shift in how business gets done thanks to the advent of generative AI, according to Nvidia CEO and cofounder Jensen Read more…

Nvidia’s New Blackwell GPU Can Train AI Models with Trillions of Parameters

March 18, 2024

Nvidia's latest and fastest GPU, codenamed Blackwell, is here and will underpin the company's AI plans this year. The chip offers performance improvements from Read more…

Nvidia Showcases Quantum Cloud, Expanding Quantum Portfolio at GTC24

March 18, 2024

Nvidia’s barrage of quantum news at GTC24 this week includes new products, signature collaborations, and a new Nvidia Quantum Cloud for quantum developers. Wh Read more…

Houston We Have a Solution: Addressing the HPC and Tech Talent Gap

March 15, 2024

Generations of Houstonian teachers, counselors, and parents have either worked in the aerospace industry or know people who do - the prospect of entering the fi Read more…

Alibaba Shuts Down its Quantum Computing Effort

November 30, 2023

In case you missed it, China’s e-commerce giant Alibaba has shut down its quantum computing research effort. It’s not entirely clear what drove the change. Read more…

Nvidia H100: Are 550,000 GPUs Enough for This Year?

August 17, 2023

The GPU Squeeze continues to place a premium on Nvidia H100 GPUs. In a recent Financial Times article, Nvidia reports that it expects to ship 550,000 of its lat Read more…

Shutterstock 1285747942

AMD’s Horsepower-packed MI300X GPU Beats Nvidia’s Upcoming H200

December 7, 2023

AMD and Nvidia are locked in an AI performance battle – much like the gaming GPU performance clash the companies have waged for decades. AMD has claimed it Read more…

DoD Takes a Long View of Quantum Computing

December 19, 2023

Given the large sums tied to expensive weapon systems – think $100-million-plus per F-35 fighter – it’s easy to forget the U.S. Department of Defense is a Read more…

Synopsys Eats Ansys: Does HPC Get Indigestion?

February 8, 2024

Recently, it was announced that Synopsys is buying HPC tool developer Ansys. Started in Pittsburgh, Pa., in 1970 as Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc. (SASI) by John Swanson (and eventually renamed), Ansys serves the CAE (Computer Aided Engineering)/multiphysics engineering simulation market. Read more…

Choosing the Right GPU for LLM Inference and Training

December 11, 2023

Accelerating the training and inference processes of deep learning models is crucial for unleashing their true potential and NVIDIA GPUs have emerged as a game- Read more…

Intel’s Server and PC Chip Development Will Blur After 2025

January 15, 2024

Intel's dealing with much more than chip rivals breathing down its neck; it is simultaneously integrating a bevy of new technologies such as chiplets, artificia Read more…

Baidu Exits Quantum, Closely Following Alibaba’s Earlier Move

January 5, 2024

Reuters reported this week that Baidu, China’s giant e-commerce and services provider, is exiting the quantum computing development arena. Reuters reported � Read more…

Leading Solution Providers

Contributors

Comparing NVIDIA A100 and NVIDIA L40S: Which GPU is Ideal for AI and Graphics-Intensive Workloads?

October 30, 2023

With long lead times for the NVIDIA H100 and A100 GPUs, many organizations are looking at the new NVIDIA L40S GPU, which it’s a new GPU optimized for AI and g Read more…

Shutterstock 1179408610

Google Addresses the Mysteries of Its Hypercomputer 

December 28, 2023

When Google launched its Hypercomputer earlier this month (December 2023), the first reaction was, "Say what?" It turns out that the Hypercomputer is Google's t Read more…

AMD MI3000A

How AMD May Get Across the CUDA Moat

October 5, 2023

When discussing GenAI, the term "GPU" almost always enters the conversation and the topic often moves toward performance and access. Interestingly, the word "GPU" is assumed to mean "Nvidia" products. (As an aside, the popular Nvidia hardware used in GenAI are not technically... Read more…

Shutterstock 1606064203

Meta’s Zuckerberg Puts Its AI Future in the Hands of 600,000 GPUs

January 25, 2024

In under two minutes, Meta's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, laid out the company's AI plans, which included a plan to build an artificial intelligence system with the eq Read more…

Google Introduces ‘Hypercomputer’ to Its AI Infrastructure

December 11, 2023

Google ran out of monikers to describe its new AI system released on December 7. Supercomputer perhaps wasn't an apt description, so it settled on Hypercomputer Read more…

China Is All In on a RISC-V Future

January 8, 2024

The state of RISC-V in China was discussed in a recent report released by the Jamestown Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. The report, entitled "E Read more…

Intel Won’t Have a Xeon Max Chip with New Emerald Rapids CPU

December 14, 2023

As expected, Intel officially announced its 5th generation Xeon server chips codenamed Emerald Rapids at an event in New York City, where the focus was really o Read more…

IBM Quantum Summit: Two New QPUs, Upgraded Qiskit, 10-year Roadmap and More

December 4, 2023

IBM kicks off its annual Quantum Summit today and will announce a broad range of advances including its much-anticipated 1121-qubit Condor QPU, a smaller 133-qu Read more…

  • arrow
  • Click Here for More Headlines
  • arrow
HPCwire