HPC and Science & Technology Policy

By Gary M. Johnson

November 26, 2013

Policies, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made. This is a loose paraphrase of a common analogy. Is it apt when applied to science and technology policy? In particular, how – and where – is HPC policy made? Is it currently being made at all?

Given the number of HPC issues currently on the table and in competition for scarce federal resources, perhaps we should set aside any lack of respect for the process and get engaged in the sausage making. We need clear federal policy guidance to allocate resources and mobilize the technology agencies to advance HPC and its applications. Some suggestions for HPC community action to improve this situation are included.

Moments in S&T Policy

To put the current S&T policy situation in context and to help frame issues, consider this (very) short list of notable S&T policy moments. Note that they are all linked to global conflicts.

National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) – 3 March 1915

NACA, the progenitor of NASA, was created during World War I as a reaction to the advances being made in Europe in the new field of aeronautics. It was feared that the US would lose its early lead in aeronautics and that this would have not only military but economic consequences. Consequently, the US created a federally funded organization whose core mission embraced cooperation with industry. This event, unique in our history, is reported to have “slipped through” the legislative process “almost unnoticed as a rider attached to the Naval Appropriation Bill, on 3 March 1915”.  As they say, the rest is history.  NACA/NASA, working in cooperation with the US aeronautics industry, yielded fantastic results.

Science: The Endless Frontier – 25 July 1945

World War II saw the next surge in science and technology. Adding to the laboratories operated by NACA, many further elements of our current federal R&D infrastructure were put in place. At the end of the war, Vannevar Bush, who headed the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) – which coordinated almost all wartime military R&D, including initiation and early administration of the Manhattan Project – produced the seminal S&T policy document entitled Science: The Endless Frontier. It contained a very interesting “program for action”.  Here are a few excerpts (emphasis ours):

The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth. These responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government, for they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national security.  …

The effective discharge of these new responsibilities will require the full attention of some over-all agency devoted to that purpose.  

On the wisdom with which we bring science to bear in the war against disease, in the creation of new industries, and in the strengthening of our Armed Forces depends in large measure our future as a nation.

Bush, who was in effect the country’s first presidential science advisor, didn’t get everything he asked for.   No “over-all agency” was created, but the case he made did lead to the creation of the National Science Foundation and Science: The Endless Frontier has constituted the S&T policy basis for all subsequent developments.

In the wrangling that followed Bush’s recommendations, we got a civilian agency focused on supporting university-based research and, to a lesser extent, education.  The military proceeded independently to enlarge its research complex.  Any expansion to other agencies of the NACA-style collaboration with civilian industry fell through the cracks.

Sputnik – 4 October 1957

Our final S&T policy moment is drawn from the Cold War period.  When the Soviet Union launched the first artificial Earth satellite, Sputnik, the event sent shock waves through the US public.  Government actions, spurred on by public reaction to the Sputnik crisis, led to:

So, thanks to the Cold War and Sputnik, we got: a big boost to S&T related education; an expansion of military R&D; and the extension of NACA-style collaboration with industry into the new NASA and for peaceful uses of space.

Beyond NASA, civilian technology agencies, in large measure, still lacked any core mission elements authorizing – and thus protecting – direct collaborations with industry.  This ends our story and is basically the end of significant S&T policy developments in the US.

Today, we have a national S&T policy that hasn’t changed much since the early days of the Cold War.  Perhaps its biggest shortcoming is that, beyond NASA, it doesn’t really empower strong collaborations between federal S&T agencies and American industries.  Inside the Capital Beltway, mission trumps all other considerations.  If S&T agencies engage in activities without direct and obvious linkages to their core missions, they may endanger their budget appropriations.

No agency has the mission to advance HPC.  Several agencies engage in HPC R&D to advance other mission elements, but no agency has advancing HPC itself (like NASA advances aeronautics and space technologies) as a core mission element.

S&T Policy Players

S&T policy is a game that anyone can play – and many do.  Thus, there is no shortage of literature on this topic and there are lots of players, both inside and outside the federal government.  So that your eyes don’t glaze over, we’ll limit the discussion here to mentioning just a few of the main federal players.  We’ve included a short appendix at the end of this article containing some additional information about the players.  Please consult it to make this section less cryptic.  For an overview of S&T policymaking, consult this Primer produced by the Congressional Research Service.

