Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions
Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018
Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this? Scott From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018
Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this? Scott From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018
Hi all, Scott asked a good question that I will summarize as "what is going on?". Here's what I know: Virtual Summit. Lucy has asked for permission to have our virtual summit, back on the 21st. I will double-check with her on status of that request. Meanwhile we should all gather our thoughts for the summit: - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Fill out this poll; we're optimistic that we will have permission to do this soon: https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim Scope. We've been asked to think about the data and learning applications in addition to traditional simulation. I don't think this is a surprise, but it does mean that we need to think about those communities as we think about who to include in the discussion/workshop and what to have in our initial report. Organizers. Gary has asked to take a step back but is happy to chime in as needed. Here's our revised team: - Brad Settlemyer (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) I think everyone probably knows Brad. I'm sure he'll do a great job. Gary will remain on the mailing list, too. Meeting Dates. Lucy and I have chatted on possible dates, and we want to get some dates on the calendar. We're looking for two days in July/August. Here's a short set of dates that work for me and Lucy; we're hoping to get lucky and get a hit. Note that we didn't include Mon. or Fri. in these so people can travel during the week: - https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh Attendees. We should start thinking about attendees. I've attached the list of people from the SSIO workshop back in late 2014 as a starting point. Can someone volunteer to create a Google spreadsheet that we could use for organizing possible participants. Note that we don't have permission to have the meeting at this point, so we're really just discussing who we think key thinkers are in the area. I'm also attaching the EH and ML pre-workshop documents as examples of the kind of report we need to prepare. Thanks, Rob --- On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this? Scott From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018
Forgot the attachment...classic... On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Scott asked a good question that I will summarize as "what is going on?". Here's what I know: Virtual Summit. Lucy has asked for permission to have our virtual summit, back on the 21st. I will double-check with her on status of that request. Meanwhile we should all gather our thoughts for the summit: - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Fill out this poll; we're optimistic that we will have permission to do this soon: https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim Scope. We've been asked to think about the data and learning applications in addition to traditional simulation. I don't think this is a surprise, but it does mean that we need to think about those communities as we think about who to include in the discussion/workshop and what to have in our initial report. Organizers. Gary has asked to take a step back but is happy to chime in as needed. Here's our revised team: - Brad Settlemyer (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) I think everyone probably knows Brad. I'm sure he'll do a great job. Gary will remain on the mailing list, too. Meeting Dates. Lucy and I have chatted on possible dates, and we want to get some dates on the calendar. We're looking for two days in July/August. Here's a short set of dates that work for me and Lucy; we're hoping to get lucky and get a hit. Note that we didn't include Mon. or Fri. in these so people can travel during the week: - https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh Attendees. We should start thinking about attendees. I've attached the list of people from the SSIO workshop back in late 2014 as a starting point. Can someone volunteer to create a Google spreadsheet that we could use for organizing possible participants. Note that we don't have permission to have the meeting at this point, so we're really just discussing who we think key thinkers are in the area. I'm also attaching the EH and ML pre-workshop documents as examples of the kind of report we need to prepare. Thanks, Rob --- On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this? Scott From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 <2018-01-15-eh-pre-workshop-document.pdf><ml-pre-workshop-doc-20180124.pdf>_______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018
Hi Rob, I'll volunteer to manage the attendees spreadsheet. I'll send out a link to the list in a bit. Kathryn From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 8:49 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment...classic... On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Scott asked a good question that I will summarize as "what is going on?". Here's what I know: Virtual Summit. Lucy has asked for permission to have our virtual summit, back on the 21st. I will double-check with her on status of that request. Meanwhile we should all gather our thoughts for the summit: - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Fill out this poll; we're optimistic that we will have permission to do this soon: https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim Scope. We've been asked to think about the data and learning applications in addition to traditional simulation. I don't think this is a surprise, but it does mean that we need to think about those communities as we think about who to include in the discussion/workshop and what to have in our initial report. Organizers. Gary has asked to take a step back but is happy to chime in as needed. Here's our revised team: - Brad Settlemyer (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) I think everyone probably knows Brad. I'm sure he'll do a great job. Gary will remain on the mailing list, too. Meeting Dates. Lucy and I have chatted on possible dates, and we want to get some dates on the calendar. We're looking for two days in July/August. Here's a short set of dates that work for me and Lucy; we're hoping to get lucky and get a hit. Note that we didn't include Mon. or Fri. in these so people can travel during the week: - https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh Attendees. We should start thinking about attendees. I've attached the list of people from the SSIO workshop back in late 2014 as a starting point. Can someone volunteer to create a Google spreadsheet that we could use for organizing possible participants. Note that we don't have permission to have the meeting at this point, so we're really just discussing who we think key thinkers are in the area. I'm also attaching the EH and ML pre-workshop documents as examples of the kind of report we need to prepare. Thanks, Rob --- On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this? Scott From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 <2018-01-15-eh-pre-workshop-document.pdf><ml-pre-workshop-doc-20180124.pdf>_______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018
Thanks! -- Rob On Mar 8, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, I’ll volunteer to manage the attendees spreadsheet. I’ll send out a link to the list in a bit. Kathryn From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 8:49 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment...classic... On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Scott asked a good question that I will summarize as "what is going on?". Here's what I know: Virtual Summit. Lucy has asked for permission to have our virtual summit, back on the 21st. I will double-check with her on status of that request. Meanwhile we should all gather our thoughts for the summit: - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Fill out this poll; we're optimistic that we will have permission to do this soon: https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim Scope. We've been asked to think about the data and learning applications in addition to traditional simulation. I don't think this is a surprise, but it does mean that we need to think about those communities as we think about who to include in the discussion/workshop and what to have in our initial report. Organizers. Gary has asked to take a step back but is happy to chime in as needed. Here's our revised team: - Brad Settlemyer (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) I think everyone probably knows Brad. I'm sure he'll do a great job. Gary will remain on the mailing list, too. Meeting Dates. Lucy and I have chatted on possible dates, and we want to get some dates on the calendar. We're looking for two days in July/August. Here's a short set of dates that work for me and Lucy; we're hoping to get lucky and get a hit. Note that we didn't include Mon. or Fri. in these so people can travel during the week: - https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh Attendees. We should start thinking about attendees. I've attached the list of people from the SSIO workshop back in late 2014 as a starting point. Can someone volunteer to create a Google spreadsheet that we could use for organizing possible participants. Note that we don't have permission to have the meeting at this point, so we're really just discussing who we think key thinkers are in the area. I'm also attaching the EH and ML pre-workshop documents as examples of the kind of report we need to prepare. Thanks, Rob --- On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this? Scott From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 <2018-01-15-eh-pre-workshop-document.pdf><ml-pre-workshop-doc-20180124.pdf>_______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018
Hi all, Here’s a link to the worksheet we use to sort out the attendee list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... A thing I was not sure of was: what categories do we want to use to ensure that we are getting a good spread of expertise across attendees at the meeting? To start, I chose: * Storage Systems * I/O models * Applications/Use cases Do those seem appropriate? Can you think of others? If you think other categories are appropriate as you are adding people to the list, I suggest creating a column with a heading for your new expertise category, or at the very least put something in the “notes” column. For each attendee that you add to the worksheet, put an ‘x’ in the column(s) that best represents the attendee’s expertise. Then we can tally them up to see if we have a good balance of people. Thanks, Kathryn From: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 1:43 PM To: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Thanks! -- Rob On Mar 8, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, I’ll volunteer to manage the attendees spreadsheet. I’ll send out a link to the list in a bit. Kathryn From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 8:49 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment...classic... On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Scott asked a good question that I will summarize as "what is going on?". Here's what I know: Virtual Summit. Lucy has asked for permission to have our virtual summit, back on the 21st. I will double-check with her on status of that request. Meanwhile we should all gather our thoughts for the summit: - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Fill out this poll; we're optimistic that we will have permission to do this soon: https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim Scope. We've been asked to think about the data and learning applications in addition to traditional simulation. I don't think this is a surprise, but it does mean that we need to think about those communities as we think about who to include in the discussion/workshop and what to have in our initial report. Organizers. Gary has asked to take a step back but is happy to chime in as needed. Here's our revised team: - Brad Settlemyer (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) I think everyone probably knows Brad. I'm sure he'll do a great job. Gary will remain on the mailing list, too. Meeting Dates. Lucy and I have chatted on possible dates, and we want to get some dates on the calendar. We're looking for two days in July/August. Here's a short set of dates that work for me and Lucy; we're hoping to get lucky and get a hit. Note that we didn't include Mon. or Fri. in these so people can travel during the week: - https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh Attendees. We should start thinking about attendees. I've attached the list of people from the SSIO workshop back in late 2014 as a starting point. Can someone volunteer to create a Google spreadsheet that we could use for organizing possible participants. Note that we don't have permission to have the meeting at this point, so we're really just discussing who we think key thinkers are in the area. I'm also attaching the EH and ML pre-workshop documents as examples of the kind of report we need to prepare. Thanks, Rob --- On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this? Scott From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 <2018-01-15-eh-pre-workshop-document.pdf><ml-pre-workshop-doc-20180124.pdf>_______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018
I would add 1. In situ infrastructure - coupling..... 2. Data reduction/compression Scott ________________________________ From: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]> Date: March 8, 2018 at 5:58:31 PM EST To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Hi all, Here’s a link to the worksheet we use to sort out the attendee list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... A thing I was not sure of was: what categories do we want to use to ensure that we are getting a good spread of expertise across attendees at the meeting? To start, I chose: * Storage Systems * I/O models * Applications/Use cases Do those seem appropriate? Can you think of others? If you think other categories are appropriate as you are adding people to the list, I suggest creating a column with a heading for your new expertise category, or at the very least put something in the “notes” column. For each attendee that you add to the worksheet, put an ‘x’ in the column(s) that best represents the attendee’s expertise. Then we can tally them up to see if we have a good balance of people. Thanks, Kathryn From: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 1:43 PM To: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Thanks! -- Rob On Mar 8, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, I’ll volunteer to manage the attendees spreadsheet. I’ll send out a link to the list in a bit. Kathryn From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 8:49 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment...classic... On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Scott asked a good question that I will summarize as "what is going on?". Here's what I know: Virtual Summit. Lucy has asked for permission to have our virtual summit, back on the 21st. I will double-check with her on status of that request. Meanwhile we should all gather our thoughts for the summit: - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Fill out this poll; we're optimistic that we will have permission to do this soon: https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim Scope. We've been asked to think about the data and learning applications in addition to traditional simulation. I don't think this is a surprise, but it does mean that we need to think about those communities as we think about who to include in the discussion/workshop and what to have in our initial report. Organizers. Gary has asked to take a step back but is happy to chime in as needed. Here's our revised team: - Brad Settlemyer (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) I think everyone probably knows Brad. I'm sure he'll do a great job. Gary will remain on the mailing list, too. Meeting Dates. Lucy and I have chatted on possible dates, and we want to get some dates on the calendar. We're looking for two days in July/August. Here's a short set of dates that work for me and Lucy; we're hoping to get lucky and get a hit. Note that we didn't include Mon. or Fri. in these so people can travel during the week: - https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh Attendees. We should start thinking about attendees. I've attached the list of people from the SSIO workshop back in late 2014 as a starting point. Can someone volunteer to create a Google spreadsheet that we could use for organizing possible participants. Note that we don't have permission to have the meeting at this point, so we're really just discussing who we think key thinkers are in the area. I'm also attaching the EH and ML pre-workshop documents as examples of the kind of report we need to prepare. Thanks, Rob --- On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this? Scott From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 <2018-01-15-eh-pre-workshop-document.pdf><ml-pre-workshop-doc-20180124.pdf>_______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018
