<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Smarr on &#8220;the good, the bad, and the ugly&#8221; in the NSF supercomputer program</title>
	<atom:link href="http://insidehpc.com/2009/12/11/smarr-on-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-in-the-nsf-supercomputer-program/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://insidehpc.com/2009/12/11/smarr-on-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-in-the-nsf-supercomputer-program/</link>
	<description>HPC News Without the Noise for Supercomputing Professionals &#124; insideHPC</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 10:46:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sid Karin sounds off on the NSF supercomputing centers &#124; insideHPC.com</title>
		<link>http://insidehpc.com/2009/12/11/smarr-on-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-in-the-nsf-supercomputer-program/#comment-205615</link>
		<dc:creator>Sid Karin sounds off on the NSF supercomputing centers &#124; insideHPC.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:21:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://insidehpc.com/?p=9201#comment-205615</guid>
		<description>[...] early December I pointed to an article that Larry Smarr wrote summarizing his take on the good and the bad in the NSF supercomputing program. Now another legendary NSF HPC center [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] early December I pointed to an article that Larry Smarr wrote summarizing his take on the good and the bad in the NSF supercomputing program. Now another legendary NSF HPC center [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Inside Tracker</title>
		<link>http://insidehpc.com/2009/12/11/smarr-on-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-in-the-nsf-supercomputer-program/#comment-199235</link>
		<dc:creator>Inside Tracker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2009 05:25:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://insidehpc.com/?p=9201#comment-199235</guid>
		<description>Because of the way NSF has been organized and reorganized during the lifetime of the supercomputing centers up until the present, the control of the general direction(s) taken by the centers wavered back and forth between NSF and center leadership and among disciplines represented within NSF. The overall swing during the mid-1990s went from significant input from the scientific community as a whole toward control by a narrow group of disciplines centered on &quot;computer science&quot; rather than the computational sciences. At this point, the user community--as large as it had grown--was unable to maintain any single center&#039;s systems in productive form. Everything became experimental, and center leadership became enamored of proposing and winning new toys for the computer scientists to play with. No regime of production was safe from disabling invasions of innovation that frequently stopped the science in its tracks and began instead a dance of experimentation on workflows, data management, and temperature-taking on systems through which no &quot;heat&quot; (scientific work) was flowing. Plain end-to-end calculation languished for all but the most determined and manaical users, generally &quot;star&quot; professors with graduate students to waste on minding what could be had of serious computational resources. 

To be sure, the throughput and data innovations, once they were sorted out and functioning, were very useful to the scientific community. But they ought to have been developed in parallel to, rather than in place of, scientific advances. Many, many users were disaffected as actually getting into the queues and running began to take second and third place to everything else.

There is a limit to the extent to which any discipline that calls itself &quot;X science&quot; partakes of the scientific, whether it be &quot;political science,&quot; &quot;social science,&quot; or, sorry dear friends, &quot;computer science.&quot; When computer science ruled, biology, chemistry, and physics at the centers suffered. A lot of this was obscured by the constant growth in machine power, but I have no doubt that it was felt in many a lab. Other computational scientists may have more to say on this point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Because of the way NSF has been organized and reorganized during the lifetime of the supercomputing centers up until the present, the control of the general direction(s) taken by the centers wavered back and forth between NSF and center leadership and among disciplines represented within NSF. The overall swing during the mid-1990s went from significant input from the scientific community as a whole toward control by a narrow group of disciplines centered on &#8220;computer science&#8221; rather than the computational sciences. At this point, the user community&#8211;as large as it had grown&#8211;was unable to maintain any single center&#8217;s systems in productive form. Everything became experimental, and center leadership became enamored of proposing and winning new toys for the computer scientists to play with. No regime of production was safe from disabling invasions of innovation that frequently stopped the science in its tracks and began instead a dance of experimentation on workflows, data management, and temperature-taking on systems through which no &#8220;heat&#8221; (scientific work) was flowing. Plain end-to-end calculation languished for all but the most determined and manaical users, generally &#8220;star&#8221; professors with graduate students to waste on minding what could be had of serious computational resources. </p>
<p>To be sure, the throughput and data innovations, once they were sorted out and functioning, were very useful to the scientific community. But they ought to have been developed in parallel to, rather than in place of, scientific advances. Many, many users were disaffected as actually getting into the queues and running began to take second and third place to everything else.</p>
<p>There is a limit to the extent to which any discipline that calls itself &#8220;X science&#8221; partakes of the scientific, whether it be &#8220;political science,&#8221; &#8220;social science,&#8221; or, sorry dear friends, &#8220;computer science.&#8221; When computer science ruled, biology, chemistry, and physics at the centers suffered. A lot of this was obscured by the constant growth in machine power, but I have no doubt that it was felt in many a lab. Other computational scientists may have more to say on this point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly” in the NSF supercomputer program &#124; VizWorld.com</title>
		<link>http://insidehpc.com/2009/12/11/smarr-on-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-in-the-nsf-supercomputer-program/#comment-198799</link>
		<dc:creator>“The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly” in the NSF supercomputer program &#124; VizWorld.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:57:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://insidehpc.com/?p=9201#comment-198799</guid>
		<description>[...] Smarr on “the good, the bad, and the ugly” in the NSF supercomputer program &#124; insideHPC.com.     Related News &amp; Resources     Competition: What is the most Ugly and Useless Visualization Online?     Most Ugly &amp; Useless Infographic Competition: The Winners     NVidia grows the &#8220;CUDA Centers&#8221; Program     Nvidia Responds: Fermi is Real, just &#8220;ugly&#8221; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Smarr on “the good, the bad, and the ugly” in the NSF supercomputer program | insideHPC.com.     Related News &amp; Resources     Competition: What is the most Ugly and Useless Visualization Online?     Most Ugly &amp; Useless Infographic Competition: The Winners     NVidia grows the &#8220;CUDA Centers&#8221; Program     Nvidia Responds: Fermi is Real, just &#8220;ugly&#8221; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