Executive Branch

In the Executive Branch, the main policy players are the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  These offices are part of the Executive Office of the President (EOP).  The OSTP and OMB directors jointly issue an annual memo to federal agencies on science and technology priorities.  The memo on Science and Technology Priorities for the FY 2015 Budget is an interesting read for exascale computing proponents.  The word “exascale” is not mentioned.  “Computing” appears once and “Data” appears eight times.

EOP’s external advisory council on S&T matters is the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).  PCAST is fairly transparent.  Its documents are made public and its meetings are webcast.  Its two most recent documents relevant to the current discussion, Networking and Information Technology R&D (2013) and Networking and Information Technology R&D (2010), emphasize networking and information technology – but not HPC as we know it – and certainly not exascale computing.

Legislative Branch

Just as most of us in HPC don’t have much expertise on matters of policy and law, most members of Congress don’t know much about HPC – or science and technology in general.  To compensate for this lack of expertise, Congress had an Office of Technology Assessment (OTA).  Its mission was to provide members of Congress and Congressional Committees with objective and authoritative analysis of scientific and technical issues.  OTA was eliminated in the mid-1990s.

The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is the venue in which many of the HPC discussions on Capitol Hill take place.  For example, here are links to archived webcasts of a couple of relevant hearings that took place earlier this year:

Next Generation Computing and Big Data Analytics

America’s Next Generation Supercomputer: The Exascale Challenge

The S&T policy process in the Legislative Branch is fraught with complexities, short on “objective and authoritative analysis”, and subject to all the partisan strategies and tactics we read about on an almost daily basis in the news.

Judicial Branch

When disagreements about S&T policy cannot be resolved by other means, they may reach the courts.  So, one might ask what objective and authoritative sources are available to them.  The answer is pretty short.  They rely on S&T writings and expert testimony.  Writings and expert opinions can be found to support just about any position.  So, the situation is similar to that in the Legislative Branch.

HPC Policy

HPC policy gets closer to the implementation levels in the federal technology agencies through the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program.  NITRD stems from the High-Performance Computing (HPC) Act of 1991 and serves as a venue for agencies to coordinate their HPC program plans and intended expenditures.  NITRD operates under the aegis of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC).

Among its library of many informative documents, a couple of notable products put out by NITRD are its Strategic Plan and the annual “HPC Blue Book” to accompany the President’s Budget Request to Congress.

The current NITRD Strategic Plan outlines “three essential foundations for advancing leadership in the digital world”: expanded human-computer partnerships; trust and confidence in computing and networking systems; and education of a cyber-capable workforce.  Thus, there is no high-level emphasis on exascale computing or HPC as we know it.

Where the Rubber meets the Road

After all of the processes described above are said and done, the real action on HPC plays out inside the individual technology agencies.  Within the bounds of their agency’s mission and policies, program managers have at least some discretion in carrying out their jobs.  So, if they need advanced computing capabilities to accomplish their missions, they can commit resources to develop or acquire them.  However, since no agency has the mission to advance HPC technologies for their own sake, there are limits to what can be accomplished in this way.

Despite the best efforts of many intelligent and dedicated people within the federal S&T agencies, there are some frustrating limitations that are more or less inherent in the “system”.  Although the usual justifications for federally funded R&D are taking more risk and engaging in longer term research than industry can, agency reward systems may encourage their program managers to minimize risk and think in the shorter term.  The political appointees who run the agencies are only in place for short periods of time, say 4 to 8 years – and more likely the former.  Their main concern is usually creating something new.  The odds run strongly against the same topic being picked by successive appointees.  So, continuity is hard to come by.

In most S&T agencies, a great deal of attention is paid to “community” opinions and advice.  For example, most programs of any size have external advisory committees.  While such community involvement sounds like – and can be – a very positive influence, it often falls short of that goal.  In practice, “community” often means “the collection of people currently known to us”.  Without a lot of effort to keep them vital and open to new membership and ideas, external advisory committees may have fairly limited visions about the larger communities they are seen to represent.