Thanks to Gary and Kathryn for filling out the Doodle polls (and Brad for getting one out of two?). Please fill out the Doodle polls when you can. -- Rob On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Scott asked a good question that I will summarize as "what is going on?". Here's what I know: Virtual Summit. Lucy has asked for permission to have our virtual summit, back on the 21st. I will double-check with her on status of that request. Meanwhile we should all gather our thoughts for the summit: - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Fill out this poll; we're optimistic that we will have permission to do this soon: https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim Scope. We've been asked to think about the data and learning applications in addition to traditional simulation. I don't think this is a surprise, but it does mean that we need to think about those communities as we think about who to include in the discussion/workshop and what to have in our initial report. Organizers. Gary has asked to take a step back but is happy to chime in as needed. Here's our revised team: - Brad Settlemyer (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) I think everyone probably knows Brad. I'm sure he'll do a great job. Gary will remain on the mailing list, too. Meeting Dates. Lucy and I have chatted on possible dates, and we want to get some dates on the calendar. We're looking for two days in July/August. Here's a short set of dates that work for me and Lucy; we're hoping to get lucky and get a hit. Note that we didn't include Mon. or Fri. in these so people can travel during the week: - https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh Attendees. We should start thinking about attendees. I've attached the list of people from the SSIO workshop back in late 2014 as a starting point. Can someone volunteer to create a Google spreadsheet that we could use for organizing possible participants. Note that we don't have permission to have the meeting at this point, so we're really just discussing who we think key thinkers are in the area. I'm also attaching the EH and ML pre-workshop documents as examples of the kind of report we need to prepare. Thanks, Rob --- On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this? Scott From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 <2018-01-15-eh-pre-workshop-document.pdf><ml-pre-workshop-doc-20180124.pdf>
Hi all, Thanks for taking the time to fill out the polls. While we don't have the go-ahead for the virtual summer or workshop yet, let's hold the following dates: - May 9, 10:00am - 4:30pm central for a virtual summit (Blue Jeans, contact info TBD) - August 1-2 for a tentative workshop (probably in DC/MD) Thanks! Rob On Mar 12, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks to Gary and Kathryn for filling out the Doodle polls (and Brad for getting one out of two?). Please fill out the Doodle polls when you can. -- Rob On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Scott asked a good question that I will summarize as "what is going on?". Here's what I know: Virtual Summit. Lucy has asked for permission to have our virtual summit, back on the 21st. I will double-check with her on status of that request. Meanwhile we should all gather our thoughts for the summit: - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Fill out this poll; we're optimistic that we will have permission to do this soon: https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim Scope. We've been asked to think about the data and learning applications in addition to traditional simulation. I don't think this is a surprise, but it does mean that we need to think about those communities as we think about who to include in the discussion/workshop and what to have in our initial report. Organizers. Gary has asked to take a step back but is happy to chime in as needed. Here's our revised team: - Brad Settlemyer (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) I think everyone probably knows Brad. I'm sure he'll do a great job. Gary will remain on the mailing list, too. Meeting Dates. Lucy and I have chatted on possible dates, and we want to get some dates on the calendar. We're looking for two days in July/August. Here's a short set of dates that work for me and Lucy; we're hoping to get lucky and get a hit. Note that we didn't include Mon. or Fri. in these so people can travel during the week: - https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh Attendees. We should start thinking about attendees. I've attached the list of people from the SSIO workshop back in late 2014 as a starting point. Can someone volunteer to create a Google spreadsheet that we could use for organizing possible participants. Note that we don't have permission to have the meeting at this point, so we're really just discussing who we think key thinkers are in the area. I'm also attaching the EH and ML pre-workshop documents as examples of the kind of report we need to prepare. Thanks, Rob --- On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this? Scott From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 <2018-01-15-eh-pre-workshop-document.pdf><ml-pre-workshop-doc-20180124.pdf>
Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Kathryn From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 11:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Hi all, Thanks for taking the time to fill out the polls. While we don't have the go-ahead for the virtual summer or workshop yet, let's hold the following dates: - May 9, 10:00am - 4:30pm central for a virtual summit (Blue Jeans, contact info TBD) - August 1-2 for a tentative workshop (probably in DC/MD) Thanks! Rob On Mar 12, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks to Gary and Kathryn for filling out the Doodle polls (and Brad for getting one out of two?). Please fill out the Doodle polls when you can. -- Rob On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Scott asked a good question that I will summarize as "what is going on?". Here's what I know: Virtual Summit. Lucy has asked for permission to have our virtual summit, back on the 21st. I will double-check with her on status of that request. Meanwhile we should all gather our thoughts for the summit: - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Fill out this poll; we're optimistic that we will have permission to do this soon: https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim Scope. We've been asked to think about the data and learning applications in addition to traditional simulation. I don't think this is a surprise, but it does mean that we need to think about those communities as we think about who to include in the discussion/workshop and what to have in our initial report. Organizers. Gary has asked to take a step back but is happy to chime in as needed. Here's our revised team: - Brad Settlemyer (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) I think everyone probably knows Brad. I'm sure he'll do a great job. Gary will remain on the mailing list, too. Meeting Dates. Lucy and I have chatted on possible dates, and we want to get some dates on the calendar. We're looking for two days in July/August. Here's a short set of dates that work for me and Lucy; we're hoping to get lucky and get a hit. Note that we didn't include Mon. or Fri. in these so people can travel during the week: - https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh Attendees. We should start thinking about attendees. I've attached the list of people from the SSIO workshop back in late 2014 as a starting point. Can someone volunteer to create a Google spreadsheet that we could use for organizing possible participants. Note that we don't have permission to have the meeting at this point, so we're really just discussing who we think key thinkers are in the area. I'm also attaching the EH and ML pre-workshop documents as examples of the kind of report we need to prepare. Thanks, Rob --- On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this? Scott From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 <2018-01-15-eh-pre-workshop-document.pdf><ml-pre-workshop-doc-20180124.pdf>
Why don't we have an io column? I vote to have this column Scott ________________________________ From: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]> Date: April 9, 2018 at 11:54:47 PM GMT+2 To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Kathryn From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 11:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Hi all, Thanks for taking the time to fill out the polls. While we don't have the go-ahead for the virtual summer or workshop yet, let's hold the following dates: - May 9, 10:00am - 4:30pm central for a virtual summit (Blue Jeans, contact info TBD) - August 1-2 for a tentative workshop (probably in DC/MD) Thanks! Rob On Mar 12, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks to Gary and Kathryn for filling out the Doodle polls (and Brad for getting one out of two?). Please fill out the Doodle polls when you can. -- Rob On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Scott asked a good question that I will summarize as "what is going on?". Here's what I know: Virtual Summit. Lucy has asked for permission to have our virtual summit, back on the 21st. I will double-check with her on status of that request. Meanwhile we should all gather our thoughts for the summit: - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Fill out this poll; we're optimistic that we will have permission to do this soon: https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim Scope. We've been asked to think about the data and learning applications in addition to traditional simulation. I don't think this is a surprise, but it does mean that we need to think about those communities as we think about who to include in the discussion/workshop and what to have in our initial report. Organizers. Gary has asked to take a step back but is happy to chime in as needed. Here's our revised team: - Brad Settlemyer (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) I think everyone probably knows Brad. I'm sure he'll do a great job. Gary will remain on the mailing list, too. Meeting Dates. Lucy and I have chatted on possible dates, and we want to get some dates on the calendar. We're looking for two days in July/August. Here's a short set of dates that work for me and Lucy; we're hoping to get lucky and get a hit. Note that we didn't include Mon. or Fri. in these so people can travel during the week: - https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh Attendees. We should start thinking about attendees. I've attached the list of people from the SSIO workshop back in late 2014 as a starting point. Can someone volunteer to create a Google spreadsheet that we could use for organizing possible participants. Note that we don't have permission to have the meeting at this point, so we're really just discussing who we think key thinkers are in the area. I'm also attaching the EH and ML pre-workshop documents as examples of the kind of report we need to prepare. Thanks, Rob --- On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this? Scott From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 <2018-01-15-eh-pre-workshop-document.pdf><ml-pre-workshop-doc-20180124.pdf>
Hi Scott, I think I/O fits under 'Storage Systems'. Kathryn From: Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 4:27 PM To: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Why don't we have an io column? I vote to have this column Scott ________________________________ From: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: April 9, 2018 at 11:54:47 PM GMT+2 To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Kathryn From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 11:33 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Hi all, Thanks for taking the time to fill out the polls. While we don't have the go-ahead for the virtual summer or workshop yet, let's hold the following dates: - May 9, 10:00am - 4:30pm central for a virtual summit (Blue Jeans, contact info TBD) - August 1-2 for a tentative workshop (probably in DC/MD) Thanks! Rob On Mar 12, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks to Gary and Kathryn for filling out the Doodle polls (and Brad for getting one out of two?). Please fill out the Doodle polls when you can. -- Rob On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Scott asked a good question that I will summarize as "what is going on?". Here's what I know: Virtual Summit. Lucy has asked for permission to have our virtual summit, back on the 21st. I will double-check with her on status of that request. Meanwhile we should all gather our thoughts for the summit: - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Fill out this poll; we're optimistic that we will have permission to do this soon: https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim Scope. We've been asked to think about the data and learning applications in addition to traditional simulation. I don't think this is a surprise, but it does mean that we need to think about those communities as we think about who to include in the discussion/workshop and what to have in our initial report. Organizers. Gary has asked to take a step back but is happy to chime in as needed. Here's our revised team: - Brad Settlemyer (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) I think everyone probably knows Brad. I'm sure he'll do a great job. Gary will remain on the mailing list, too. Meeting Dates. Lucy and I have chatted on possible dates, and we want to get some dates on the calendar. We're looking for two days in July/August. Here's a short set of dates that work for me and Lucy; we're hoping to get lucky and get a hit. Note that we didn't include Mon. or Fri. in these so people can travel during the week: - https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh Attendees. We should start thinking about attendees. I've attached the list of people from the SSIO workshop back in late 2014 as a starting point. Can someone volunteer to create a Google spreadsheet that we could use for organizing possible participants. Note that we don't have permission to have the meeting at this point, so we're really just discussing who we think key thinkers are in the area. I'm also attaching the EH and ML pre-workshop documents as examples of the kind of report we need to prepare. Thanks, Rob --- On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this? Scott From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 <2018-01-15-eh-pre-workshop-document.pdf><ml-pre-workshop-doc-20180124.pdf>
It might be nice to make sure we cover/count the storage facilities. I actually think it will be covered without much challenge, but someone like Dave Dillow might be a nice add in that he used to work for a DOE facility, and now works for a large cloud facility. Just a thought. Cheers, Brad On 4/9/18, 5:32 PM, "ssio-2018 on behalf of Mohror, Kathryn" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
Hi Scott,
I think I/O fits under ‘Storage Systems’.