Other external agents interested in influencing program directions include those acting in behalf of laboratory managers, vendors, and those concerned about the long-term health of local economies in places where there are significant federal expenditures.  The advice coming from such sources can be quite valuable, but may be very conservative and narrowly focused.

Most agencies have no policy for rotating personnel.  So, civil servants may stay put in positions for very long tenures. Given human limitations – we only know what and whom we know – this lack of mobility may cause even the best programs to go stale over time.

None of this should come as a surprise. But all of it begs the question: Where are the agents for risk-taking and change? These elements are critical to the timely advancement of rapidly evolving fields like HPC.

More Heat than Light

The HPC policy system appears to be broken. It is based on S&T policies that are decades old and haven’t evolved to keep up with the current state of science and technology, in general, and HPC, in particular.

Although it is widely denied, the Top500 List has filled the void and appears to have become a replacement for HPC policy. An often voiced argument for advancing HPC is that we need to be “number one” in HPC – based, of course, on the Top500 List. This is not an adequate justification for increased HPC expenditures.  There are other important areas in which the US is not number one.  Given limited resources, how shall we prioritize them for action? We need a more compelling HPC story.

Lots of people and organizations are producing lots of documents and holding hearings and other events – but not much seems to be happening.

Action Plan

The absence of a viable HPC policy, compounded with the disarray in the federal budgeting process, has led to a free-for-all.  There are lots of folks advocating lots of things – for example, to list a few of the more popular topics: Big Data; Networking; Information Technology (whatever that is); Education; Industrial Computing; Data Privacy; Open Data; and Exascale Computing.

What we need is some way to reinsert an HPC vision and policy that represent the best interests of our country.  Unfortunately, a coherent and rational HPC vision and policy are not likely to come from the usual channels.  If we accept this to be true, then we need to act outside those usual channels.

First, we need to become well informed about the HPC expenditures currently being made. We need the data and – modulo legitimate privacy considerations – all of the data. We need it now – not at some indeterminate time in the future.

The annual budget process starts with the submission of the President’s Budget request to Congress. This document provides a coherent look at the government’s current and planned HPC expenditures and describes, to a certain level of detail, how those funds are to be spent. This isn’t a perfect starting point for us – but it’s the best one available. Of course, we’ll need the corresponding information about the allocations of federal computing and networking resources.

Let’s take this information and:

  • Build it out so that it drills down to every unclassified HPC project and allocation of computing and networking resources in every relevant agency;
  • Make it openly available in a useful digital form;
  • Provide a basic set of tools to analyze it;
  • Convene a continuing, informed, public discourse; and
  • Reach our own consensus on an HPC vision and policy.

Of course it will take some resources to do this – but we need to step up and make it happen. We need to shine some daylight all the way down into federal HPC and form our own opinions about how to go forward. We may not be able to get all the information we need, but we’ll know what information needs to be broken loose. Our analyses may not be perfect, but they currently have no competition.  We may not reach consensus, but we’ll know where we disagree – and why. If we can accomplish these steps, further steps will either be obvious or unnecessary.

Let’s get engaged.  HPC and S&T policy are simply too important to leave in the hands of the “professionals”.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix: S&T Policy Players

Executive Branch

Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Policy (APST)

In the Executive Branch, the APST is the highest ranking S&T policy position. It is not a Cabinet-rank position but is close to it, in that it permits direct access to the President. Sometimes this position is filled with the OSTP Director (e.g. current Administration) – and sometimes it’s left vacant (e.g. previous administration). In the event that there is an APST, that person co-chairs the National Science and Technology Council (see below) with the President.

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)

OSTP is part of the Executive Office of the President (EOP). OSTP’s mission is to serve as a source of S&T analysis and advice for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the federal government. As mentioned above, the OSTP Director sometimes also serves as the APST.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

OMB, also part of the EOP, holds the Executive Branch purse strings.  So, since money fuels S&T, OMB is a very important S&T policy player.  In fact, the OSTP and OMB directors jointly issue an annual memo to federal agencies on science and technology priorities.  The memo on Science and Technology Priorities for the FY 2015 Budget is an interesting read for exascale computing proponents.  The word “exascale” is not mentioned.  “Computing” appears once and “data” appears eight times.