Kathryn
From: Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 4:27 PM To: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning
Why don't we have an io column? I vote to have this column
Scott
________________________________________
From: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]> Date: April 9, 2018 at 11:54:47 PM GMT+2 To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning
Hi everybody,
I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet!
Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well?
Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzC gRjPj9YEY/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxz CgRjPj9YEY/edit?usp=sharing>
Kathryn
From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 11:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning
Hi all,
Thanks for taking the time to fill out the polls. While we don't have the go-ahead for the virtual summer or workshop yet, let's hold the following dates:
- May 9, 10:00am - 4:30pm central for a virtual summit (Blue Jeans, contact info TBD)
- August 1-2 for a tentative workshop (probably in DC/MD)
Thanks!
Rob
On Mar 12, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks to Gary and Kathryn for filling out the Doodle polls (and Brad for getting one out of two?). Please fill out the Doodle polls when you can. -- Rob
On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
Scott asked a good question that I will summarize as "what is going on?". Here's what I know:
Virtual Summit. Lucy has asked for permission to have our virtual summit, back on the 21st. I will double-check with her on status of that request. Meanwhile we should all gather our thoughts for the summit:
- Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues.
- Fill out this poll; we're optimistic that we will have permission to do this soon:
https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim <https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim>
Scope. We've been asked to think about the data and learning applications in addition to traditional simulation. I don't think this is a surprise, but it does mean that we need to think about those communities as we think about who to include in the discussion/workshop and what to have in our initial report.
Organizers. Gary has asked to take a step back but is happy to chime in as needed. Here's our revised team:
- Brad Settlemyer (LANL)
- Scott Klasky (ORNL)
- Glenn Lockwood (LBNL)
- Kathryn Mohror (LLNL)
- Lee Ward (SNL)
I think everyone probably knows Brad. I'm sure he'll do a great job. Gary will remain on the mailing list, too.
Meeting Dates. Lucy and I have chatted on possible dates, and we want to get some dates on the calendar. We're looking for two days in July/August. Here's a short set of dates that work for me and Lucy; we're hoping to get lucky and get a hit. Note that we didn't include Mon. or Fri. in these so people can travel during the week:
- https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh <https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh>
Attendees. We should start thinking about attendees. I've attached the list of people from the SSIO workshop back in late 2014 as a starting point. Can someone volunteer to create a Google spreadsheet that we could use for organizing possible participants. Note that we don't have permission to have the meeting at this point, so we're really just discussing who we think key thinkers are in the area.
I'm also attaching the EH and ML pre-workshop documents as examples of the kind of report we need to prepare.
Thanks,
Rob
---
On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Rob,
Has there been a doodle poll for this?
Scott
From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning
Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob
On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process.
Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information.
My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation.
Summary and action items.
- Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues.
- Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials.
- Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date.
- Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress.
Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success!
Rob
---
Organizers. Here's our team:
- Gary Grider (LANL)
- Scott Klasky (ORNL)
- Glenn Lockwood (LBNL)
- Kathryn Mohror (LLNL)
- Lee Ward (SNL)
Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done.
We have a mailing list: [email protected] for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help.
Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop.
- HW/SW architectures
- Metadata, name spaces, and provenance
- Supporting science data
- Integrating with external services
- Understanding SSIO systems
I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below).
Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it.
With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD:
- Introduction
- Science Challenges
- Technology Challenges
- Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know
- Research Needs
- Topic 1
- Definition/summary of area
- Current status
- Topic 2 ...
- Appendix: References
This is likely to be a 50 page document.
This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report.
Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report.
Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion.
We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure.
The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions).
Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this:
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Science Challenges
- Technology Challenges
- Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes)
- Research Needs
- Topic 1
- Definition/summary of area
- Current status
- CS challenges and opportunities
- Priority research directions (3-5)
- Topic 2 ...
- Priority research directions
_______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018
_______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018
<2018-01-15-eh-pre-workshop-document.pdf><ml-pre-workshop-doc-20180124.pdf
Yes, if we want to get traction within ASCR we need to make sure that we have incorporated facility concerns. Inviting some representatives to the meeting is a good step in that direction. Dave might be a good industry representative, too. -- Rob On Apr 10, 2018, at 10:15 AM, Settlemyer, Bradley Wade <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: It might be nice to make sure we cover/count the storage facilities. I actually think it will be covered without much challenge, but someone like Dave Dillow might be a nice add in that he used to work for a DOE facility, and now works for a large cloud facility. Just a thought. Cheers, Brad On 4/9/18, 5:32 PM, "ssio-2018 on behalf of Mohror, Kathryn" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Scott, I think I/O fits under ‘Storage Systems’. Kathryn From: Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 4:27 PM To: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Why don't we have an io column? I vote to have this column Scott ________________________________________ From: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: April 9, 2018 at 11:54:47 PM GMT+2 To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzC gRjPj9YEY/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxz CgRjPj9YEY/edit?usp=sharing> Kathryn From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 11:33 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Hi all, Thanks for taking the time to fill out the polls. While we don't have the go-ahead for the virtual summer or workshop yet, let's hold the following dates: - May 9, 10:00am - 4:30pm central for a virtual summit (Blue Jeans, contact info TBD) - August 1-2 for a tentative workshop (probably in DC/MD) Thanks! Rob On Mar 12, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks to Gary and Kathryn for filling out the Doodle polls (and Brad for getting one out of two?). Please fill out the Doodle polls when you can. -- Rob On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Scott asked a good question that I will summarize as "what is going on?". Here's what I know: Virtual Summit. Lucy has asked for permission to have our virtual summit, back on the 21st. I will double-check with her on status of that request. Meanwhile we should all gather our thoughts for the summit: - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Fill out this poll; we're optimistic that we will have permission to do this soon: https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim <https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim> Scope. We've been asked to think about the data and learning applications in addition to traditional simulation. I don't think this is a surprise, but it does mean that we need to think about those communities as we think about who to include in the discussion/workshop and what to have in our initial report. Organizers. Gary has asked to take a step back but is happy to chime in as needed. Here's our revised team: - Brad Settlemyer (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) I think everyone probably knows Brad. I'm sure he'll do a great job. Gary will remain on the mailing list, too. Meeting Dates. Lucy and I have chatted on possible dates, and we want to get some dates on the calendar. We're looking for two days in July/August. Here's a short set of dates that work for me and Lucy; we're hoping to get lucky and get a hit. Note that we didn't include Mon. or Fri. in these so people can travel during the week: - https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh <https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh> Attendees. We should start thinking about attendees. I've attached the list of people from the SSIO workshop back in late 2014 as a starting point. Can someone volunteer to create a Google spreadsheet that we could use for organizing possible participants. Note that we don't have permission to have the meeting at this point, so we're really just discussing who we think key thinkers are in the area. I'm also attaching the EH and ML pre-workshop documents as examples of the kind of report we need to prepare. Thanks, Rob --- On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this? Scott From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected] for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 <2018-01-15-eh-pre-workshop-document.pdf><ml-pre-workshop-doc-20180124.pdf
Can rename the column. -- Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 6:32 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Scott, I think I/O fits under ‘Storage Systems’. Kathryn From: Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 4:27 PM To: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Why don't we have an io column? I vote to have this column Scott ________________________________ From: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: April 9, 2018 at 11:54:47 PM GMT+2 To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Kathryn From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 11:33 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Hi all, Thanks for taking the time to fill out the polls. While we don't have the go-ahead for the virtual summer or workshop yet, let's hold the following dates: - May 9, 10:00am - 4:30pm central for a virtual summit (Blue Jeans, contact info TBD) - August 1-2 for a tentative workshop (probably in DC/MD) Thanks! Rob On Mar 12, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks to Gary and Kathryn for filling out the Doodle polls (and Brad for getting one out of two?). Please fill out the Doodle polls when you can. -- Rob On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Scott asked a good question that I will summarize as "what is going on?". Here's what I know: Virtual Summit. Lucy has asked for permission to have our virtual summit, back on the 21st. I will double-check with her on status of that request. Meanwhile we should all gather our thoughts for the summit: - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Fill out this poll; we're optimistic that we will have permission to do this soon: https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim Scope. We've been asked to think about the data and learning applications in addition to traditional simulation. I don't think this is a surprise, but it does mean that we need to think about those communities as we think about who to include in the discussion/workshop and what to have in our initial report. Organizers. Gary has asked to take a step back but is happy to chime in as needed. Here's our revised team: - Brad Settlemyer (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) I think everyone probably knows Brad. I'm sure he'll do a great job. Gary will remain on the mailing list, too. Meeting Dates. Lucy and I have chatted on possible dates, and we want to get some dates on the calendar. We're looking for two days in July/August. Here's a short set of dates that work for me and Lucy; we're hoping to get lucky and get a hit. Note that we didn't include Mon. or Fri. in these so people can travel during the week: - https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh Attendees. We should start thinking about attendees. I've attached the list of people from the SSIO workshop back in late 2014 as a starting point. Can someone volunteer to create a Google spreadsheet that we could use for organizing possible participants. Note that we don't have permission to have the meeting at this point, so we're really just discussing who we think key thinkers are in the area. I'm also attaching the EH and ML pre-workshop documents as examples of the kind of report we need to prepare. Thanks, Rob --- On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this? Scott From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 <2018-01-15-eh-pre-workshop-document.pdf><ml-pre-workshop-doc-20180124.pdf>
Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
Bent is at ddn now And attached last hecfsio attendance spreadsheet 2011/2012 time frame From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 2:47 PM To: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It’s getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can’t send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
I added a few, I hope it got saved, not much of a google user From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ward, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It’s getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can’t send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
I don’t see a column for memory expertise. The focus of the workshop is on “managing the memory-storage continuum,” so we need people who can address the full range of technologies and related OS/R issues. Thanks, Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grider, Gary Alan Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:22 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I added a few, I hope it got saved, not much of a google user From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ward, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It’s getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can’t send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
Hi all, I added a column for that expertise area “Memory/Storage Hierarchy” and added a couple names. It would be good if everyone can go back through for the people they added and indicate if they have this expertise. I don’t know everyone on the proposed list. Kathryn From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:46 AM To: Gary A Grider <[email protected]>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I don’t see a column for memory expertise. The focus of the workshop is on “managing the memory-storage continuum,” so we need people who can address the full range of technologies and related OS/R issues. Thanks, Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grider, Gary Alan Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:22 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I added a few, I hope it got saved, not much of a google user From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ward, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It’s getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can’t send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
I have a group of patents in memory ECC technology for stacked memory implementations, that is actually used by manufacturers I was told. If we are trying to check a box, I think that applies? Don’t know what to do. Should I check the column for myself or no? If it’s some metric for management I wouldn’t hesitate but I would not call myself well grounded in a room full of experts. Help? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 AM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I added a column for that expertise area “Memory/Storage Hierarchy” and added a couple names. It would be good if everyone can go back through for the people they added and indicate if they have this expertise. I don’t know everyone on the proposed list. Kathryn From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:46 AM To: Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I don’t see a column for memory expertise. The focus of the workshop is on “managing the memory-storage continuum,” so we need people who can address the full range of technologies and related OS/R issues. Thanks, Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grider, Gary Alan Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:22 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I added a few, I hope it got saved, not much of a google user From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ward, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It’s getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can’t send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
Never mind. Problem solved. I’m not even on the invitee list 😊 --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]> on behalf of Lee Ward <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 7:58 AM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I have a group of patents in memory ECC technology for stacked memory implementations, that is actually used by manufacturers I was told. If we are trying to check a box, I think that applies? Don’t know what to do. Should I check the column for myself or no? If it’s some metric for management I wouldn’t hesitate but I would not call myself well grounded in a room full of experts. Help? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 AM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I added a column for that expertise area “Memory/Storage Hierarchy” and added a couple names. It would be good if everyone can go back through for the people they added and indicate if they have this expertise. I don’t know everyone on the proposed list. Kathryn From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:46 AM To: Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I don’t see a column for memory expertise. The focus of the workshop is on “managing the memory-storage continuum,” so we need people who can address the full range of technologies and related OS/R issues. Thanks, Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grider, Gary Alan Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:22 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I added a few, I hope it got saved, not much of a google user From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ward, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It’s getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can’t send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
Check it. Going to be used internally by us to make sure we have critical mass for discussions in particular areas. I don’t think the areas will be published. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have a group of patents in memory ECC technology for stacked memory implementations, that is actually used by manufacturers I was told. If we are trying to check a box, I think that applies? Don’t know what to do. Should I check the column for myself or no? If it’s some metric for management I wouldn’t hesitate but I would not call myself well grounded in a room full of experts. Help? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 AM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I added a column for that expertise area “Memory/Storage Hierarchy” and added a couple names. It would be good if everyone can go back through for the people they added and indicate if they have this expertise. I don’t know everyone on the proposed list. Kathryn From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:46 AM To: Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I don’t see a column for memory expertise. The focus of the workshop is on “managing the memory-storage continuum,” so we need people who can address the full range of technologies and related OS/R issues. Thanks, Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grider, Gary Alan Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:22 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I added a few, I hope it got saved, not much of a google user From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ward, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It’s getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can’t send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
Do please make sure your names are on the list. We have a ceiling on the number of Lab people we can invite and we need to make sure you’re included in the count. Would it make sense to include a few people with expertise in other areas like OS/R, workflow management systems, programming environments, data analytics, etc.? Thanks, Lucy From: Ross, Robert B. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:51 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]> Cc: Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]>; Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]>; Grider, Gary Alan (LANL) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Check it. Going to be used internally by us to make sure we have critical mass for discussions in particular areas. I don’t think the areas will be published. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have a group of patents in memory ECC technology for stacked memory implementations, that is actually used by manufacturers I was told. If we are trying to check a box, I think that applies? Don’t know what to do. Should I check the column for myself or no? If it’s some metric for management I wouldn’t hesitate but I would not call myself well grounded in a room full of experts. Help? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 AM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I added a column for that expertise area “Memory/Storage Hierarchy” and added a couple names. It would be good if everyone can go back through for the people they added and indicate if they have this expertise. I don’t know everyone on the proposed list. Kathryn From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:46 AM To: Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I don’t see a column for memory expertise. The focus of the workshop is on “managing the memory-storage continuum,” so we need people who can address the full range of technologies and related OS/R issues. Thanks, Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grider, Gary Alan Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:22 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I added a few, I hope it got saved, not much of a google user From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ward, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It’s getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can’t send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
I think we’ve hit at least some of your list, below. Brightwell, Maccabe, and Beckman for OS/R. Lots of folks for data analytics (have a session on that so the expertise is tracked in the spreadsheet). Not sure about workflow and programming environments but it’s on our radar, now. Thanks! --Lee From: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:11 PM To: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]>, Lee Ward <[email protected]> Cc: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Do please make sure your names are on the list. We have a ceiling on the number of Lab people we can invite and we need to make sure you’re included in the count. Would it make sense to include a few people with expertise in other areas like OS/R, workflow management systems, programming environments, data analytics, etc.? Thanks, Lucy From: Ross, Robert B. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:51 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]> Cc: Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]>; Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]>; Grider, Gary Alan (LANL) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Check it. Going to be used internally by us to make sure we have critical mass for discussions in particular areas. I don’t think the areas will be published. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have a group of patents in memory ECC technology for stacked memory implementations, that is actually used by manufacturers I was told. If we are trying to check a box, I think that applies? Don’t know what to do. Should I check the column for myself or no? If it’s some metric for management I wouldn’t hesitate but I would not call myself well grounded in a room full of experts. Help? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 AM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I added a column for that expertise area “Memory/Storage Hierarchy” and added a couple names. It would be good if everyone can go back through for the people they added and indicate if they have this expertise. I don’t know everyone on the proposed list. Kathryn From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:46 AM To: Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I don’t see a column for memory expertise. The focus of the workshop is on “managing the memory-storage continuum,” so we need people who can address the full range of technologies and related OS/R issues. Thanks, Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grider, Gary Alan Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:22 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I added a few, I hope it got saved, not much of a google user From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ward, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It’s getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can’t send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
Ewa Deelman and Justin Wozniak as workflow names, maybe. Could add Miron Livny if we want more contentious voices. Is Bianca still around? Haven’t tracked her career. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I think we’ve hit at least some of your list, below. Brightwell, Maccabe, and Beckman for OS/R. Lots of folks for data analytics (have a session on that so the expertise is tracked in the spreadsheet). Not sure about workflow and programming environments but it’s on our radar, now. Thanks! --Lee From: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:11 PM To: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Lee Ward <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Do please make sure your names are on the list. We have a ceiling on the number of Lab people we can invite and we need to make sure you’re included in the count. Would it make sense to include a few people with expertise in other areas like OS/R, workflow management systems, programming environments, data analytics, etc.? Thanks, Lucy From: Ross, Robert B. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:51 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Grider, Gary Alan (LANL) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Check it. Going to be used internally by us to make sure we have critical mass for discussions in particular areas. I don’t think the areas will be published. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have a group of patents in memory ECC technology for stacked memory implementations, that is actually used by manufacturers I was told. If we are trying to check a box, I think that applies? Don’t know what to do. Should I check the column for myself or no? If it’s some metric for management I wouldn’t hesitate but I would not call myself well grounded in a room full of experts. Help? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 AM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I added a column for that expertise area “Memory/Storage Hierarchy” and added a couple names. It would be good if everyone can go back through for the people they added and indicate if they have this expertise. I don’t know everyone on the proposed list. Kathryn From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:46 AM To: Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I don’t see a column for memory expertise. The focus of the workshop is on “managing the memory-storage continuum,” so we need people who can address the full range of technologies and related OS/R issues. Thanks, Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grider, Gary Alan Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:22 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I added a few, I hope it got saved, not much of a google user From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ward, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It’s getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can’t send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
Bianca is in Toronto but not working in workflows that I know of. From: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 1:20 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]> Cc: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]>; Grider, Gary Alan <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Ewa Deelman and Justin Wozniak as workflow names, maybe. Could add Miron Livny if we want more contentious voices. Is Bianca still around? Haven’t tracked her career. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I think we’ve hit at least some of your list, below. Brightwell, Maccabe, and Beckman for OS/R. Lots of folks for data analytics (have a session on that so the expertise is tracked in the spreadsheet). Not sure about workflow and programming environments but it’s on our radar, now. Thanks! --Lee From: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:11 PM To: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Lee Ward <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Do please make sure your names are on the list. We have a ceiling on the number of Lab people we can invite and we need to make sure you’re included in the count. Would it make sense to include a few people with expertise in other areas like OS/R, workflow management systems, programming environments, data analytics, etc.? Thanks, Lucy From: Ross, Robert B. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:51 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Grider, Gary Alan (LANL) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Check it. Going to be used internally by us to make sure we have critical mass for discussions in particular areas. I don’t think the areas will be published. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have a group of patents in memory ECC technology for stacked memory implementations, that is actually used by manufacturers I was told. If we are trying to check a box, I think that applies? Don’t know what to do. Should I check the column for myself or no? If it’s some metric for management I wouldn’t hesitate but I would not call myself well grounded in a room full of experts. Help? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 AM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I added a column for that expertise area “Memory/Storage Hierarchy” and added a couple names. It would be good if everyone can go back through for the people they added and indicate if they have this expertise. I don’t know everyone on the proposed list. Kathryn From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:46 AM To: Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I don’t see a column for memory expertise. The focus of the workshop is on “managing the memory-storage continuum,” so we need people who can address the full range of technologies and related OS/R issues. Thanks, Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grider, Gary Alan Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:22 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I added a few, I hope it got saved, not much of a google user From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ward, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It’s getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can’t send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