National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)

NSTC is the Executive Branch’s internal coordination body for science and technology issues.  It is responsible for developing and implementing the strategies to carry out the Administration’s S&T agenda.

Operating under the aegis of the NSTC is its HPC policy arm, the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program.  NITRD stems from the High-Performance Computing (HPC) Act of 1991 and serves as a venue for agencies to coordinate their HPC program plans and intended expenditures.

Among its library of many informative documents, a couple of notable products put out by NITRD are its Strategic Plan and the annual “HPC Blue Book” to accompany the President’s Budget Request to Congress.

The current NITRD Strategic Plan outlines three essential foundations for advancing leadership in the digital world:

  • WeCompute – Expanded human-computer partnerships, including more capable, available, and affordable systems; more powerful digital tools for people; and new forms of collaboration between the two
  • Trust and Confidence – The ability to design and build systems with levels of security, safety, privacy, reliability, predictability, and dependability that “you can bet your life on”
  • Cyber Capable – Transformed education and training to ensure that current generations benefit fully from cyber capabilities and to inspire a diverse, prepared, and highly productive next-generation workforce of cyber innovators.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)

PCAST is the external advisory council for the federal S&T enterprise.  It is fairly transparent.  Its documents are made public and its meetings are webcast.  Its two most recent documents relevant to the current discussion, Networking and Information Technology R&D (2013) and Networking and Information Technology R&D (2010), emphasize networking and information technology – but not HPC as we know it – and certainly not exascale computing.

Legislative Branch

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)

Once upon a time, Congress had an Office of Technology Assessment.  Its mission was to provide members of Congress and Congressional Committees with objective and authoritative analysis of scientific and technical issues.  During its twenty-four-year life it produced about 750 studies on a wide range of topics.  These may be found at the OTA legacy site maintained by Princeton University.  Not feeling the need for OTA’s advice, the 104th Congress withdrew funding for OTA and it disappeared into history.  To some extent, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tried to fill the void created by OTA’s disappearance.

House and Senate Committees

The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is the venue in which many of the HPC discussions on Capitol Hill take place.  For example, here are links to archived webcasts of a couple of relevant hearings that took place earlier this year:

Next Generation Computing and Big Data Analytics

America’s Next Generation Supercomputer: The Exascale Challenge

In the Senate, a couple of committees to watch for relevant hearings are:

Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation

The good news is that such hearings are public and usually webcast.  The less good news is that they are very formal affairs and not really conducive to a thorough exploration of policy alternatives.  This situation is compounded by the absence of the “objective and authoritative analysis” formerly available from OTA.

The committees mentioned above are authorizing committees.  That means that they have jurisdiction for particular topics and can write legislation authorizing the expenditure of specific amounts of federal funds for specific activities related to those topics.  However, the authorization process does not set those funds aside.  The actual expenditures are determined through a separate appropriations process, handled by different committees.  The process is complicated, so suffice it to say that, from an S&T policy perspective, the relationship between authorizing and appropriating is somewhat similar to that between OSTP and OMB in the Executive Branch.  For more about the budget process, take a look here.

So, the S&T policy process in the Legislative Branch is fraught with complexities, short on “objective and authoritative analysis”, and subject to all the partisan strategies and tactics we read about on an almost daily basis in the news.

Judicial Branch

When disagreements about S&T policy cannot be resolved by other means, they may reach the courts.  So, one might ask what objective and authoritative sources are available to them.  The answer is pretty short.  They rely on S&T writings and expert testimony.  Since writings and experts can be found to support either side of most issues, judicial resolution of S&T issues does not inspire optimism.

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!

STEM-Trekker Badisa Mosesane Attends CERN Summer Student Program

June 27, 2017

Badisa Mosesane, an undergraduate scholar who studies computer science at the University of Botswana in Gaborone, recently joined other students from developing nations around the world in Geneva, Switzerland to particip Read more…

By Elizabeth Leake, STEM-Trek

The EU Human Brain Project Reboots but Supercomputing Still Needed

June 26, 2017

The often contentious, EU-funded Human Brain Project whose initial aim was fixed firmly on full-brain simulation is now in the midst of a reboot targeting a more modest goal – development of informatics tools and data/ Read more…