Does someone have email addresses for them? Bianca is already on the list and her address matches with what I have for her, which could be wrong, I admit, since it’s been a while. Rob is on vacation. I’m hoping we can get him a good list to triage, so I’m of a mind to anybody/everybody and leave the hard decisions until he returns. --Lee From: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:20 PM To: Lee Ward <[email protected]> Cc: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]>, "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Ewa Deelman and Justin Wozniak as workflow names, maybe. Could add Miron Livny if we want more contentious voices. Is Bianca still around? Haven’t tracked her career. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I think we’ve hit at least some of your list, below. Brightwell, Maccabe, and Beckman for OS/R. Lots of folks for data analytics (have a session on that so the expertise is tracked in the spreadsheet). Not sure about workflow and programming environments but it’s on our radar, now. Thanks! --Lee From: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:11 PM To: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Lee Ward <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Do please make sure your names are on the list. We have a ceiling on the number of Lab people we can invite and we need to make sure you’re included in the count. Would it make sense to include a few people with expertise in other areas like OS/R, workflow management systems, programming environments, data analytics, etc.? Thanks, Lucy From: Ross, Robert B. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:51 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Grider, Gary Alan (LANL) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Check it. Going to be used internally by us to make sure we have critical mass for discussions in particular areas. I don’t think the areas will be published. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have a group of patents in memory ECC technology for stacked memory implementations, that is actually used by manufacturers I was told. If we are trying to check a box, I think that applies? Don’t know what to do. Should I check the column for myself or no? If it’s some metric for management I wouldn’t hesitate but I would not call myself well grounded in a room full of experts. Help? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 AM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I added a column for that expertise area “Memory/Storage Hierarchy” and added a couple names. It would be good if everyone can go back through for the people they added and indicate if they have this expertise. I don’t know everyone on the proposed list. Kathryn From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:46 AM To: Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I don’t see a column for memory expertise. The focus of the workshop is on “managing the memory-storage continuum,” so we need people who can address the full range of technologies and related OS/R issues. Thanks, Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grider, Gary Alan Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:22 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I added a few, I hope it got saved, not much of a google user From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ward, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It’s getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can’t send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
For workflow, I’d recommend Dan Laney (LLNL), Robert Clay (SNL), Dave Montoya (LANL) who are the ASC workflow leads. I can also add Ewa and Justin’s email addresses. Kathryn From: Ward, Lee <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:28 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> Cc: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]>; Gary A Grider <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Does someone have email addresses for them? Bianca is already on the list and her address matches with what I have for her, which could be wrong, I admit, since it’s been a while. Rob is on vacation. I’m hoping we can get him a good list to triage, so I’m of a mind to anybody/everybody and leave the hard decisions until he returns. --Lee From: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:20 PM To: Lee Ward <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Ewa Deelman and Justin Wozniak as workflow names, maybe. Could add Miron Livny if we want more contentious voices. Is Bianca still around? Haven’t tracked her career. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I think we’ve hit at least some of your list, below. Brightwell, Maccabe, and Beckman for OS/R. Lots of folks for data analytics (have a session on that so the expertise is tracked in the spreadsheet). Not sure about workflow and programming environments but it’s on our radar, now. Thanks! --Lee From: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:11 PM To: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Lee Ward <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Do please make sure your names are on the list. We have a ceiling on the number of Lab people we can invite and we need to make sure you’re included in the count. Would it make sense to include a few people with expertise in other areas like OS/R, workflow management systems, programming environments, data analytics, etc.? Thanks, Lucy From: Ross, Robert B. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:51 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Grider, Gary Alan (LANL) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Check it. Going to be used internally by us to make sure we have critical mass for discussions in particular areas. I don’t think the areas will be published. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have a group of patents in memory ECC technology for stacked memory implementations, that is actually used by manufacturers I was told. If we are trying to check a box, I think that applies? Don’t know what to do. Should I check the column for myself or no? If it’s some metric for management I wouldn’t hesitate but I would not call myself well grounded in a room full of experts. Help? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 AM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I added a column for that expertise area “Memory/Storage Hierarchy” and added a couple names. It would be good if everyone can go back through for the people they added and indicate if they have this expertise. I don’t know everyone on the proposed list. Kathryn From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:46 AM To: Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I don’t see a column for memory expertise. The focus of the workshop is on “managing the memory-storage continuum,” so we need people who can address the full range of technologies and related OS/R issues. Thanks, Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grider, Gary Alan Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:22 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I added a few, I hope it got saved, not much of a google user From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ward, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It’s getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can’t send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
I would add ilkay altintas who is at sdsc who was I'm the scifsc program, [email protected] Scott ________________________________ From: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]> Date: June 14, 2018 at 5:20:43 AM GMT+8 To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]>, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list For workflow, I’d recommend Dan Laney (LLNL), Robert Clay (SNL), Dave Montoya (LANL) who are the ASC workflow leads. I can also add Ewa and Justin’s email addresses. Kathryn From: Ward, Lee <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:28 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> Cc: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]>; Gary A Grider <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Does someone have email addresses for them? Bianca is already on the list and her address matches with what I have for her, which could be wrong, I admit, since it’s been a while. Rob is on vacation. I’m hoping we can get him a good list to triage, so I’m of a mind to anybody/everybody and leave the hard decisions until he returns. --Lee From: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:20 PM To: Lee Ward <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Ewa Deelman and Justin Wozniak as workflow names, maybe. Could add Miron Livny if we want more contentious voices. Is Bianca still around? Haven’t tracked her career. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I think we’ve hit at least some of your list, below. Brightwell, Maccabe, and Beckman for OS/R. Lots of folks for data analytics (have a session on that so the expertise is tracked in the spreadsheet). Not sure about workflow and programming environments but it’s on our radar, now. Thanks! --Lee From: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:11 PM To: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Lee Ward <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Do please make sure your names are on the list. We have a ceiling on the number of Lab people we can invite and we need to make sure you’re included in the count. Would it make sense to include a few people with expertise in other areas like OS/R, workflow management systems, programming environments, data analytics, etc.? Thanks, Lucy From: Ross, Robert B. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:51 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Grider, Gary Alan (LANL) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Check it. Going to be used internally by us to make sure we have critical mass for discussions in particular areas. I don’t think the areas will be published. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have a group of patents in memory ECC technology for stacked memory implementations, that is actually used by manufacturers I was told. If we are trying to check a box, I think that applies? Don’t know what to do. Should I check the column for myself or no? If it’s some metric for management I wouldn’t hesitate but I would not call myself well grounded in a room full of experts. Help? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 AM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I added a column for that expertise area “Memory/Storage Hierarchy” and added a couple names. It would be good if everyone can go back through for the people they added and indicate if they have this expertise. I don’t know everyone on the proposed list. Kathryn From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:46 AM To: Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I don’t see a column for memory expertise. The focus of the workshop is on “managing the memory-storage continuum,” so we need people who can address the full range of technologies and related OS/R issues. Thanks, Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grider, Gary Alan Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:22 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I added a few, I hope it got saved, not much of a google user From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ward, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It’s getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can’t send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
Please do. Thanks. --Lee From: "Klasky, Scott A." <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 3:25 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]>, Lee Ward <[email protected]>, "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I would add ilkay altintas who is at sdsc who was I'm the scifsc program, [email protected] Scott ________________________________ From: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]> Date: June 14, 2018 at 5:20:43 AM GMT+8 To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]>, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list For workflow, I’d recommend Dan Laney (LLNL), Robert Clay (SNL), Dave Montoya (LANL) who are the ASC workflow leads. I can also add Ewa and Justin’s email addresses. Kathryn From: Ward, Lee <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:28 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> Cc: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]>; Gary A Grider <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Does someone have email addresses for them? Bianca is already on the list and her address matches with what I have for her, which could be wrong, I admit, since it’s been a while. Rob is on vacation. I’m hoping we can get him a good list to triage, so I’m of a mind to anybody/everybody and leave the hard decisions until he returns. --Lee From: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:20 PM To: Lee Ward <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Ewa Deelman and Justin Wozniak as workflow names, maybe. Could add Miron Livny if we want more contentious voices. Is Bianca still around? Haven’t tracked her career. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I think we’ve hit at least some of your list, below. Brightwell, Maccabe, and Beckman for OS/R. Lots of folks for data analytics (have a session on that so the expertise is tracked in the spreadsheet). Not sure about workflow and programming environments but it’s on our radar, now. Thanks! --Lee From: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:11 PM To: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Lee Ward <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Do please make sure your names are on the list. We have a ceiling on the number of Lab people we can invite and we need to make sure you’re included in the count. Would it make sense to include a few people with expertise in other areas like OS/R, workflow management systems, programming environments, data analytics, etc.? Thanks, Lucy From: Ross, Robert B. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:51 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Grider, Gary Alan (LANL) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Check it. Going to be used internally by us to make sure we have critical mass for discussions in particular areas. I don’t think the areas will be published. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have a group of patents in memory ECC technology for stacked memory implementations, that is actually used by manufacturers I was told. If we are trying to check a box, I think that applies? Don’t know what to do. Should I check the column for myself or no? If it’s some metric for management I wouldn’t hesitate but I would not call myself well grounded in a room full of experts. Help? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 AM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I added a column for that expertise area “Memory/Storage Hierarchy” and added a couple names. It would be good if everyone can go back through for the people they added and indicate if they have this expertise. I don’t know everyone on the proposed list. Kathryn From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:46 AM To: Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I don’t see a column for memory expertise. The focus of the workshop is on “managing the memory-storage continuum,” so we need people who can address the full range of technologies and related OS/R issues. Thanks, Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grider, Gary Alan Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:22 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I added a few, I hope it got saved, not much of a google user From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ward, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It’s getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can’t send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