By John Russell

DOE Launches Chicago Quantum Exchange

June 26, 2017

While many of us were preoccupied with ISC 2017 last week, the launch of the Chicago Quantum Exchange went largely unnoticed. So what is such a thing? It is a Department of Energy sponsored collaboration between the Univ Read more…

By John Russell

UMass Dartmouth Reports on HPC Day 2017 Activities

June 26, 2017

UMass Dartmouth's Center for Scientific Computing & Visualization Research (CSCVR) organized and hosted the third annual "HPC Day 2017" on May 25th. This annual event showcases on-going scientific research in Massach Read more…

By Gaurav Khanna

HPE Extreme Performance Solutions

Creating a Roadmap for HPC Innovation at ISC 2017

In an era where technological advancements are driving innovation to every sector, and powering major economic and scientific breakthroughs, high performance computing (HPC) is crucial to tackle the challenges of today and tomorrow. Read more…

How ‘Knights Mill’ Gets Its Deep Learning Flops

June 22, 2017

Intel, the subject of much speculation regarding the delayed, rewritten or potentially canceled “Aurora” contract (the Argonne Lab part of the CORAL “pre-exascale” award), parsed out additional information ab Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Tsinghua Crowned Eight-Time Student Cluster Champions at ISC

June 22, 2017

Always a hard-fought competition, the Student Cluster Competition awards were announced Wednesday, June 21, at the ISC High Performance Conference 2017. Amid whoops and hollers from the crowd, Thomas Sterling presented t Read more…

By Kim McMahon

GPUs, Power9, Figure Prominently in IBM’s Bet on Weather Forecasting

June 22, 2017

IBM jumped into the weather forecasting business roughly a year and a half ago by purchasing The Weather Company. This week at ISC 2017, Big Blue rolled out plans to push deeper into climate science and develop more gran Read more…

By John Russell

Intersect 360 at ISC: HPC Industry at $44B by 2021

June 22, 2017

The care, feeding and sustained growth of the HPC industry increasingly is in the hands of the commercial market sector – in particular, it’s the hyperscale companies and their embrace of AI and deep learning – tha Read more…

By Doug Black

DOE Launches Chicago Quantum Exchange

June 26, 2017

While many of us were preoccupied with ISC 2017 last week, the launch of the Chicago Quantum Exchange went largely unnoticed. So what is such a thing? It is a D Read more…

By John Russell

How ‘Knights Mill’ Gets Its Deep Learning Flops

June 22, 2017

Intel, the subject of much speculation regarding the delayed, rewritten or potentially canceled “Aurora” contract (the Argonne Lab part of the CORAL “ Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Tsinghua Crowned Eight-Time Student Cluster Champions at ISC

June 22, 2017

Always a hard-fought competition, the Student Cluster Competition awards were announced Wednesday, June 21, at the ISC High Performance Conference 2017. Amid wh Read more…

By Kim McMahon

GPUs, Power9, Figure Prominently in IBM’s Bet on Weather Forecasting

June 22, 2017

IBM jumped into the weather forecasting business roughly a year and a half ago by purchasing The Weather Company. This week at ISC 2017, Big Blue rolled out pla Read more…

By John Russell

Intersect 360 at ISC: HPC Industry at $44B by 2021

June 22, 2017

The care, feeding and sustained growth of the HPC industry increasingly is in the hands of the commercial market sector – in particular, it’s the hyperscale Read more…

By Doug Black

At ISC – Goh on Go: Humans Can’t Scale, the Data-Centric Learning Machine Can

June 22, 2017

I've seen the future this week at ISC, it’s on display in prototype or Powerpoint form, and it’s going to dumbfound you. The future is an AI neural network Read more…

By Doug Black

Cray Brings AI and HPC Together on Flagship Supers

June 20, 2017

Cray took one more step toward the convergence of big data and high performance computing (HPC) today when it announced that it’s adding a full suite of big d Read more…

By Alex Woodie

AMD Charges Back into the Datacenter and HPC Workflows with EPYC Processor

June 20, 2017

AMD is charging back into the enterprise datacenter and select HPC workflows with its new EPYC 7000 processor line, code-named Naples, announced today at a “g Read more…