Excellent addition. Scott, what about your collaborator at U. Delaware, whose name escapes me at the moment? Ewa Deelman has a friend and collaborator at ISI...Anne something. I'll see if I can find her, unless someone else knows who I mean. You might look at the report on The Future of Scientific Workflows for more names. And possibly the reports on streaming data. Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Klasky, Scott A. Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:26 PM To: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I would add ilkay altintas who is at sdsc who was I'm the scifsc program, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Scott ________________________________ From: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: June 14, 2018 at 5:20:43 AM GMT+8 To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list For workflow, I'd recommend Dan Laney (LLNL), Robert Clay (SNL), Dave Montoya (LANL) who are the ASC workflow leads. I can also add Ewa and Justin's email addresses. Kathryn From: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:28 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Does someone have email addresses for them? Bianca is already on the list and her address matches with what I have for her, which could be wrong, I admit, since it's been a while. Rob is on vacation. I'm hoping we can get him a good list to triage, so I'm of a mind to anybody/everybody and leave the hard decisions until he returns. --Lee From: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:20 PM To: Lee Ward <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Ewa Deelman and Justin Wozniak as workflow names, maybe. Could add Miron Livny if we want more contentious voices. Is Bianca still around? Haven't tracked her career. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I think we've hit at least some of your list, below. Brightwell, Maccabe, and Beckman for OS/R. Lots of folks for data analytics (have a session on that so the expertise is tracked in the spreadsheet). Not sure about workflow and programming environments but it's on our radar, now. Thanks! --Lee From: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:11 PM To: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Lee Ward <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Do please make sure your names are on the list. We have a ceiling on the number of Lab people we can invite and we need to make sure you're included in the count. Would it make sense to include a few people with expertise in other areas like OS/R, workflow management systems, programming environments, data analytics, etc.? Thanks, Lucy From: Ross, Robert B. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:51 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Grider, Gary Alan (LANL) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Check it. Going to be used internally by us to make sure we have critical mass for discussions in particular areas. I don't think the areas will be published. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have a group of patents in memory ECC technology for stacked memory implementations, that is actually used by manufacturers I was told. If we are trying to check a box, I think that applies? Don't know what to do. Should I check the column for myself or no? If it's some metric for management I wouldn't hesitate but I would not call myself well grounded in a room full of experts. Help? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 AM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I added a column for that expertise area "Memory/Storage Hierarchy" and added a couple names. It would be good if everyone can go back through for the people they added and indicate if they have this expertise. I don't know everyone on the proposed list. Kathryn From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:46 AM To: Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I don't see a column for memory expertise. The focus of the workshop is on "managing the memory-storage continuum," so we need people who can address the full range of technologies and related OS/R issues. Thanks, Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grider, Gary Alan Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:22 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I added a few, I hope it got saved, not much of a google user From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ward, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It's getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can't send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
Michela Taufer ( U. Dellaware) can talk about IO as well but not workflows..... Scott ________________________________ From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]> Date: June 14, 2018 at 5:49:59 AM GMT+8 To: Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]>, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]>, Ward, Lee <[email protected]>, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Excellent addition. Scott, what about your collaborator at U. Delaware, whose name escapes me at the moment? Ewa Deelman has a friend and collaborator at ISI…Anne something. I’ll see if I can find her, unless someone else knows who I mean. You might look at the report on The Future of Scientific Workflows for more names. And possibly the reports on streaming data. Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Klasky, Scott A. Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:26 PM To: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I would add ilkay altintas who is at sdsc who was I'm the scifsc program, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Scott ________________________________ From: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: June 14, 2018 at 5:20:43 AM GMT+8 To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list For workflow, I’d recommend Dan Laney (LLNL), Robert Clay (SNL), Dave Montoya (LANL) who are the ASC workflow leads. I can also add Ewa and Justin’s email addresses. Kathryn From: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:28 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Does someone have email addresses for them? Bianca is already on the list and her address matches with what I have for her, which could be wrong, I admit, since it’s been a while. Rob is on vacation. I’m hoping we can get him a good list to triage, so I’m of a mind to anybody/everybody and leave the hard decisions until he returns. --Lee From: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:20 PM To: Lee Ward <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Ewa Deelman and Justin Wozniak as workflow names, maybe. Could add Miron Livny if we want more contentious voices. Is Bianca still around? Haven’t tracked her career. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I think we’ve hit at least some of your list, below. Brightwell, Maccabe, and Beckman for OS/R. Lots of folks for data analytics (have a session on that so the expertise is tracked in the spreadsheet). Not sure about workflow and programming environments but it’s on our radar, now. Thanks! --Lee From: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:11 PM To: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Lee Ward <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Do please make sure your names are on the list. We have a ceiling on the number of Lab people we can invite and we need to make sure you’re included in the count. Would it make sense to include a few people with expertise in other areas like OS/R, workflow management systems, programming environments, data analytics, etc.? Thanks, Lucy From: Ross, Robert B. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:51 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Grider, Gary Alan (LANL) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Check it. Going to be used internally by us to make sure we have critical mass for discussions in particular areas. I don’t think the areas will be published. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have a group of patents in memory ECC technology for stacked memory implementations, that is actually used by manufacturers I was told. If we are trying to check a box, I think that applies? Don’t know what to do. Should I check the column for myself or no? If it’s some metric for management I wouldn’t hesitate but I would not call myself well grounded in a room full of experts. Help? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 AM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I added a column for that expertise area “Memory/Storage Hierarchy” and added a couple names. It would be good if everyone can go back through for the people they added and indicate if they have this expertise. I don’t know everyone on the proposed list. Kathryn From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:46 AM To: Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I don’t see a column for memory expertise. The focus of the workshop is on “managing the memory-storage continuum,” so we need people who can address the full range of technologies and related OS/R issues. Thanks, Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grider, Gary Alan Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:22 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I added a few, I hope it got saved, not much of a google user From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ward, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It’s getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can’t send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
Interesting. Michela was one of the organizers for the workshop on the Future of Scientific Workflows. As we look for women, please include her name on the list. Thanks, Lucy From: Klasky, Scott A. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 6:23 PM To: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Michela Taufer ( U. Dellaware) can talk about IO as well but not workflows..... Scott ________________________________ From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: June 14, 2018 at 5:49:59 AM GMT+8 To: Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Excellent addition. Scott, what about your collaborator at U. Delaware, whose name escapes me at the moment? Ewa Deelman has a friend and collaborator at ISI...Anne something. I'll see if I can find her, unless someone else knows who I mean. You might look at the report on The Future of Scientific Workflows for more names. And possibly the reports on streaming data. Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Klasky, Scott A. Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:26 PM To: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I would add ilkay altintas who is at sdsc who was I'm the scifsc program, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Scott ________________________________ From: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: June 14, 2018 at 5:20:43 AM GMT+8 To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list For workflow, I'd recommend Dan Laney (LLNL), Robert Clay (SNL), Dave Montoya (LANL) who are the ASC workflow leads. I can also add Ewa and Justin's email addresses. Kathryn From: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:28 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Does someone have email addresses for them? Bianca is already on the list and her address matches with what I have for her, which could be wrong, I admit, since it's been a while. Rob is on vacation. I'm hoping we can get him a good list to triage, so I'm of a mind to anybody/everybody and leave the hard decisions until he returns. --Lee From: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:20 PM To: Lee Ward <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Ewa Deelman and Justin Wozniak as workflow names, maybe. Could add Miron Livny if we want more contentious voices. Is Bianca still around? Haven't tracked her career. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I think we've hit at least some of your list, below. Brightwell, Maccabe, and Beckman for OS/R. Lots of folks for data analytics (have a session on that so the expertise is tracked in the spreadsheet). Not sure about workflow and programming environments but it's on our radar, now. Thanks! --Lee From: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:11 PM To: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Lee Ward <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Do please make sure your names are on the list. We have a ceiling on the number of Lab people we can invite and we need to make sure you're included in the count. Would it make sense to include a few people with expertise in other areas like OS/R, workflow management systems, programming environments, data analytics, etc.? Thanks, Lucy From: Ross, Robert B. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:51 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Grider, Gary Alan (LANL) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Check it. Going to be used internally by us to make sure we have critical mass for discussions in particular areas. I don't think the areas will be published. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have a group of patents in memory ECC technology for stacked memory implementations, that is actually used by manufacturers I was told. If we are trying to check a box, I think that applies? Don't know what to do. Should I check the column for myself or no? If it's some metric for management I wouldn't hesitate but I would not call myself well grounded in a room full of experts. Help? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 AM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I added a column for that expertise area "Memory/Storage Hierarchy" and added a couple names. It would be good if everyone can go back through for the people they added and indicate if they have this expertise. I don't know everyone on the proposed list. Kathryn From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:46 AM To: Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I don't see a column for memory expertise. The focus of the workshop is on "managing the memory-storage continuum," so we need people who can address the full range of technologies and related OS/R issues. Thanks, Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grider, Gary Alan Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:22 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I added a few, I hope it got saved, not much of a google user From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ward, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It's getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can't send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