By John Russell

Quantum Bits: D-Wave and VW; Google Quantum Lab; IBM Expands Access

March 21, 2017

For a technology that’s usually characterized as far off and in a distant galaxy, quantum computing has been steadily picking up steam. Just how close real-wo Read more…

By John Russell

Trump Budget Targets NIH, DOE, and EPA; No Mention of NSF

March 16, 2017

President Trump’s proposed U.S. fiscal 2018 budget issued today sharply cuts science spending while bolstering military spending as he promised during the cam Read more…

By John Russell

HPC Compiler Company PathScale Seeks Life Raft

March 23, 2017

HPCwire has learned that HPC compiler company PathScale has fallen on difficult times and is asking the community for help or actively seeking a buyer for its a Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Google Pulls Back the Covers on Its First Machine Learning Chip

April 6, 2017

This week Google released a report detailing the design and performance characteristics of the Tensor Processing Unit (TPU), its custom ASIC for the inference Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

CPU-based Visualization Positions for Exascale Supercomputing

March 16, 2017

In this contributed perspective piece, Intel’s Jim Jeffers makes the case that CPU-based visualization is now widely adopted and as such is no longer a contrarian view, but is rather an exascale requirement. Read more…

By Jim Jeffers, Principal Engineer and Engineering Leader, Intel

Nvidia Responds to Google TPU Benchmarking

April 10, 2017

Nvidia highlights strengths of its newest GPU silicon in response to Google's report on the performance and energy advantages of its custom tensor processor. Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Nvidia’s Mammoth Volta GPU Aims High for AI, HPC

May 10, 2017

At Nvidia's GPU Technology Conference (GTC17) in San Jose, Calif., this morning, CEO Jensen Huang announced the company's much-anticipated Volta architecture a Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Facebook Open Sources Caffe2; Nvidia, Intel Rush to Optimize

April 18, 2017

From its F8 developer conference in San Jose, Calif., today, Facebook announced Caffe2, a new open-source, cross-platform framework for deep learning. Caffe2 is the successor to Caffe, the deep learning framework developed by Berkeley AI Research and community contributors. Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Leading Solution Providers

MIT Mathematician Spins Up 220,000-Core Google Compute Cluster

April 21, 2017

On Thursday, Google announced that MIT math professor and computational number theorist Andrew V. Sutherland had set a record for the largest Google Compute Engine (GCE) job. Sutherland ran the massive mathematics workload on 220,000 GCE cores using preemptible virtual machine instances. Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Google Debuts TPU v2 and will Add to Google Cloud

May 25, 2017

Not long after stirring attention in the deep learning/AI community by revealing the details of its Tensor Processing Unit (TPU), Google last week announced the Read more…

By John Russell

Russian Researchers Claim First Quantum-Safe Blockchain

May 25, 2017

The Russian Quantum Center today announced it has overcome the threat of quantum cryptography by creating the first quantum-safe blockchain, securing cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, along with classified government communications and other sensitive digital transfers. Read more…

By Doug Black

US Supercomputing Leaders Tackle the China Question

March 15, 2017

Joint DOE-NSA report responds to the increased global pressures impacting the competitiveness of U.S. supercomputing. Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Groq This: New AI Chips to Give GPUs a Run for Deep Learning Money

April 24, 2017

CPUs and GPUs, move over. Thanks to recent revelations surrounding Google’s new Tensor Processing Unit (TPU), the computing world appears to be on the cusp of Read more…

By Alex Woodie

DOE Supercomputer Achieves Record 45-Qubit Quantum Simulation

April 13, 2017

In order to simulate larger and larger quantum systems and usher in an age of “quantum supremacy,” researchers are stretching the limits of today’s most advanced supercomputers. Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Messina Update: The US Path to Exascale in 16 Slides

April 26, 2017

Paul Messina, director of the U.S. Exascale Computing Project, provided a wide-ranging review of ECP’s evolving plans last week at the HPC User Forum. Read more…

By John Russell

Six Exascale PathForward Vendors Selected; DoE Providing $258M

June 15, 2017

The much-anticipated PathForward awards for hardware R&D in support of the Exascale Computing Project were announced today with six vendors selected – AMD Read more…

By John Russell

  • arrow
  • Click Here for More Headlines
  • arrow
Share This