Ann Chervenak from ISI is the woman who collaborates with Ewa Deelman. Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nowell, Lucy Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 6:26 PM To: Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Interesting. Michela was one of the organizers for the workshop on the Future of Scientific Workflows. As we look for women, please include her name on the list. Thanks, Lucy From: Klasky, Scott A. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 6:23 PM To: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Michela Taufer ( U. Dellaware) can talk about IO as well but not workflows..... Scott ________________________________ From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: June 14, 2018 at 5:49:59 AM GMT+8 To: Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Excellent addition. Scott, what about your collaborator at U. Delaware, whose name escapes me at the moment? Ewa Deelman has a friend and collaborator at ISI...Anne something. I'll see if I can find her, unless someone else knows who I mean. You might look at the report on The Future of Scientific Workflows for more names. And possibly the reports on streaming data. Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Klasky, Scott A. Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:26 PM To: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I would add ilkay altintas who is at sdsc who was I'm the scifsc program, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Scott ________________________________ From: Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: June 14, 2018 at 5:20:43 AM GMT+8 To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list For workflow, I'd recommend Dan Laney (LLNL), Robert Clay (SNL), Dave Montoya (LANL) who are the ASC workflow leads. I can also add Ewa and Justin's email addresses. Kathryn From: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:28 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Does someone have email addresses for them? Bianca is already on the list and her address matches with what I have for her, which could be wrong, I admit, since it's been a while. Rob is on vacation. I'm hoping we can get him a good list to triage, so I'm of a mind to anybody/everybody and leave the hard decisions until he returns. --Lee From: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:20 PM To: Lee Ward <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Ewa Deelman and Justin Wozniak as workflow names, maybe. Could add Miron Livny if we want more contentious voices. Is Bianca still around? Haven't tracked her career. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I think we've hit at least some of your list, below. Brightwell, Maccabe, and Beckman for OS/R. Lots of folks for data analytics (have a session on that so the expertise is tracked in the spreadsheet). Not sure about workflow and programming environments but it's on our radar, now. Thanks! --Lee From: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:11 PM To: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Lee Ward <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Do please make sure your names are on the list. We have a ceiling on the number of Lab people we can invite and we need to make sure you're included in the count. Would it make sense to include a few people with expertise in other areas like OS/R, workflow management systems, programming environments, data analytics, etc.? Thanks, Lucy From: Ross, Robert B. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:51 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Grider, Gary Alan (LANL) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Check it. Going to be used internally by us to make sure we have critical mass for discussions in particular areas. I don't think the areas will be published. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have a group of patents in memory ECC technology for stacked memory implementations, that is actually used by manufacturers I was told. If we are trying to check a box, I think that applies? Don't know what to do. Should I check the column for myself or no? If it's some metric for management I wouldn't hesitate but I would not call myself well grounded in a room full of experts. Help? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 AM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I added a column for that expertise area "Memory/Storage Hierarchy" and added a couple names. It would be good if everyone can go back through for the people they added and indicate if they have this expertise. I don't know everyone on the proposed list. Kathryn From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:46 AM To: Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I don't see a column for memory expertise. The focus of the workshop is on "managing the memory-storage continuum," so we need people who can address the full range of technologies and related OS/R issues. Thanks, Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grider, Gary Alan Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:22 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I added a few, I hope it got saved, not much of a google user From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ward, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It's getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can't send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
Please do! My goal is to get a list of all who might meaningfully contribute. Would like to give Rob a big dilemma with respect to down selection. --Lee From: "Mohror, Kathryn" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 3:20 PM To: Lee Ward <[email protected]>, "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]> Cc: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list For workflow, I’d recommend Dan Laney (LLNL), Robert Clay (SNL), Dave Montoya (LANL) who are the ASC workflow leads. I can also add Ewa and Justin’s email addresses. Kathryn From: Ward, Lee <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:28 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> Cc: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]>; Gary A Grider <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Does someone have email addresses for them? Bianca is already on the list and her address matches with what I have for her, which could be wrong, I admit, since it’s been a while. Rob is on vacation. I’m hoping we can get him a good list to triage, so I’m of a mind to anybody/everybody and leave the hard decisions until he returns. --Lee From: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:20 PM To: Lee Ward <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Ewa Deelman and Justin Wozniak as workflow names, maybe. Could add Miron Livny if we want more contentious voices. Is Bianca still around? Haven’t tracked her career. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I think we’ve hit at least some of your list, below. Brightwell, Maccabe, and Beckman for OS/R. Lots of folks for data analytics (have a session on that so the expertise is tracked in the spreadsheet). Not sure about workflow and programming environments but it’s on our radar, now. Thanks! --Lee From: "Nowell, Lucy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:11 PM To: "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Lee Ward <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Grider, Gary Alan (LANL)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Do please make sure your names are on the list. We have a ceiling on the number of Lab people we can invite and we need to make sure you’re included in the count. Would it make sense to include a few people with expertise in other areas like OS/R, workflow management systems, programming environments, data analytics, etc.? Thanks, Lucy From: Ross, Robert B. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:51 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Grider, Gary Alan (LANL) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list Check it. Going to be used internally by us to make sure we have critical mass for discussions in particular areas. I don’t think the areas will be published. -- Rob On Jun 13, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have a group of patents in memory ECC technology for stacked memory implementations, that is actually used by manufacturers I was told. If we are trying to check a box, I think that applies? Don’t know what to do. Should I check the column for myself or no? If it’s some metric for management I wouldn’t hesitate but I would not call myself well grounded in a room full of experts. Help? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:23 AM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I added a column for that expertise area “Memory/Storage Hierarchy” and added a couple names. It would be good if everyone can go back through for the people they added and indicate if they have this expertise. I don’t know everyone on the proposed list. Kathryn From: Nowell, Lucy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:46 AM To: Gary A Grider <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I don’t see a column for memory expertise. The focus of the workshop is on “managing the memory-storage continuum,” so we need people who can address the full range of technologies and related OS/R issues. Thanks, Lucy From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grider, Gary Alan Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:22 PM To: Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list I added a few, I hope it got saved, not much of a google user From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ward, Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] [EXTERNAL] attendees list All, Pretty please? As of a moment ago, there are 67 folks listed, 49 with email addresses we think are good. We believe we are going to have room to seat ~60 comfortably. Could you try to fill in some of those empty email addresses? Could you try to add industry contacts? We are very heavy on lab participation, so desperate for academic and industry names. It’s getting awfully close to when we have to send out an invitation or increasingly risk prior commitments from the invitees. We can’t send out an invite until we get approval from management, but that could happen any time now and, so, if we were ready to just pull the trigger when/if it does that would be great! So, really, pretty please? Soonest? Thanks! --Lee From: ssio-2018 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Ross, Robert B." <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: "Mohror, Kathryn M (External Contacts)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ssio-2018] attendees list Hi all, Just a reminder to continue dropping names into the attendee spreadsheet. More is better than fewer. University, Laboratory, Industry, and Feds. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR... Thanks again to Kathryn for putting the spreadsheet together. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:54 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi everybody, I checked the spreadsheet of potential attendees and no one has entered any yet! Rob, are we including only DOE folks? Or are university and industry people included as well? Please take a bit of time to start to jot down some names. The spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16oeV2PAaOdeuKzjWJ1M8tF45mgzSSMuxzCgR...
Has there been any movement on the virtual summit tentatively scheduled for next week? Glenn On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for taking the time to fill out the polls. While we don't have the go-ahead for the virtual summer or workshop yet, let's hold the following dates: - May 9, 10:00am - 4:30pm central for a virtual summit (Blue Jeans, contact info TBD) - August 1-2 for a tentative workshop (probably in DC/MD)
Thanks!
Rob
On Mar 12, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks to Gary and Kathryn for filling out the Doodle polls (and Brad for getting one out of two?). Please fill out the Doodle polls when you can. -- Rob
On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
Scott asked a good question that I will summarize as "what is going on?". Here's what I know:
*Virtual Summit. *Lucy has asked for permission to have our virtual summit, back on the 21st. I will double-check with her on status of that request. Meanwhile we should all gather our thoughts for the summit: - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Fill out this poll; we're optimistic that we will have permission to do this soon: https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim
*Scope.* We've been asked to think about the data and learning applications in addition to traditional simulation. I don't think this is a surprise, but it does mean that we need to think about those communities as we think about who to include in the discussion/workshop and what to have in our initial report.
*Organizers. *Gary has asked to take a step back but is happy to chime in as needed. Here's our revised team: - Brad Settlemyer (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL)
I think everyone probably knows Brad. I'm sure he'll do a great job. Gary will remain on the mailing list, too.
*Meeting Dates.* Lucy and I have chatted on possible dates, and we want to get some dates on the calendar. We're looking for two days in July/August. Here's a short set of dates that work for me and Lucy; we're hoping to get lucky and get a hit. Note that we didn't include Mon. or Fri. in these so people can travel during the week: - https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh
*Attendees.* We should start thinking about attendees. I've attached the list of people from the SSIO workshop back in late 2014 as a starting point. Can someone volunteer to create a Google spreadsheet that we could use for organizing possible participants. Note that we don't have permission to have the meeting at this point, so we're really just discussing who we think key thinkers are in the area.
I'm also attaching the EH and ML pre-workshop documents as examples of the kind of report we need to prepare.
Thanks,
Rob ---
On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this?
Scott
*From:* ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Ross, Robert B. *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM *To:* [email protected] *Subject:* Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning
Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob
On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process.
*Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information.*
My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation.
*Summary and action items.* - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress.
Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success!
Rob ---
*Organizers. *Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL)
Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done.
We have a mailing list: [email protected] for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help.
*Topical areas and initial discussion. *Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems
I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below).
*Factual status document. *We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it.
With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD:
- Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References
This is likely to be a 50 page document.
This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report.
*Position papers.* In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report.
*Workshop. *We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion.
We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure.
The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions).
*Report. *The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this:
- Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions
_______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018
_______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018
<2018-01-15-eh-pre-workshop-document.pdf><ml-pre-workshop- doc-20180124.pdf>
_______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018
We're waiting on completion of the facility visits. Last I check with Lucy last week, we still weren't sure if she would be able to get to ORNL before our May 9 date. So, let's be optimistic and continue to hold the date! -- Rob On Apr 30, 2018, at 11:33 AM, Glenn Lockwood <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Has there been any movement on the virtual summit tentatively scheduled for next week? Glenn On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Thanks for taking the time to fill out the polls. While we don't have the go-ahead for the virtual summer or workshop yet, let's hold the following dates: - May 9, 10:00am - 4:30pm central for a virtual summit (Blue Jeans, contact info TBD) - August 1-2 for a tentative workshop (probably in DC/MD) Thanks! Rob On Mar 12, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks to Gary and Kathryn for filling out the Doodle polls (and Brad for getting one out of two?). Please fill out the Doodle polls when you can. -- Rob On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Scott asked a good question that I will summarize as "what is going on?". Here's what I know: Virtual Summit. Lucy has asked for permission to have our virtual summit, back on the 21st. I will double-check with her on status of that request. Meanwhile we should all gather our thoughts for the summit: - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Fill out this poll; we're optimistic that we will have permission to do this soon: https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim Scope. We've been asked to think about the data and learning applications in addition to traditional simulation. I don't think this is a surprise, but it does mean that we need to think about those communities as we think about who to include in the discussion/workshop and what to have in our initial report. Organizers. Gary has asked to take a step back but is happy to chime in as needed. Here's our revised team: - Brad Settlemyer (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) I think everyone probably knows Brad. I'm sure he'll do a great job. Gary will remain on the mailing list, too. Meeting Dates. Lucy and I have chatted on possible dates, and we want to get some dates on the calendar. We're looking for two days in July/August. Here's a short set of dates that work for me and Lucy; we're hoping to get lucky and get a hit. Note that we didn't include Mon. or Fri. in these so people can travel during the week: - https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh Attendees. We should start thinking about attendees. I've attached the list of people from the SSIO workshop back in late 2014 as a starting point. Can someone volunteer to create a Google spreadsheet that we could use for organizing possible participants. Note that we don't have permission to have the meeting at this point, so we're really just discussing who we think key thinkers are in the area. I'm also attaching the EH and ML pre-workshop documents as examples of the kind of report we need to prepare. Thanks, Rob --- On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this? Scott From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 <2018-01-15-eh-pre-workshop-document.pdf><ml-pre-workshop-doc-20180124.pdf> _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018
Lucy updated me. We're not going to be able to do the summit on May 9th, so you all can release that date. I'll put together a Doodle poll to look for another time in the near future. -- Rob On Apr 30, 2018, at 11:33 AM, Glenn Lockwood <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Has there been any movement on the virtual summit tentatively scheduled for next week? Glenn On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Thanks for taking the time to fill out the polls. While we don't have the go-ahead for the virtual summer or workshop yet, let's hold the following dates: - May 9, 10:00am - 4:30pm central for a virtual summit (Blue Jeans, contact info TBD) - August 1-2 for a tentative workshop (probably in DC/MD) Thanks! Rob On Mar 12, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks to Gary and Kathryn for filling out the Doodle polls (and Brad for getting one out of two?). Please fill out the Doodle polls when you can. -- Rob On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Scott asked a good question that I will summarize as "what is going on?". Here's what I know: Virtual Summit. Lucy has asked for permission to have our virtual summit, back on the 21st. I will double-check with her on status of that request. Meanwhile we should all gather our thoughts for the summit: - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Fill out this poll; we're optimistic that we will have permission to do this soon: https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim Scope. We've been asked to think about the data and learning applications in addition to traditional simulation. I don't think this is a surprise, but it does mean that we need to think about those communities as we think about who to include in the discussion/workshop and what to have in our initial report. Organizers. Gary has asked to take a step back but is happy to chime in as needed. Here's our revised team: - Brad Settlemyer (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) I think everyone probably knows Brad. I'm sure he'll do a great job. Gary will remain on the mailing list, too. Meeting Dates. Lucy and I have chatted on possible dates, and we want to get some dates on the calendar. We're looking for two days in July/August. Here's a short set of dates that work for me and Lucy; we're hoping to get lucky and get a hit. Note that we didn't include Mon. or Fri. in these so people can travel during the week: - https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh Attendees. We should start thinking about attendees. I've attached the list of people from the SSIO workshop back in late 2014 as a starting point. Can someone volunteer to create a Google spreadsheet that we could use for organizing possible participants. Note that we don't have permission to have the meeting at this point, so we're really just discussing who we think key thinkers are in the area. I'm also attaching the EH and ML pre-workshop documents as examples of the kind of report we need to prepare. Thanks, Rob --- On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this? Scott From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 <2018-01-15-eh-pre-workshop-document.pdf><ml-pre-workshop-doc-20180124.pdf> _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018
Hi all, Lucy has gotten permission for us to have our "virtual summit" and get moving on a workshop! Here's a poll for dates in June/July to get together over Blue Jeans for the day (10:00-4:30 central) and work out a more specific workshop plan and set of topics: https://doodle.com/poll/dfsgfcrgmzun6bmv A second poll will follow to try to lock down a possible workshop date. Thanks for your patience. Rob On May 2, 2018, at 2:27 PM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Lucy updated me. We're not going to be able to do the summit on May 9th, so you all can release that date. I'll put together a Doodle poll to look for another time in the near future. -- Rob On Apr 30, 2018, at 11:33 AM, Glenn Lockwood <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Has there been any movement on the virtual summit tentatively scheduled for next week? Glenn On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Thanks for taking the time to fill out the polls. While we don't have the go-ahead for the virtual summer or workshop yet, let's hold the following dates: - May 9, 10:00am - 4:30pm central for a virtual summit (Blue Jeans, contact info TBD) - August 1-2 for a tentative workshop (probably in DC/MD) Thanks! Rob On Mar 12, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks to Gary and Kathryn for filling out the Doodle polls (and Brad for getting one out of two?). Please fill out the Doodle polls when you can. -- Rob On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Scott asked a good question that I will summarize as "what is going on?". Here's what I know: Virtual Summit. Lucy has asked for permission to have our virtual summit, back on the 21st. I will double-check with her on status of that request. Meanwhile we should all gather our thoughts for the summit: - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Fill out this poll; we're optimistic that we will have permission to do this soon: https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim Scope. We've been asked to think about the data and learning applications in addition to traditional simulation. I don't think this is a surprise, but it does mean that we need to think about those communities as we think about who to include in the discussion/workshop and what to have in our initial report. Organizers. Gary has asked to take a step back but is happy to chime in as needed. Here's our revised team: - Brad Settlemyer (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) I think everyone probably knows Brad. I'm sure he'll do a great job. Gary will remain on the mailing list, too. Meeting Dates. Lucy and I have chatted on possible dates, and we want to get some dates on the calendar. We're looking for two days in July/August. Here's a short set of dates that work for me and Lucy; we're hoping to get lucky and get a hit. Note that we didn't include Mon. or Fri. in these so people can travel during the week: - https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh Attendees. We should start thinking about attendees. I've attached the list of people from the SSIO workshop back in late 2014 as a starting point. Can someone volunteer to create a Google spreadsheet that we could use for organizing possible participants. Note that we don't have permission to have the meeting at this point, so we're really just discussing who we think key thinkers are in the area. I'm also attaching the EH and ML pre-workshop documents as examples of the kind of report we need to prepare. Thanks, Rob --- On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this? Scott From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 <2018-01-15-eh-pre-workshop-document.pdf><ml-pre-workshop-doc-20180124.pdf> _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018
Hi all, In case it wasn't clear, there's basically no way we're going to be able to do a workshop the first week of August, so please feel free to release those dates for other things. Here's a new poll looking for a two-day option for a workshop in late August to early October. Recall that we're likely to be in DC, that this doesn't include travel days: https://doodle.com/poll/v7gzs8pxuk3yinga Thanks! I'll pull a date for our summit out of the other poll soon, so please do vote if you haven't already. Rob On Apr 9, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Thanks for taking the time to fill out the polls. While we don't have the go-ahead for the virtual summer or workshop yet, let's hold the following dates: - May 9, 10:00am - 4:30pm central for a virtual summit (Blue Jeans, contact info TBD) - August 1-2 for a tentative workshop (probably in DC/MD) Thanks! Rob On Mar 12, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks to Gary and Kathryn for filling out the Doodle polls (and Brad for getting one out of two?). Please fill out the Doodle polls when you can. -- Rob On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, Scott asked a good question that I will summarize as "what is going on?". Here's what I know: Virtual Summit. Lucy has asked for permission to have our virtual summit, back on the 21st. I will double-check with her on status of that request. Meanwhile we should all gather our thoughts for the summit: - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Fill out this poll; we're optimistic that we will have permission to do this soon: https://doodle.com/poll/mvfxb8fcqucimtim Scope. We've been asked to think about the data and learning applications in addition to traditional simulation. I don't think this is a surprise, but it does mean that we need to think about those communities as we think about who to include in the discussion/workshop and what to have in our initial report. Organizers. Gary has asked to take a step back but is happy to chime in as needed. Here's our revised team: - Brad Settlemyer (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) I think everyone probably knows Brad. I'm sure he'll do a great job. Gary will remain on the mailing list, too. Meeting Dates. Lucy and I have chatted on possible dates, and we want to get some dates on the calendar. We're looking for two days in July/August. Here's a short set of dates that work for me and Lucy; we're hoping to get lucky and get a hit. Note that we didn't include Mon. or Fri. in these so people can travel during the week: - https://doodle.com/poll/nw4xsqpx2agd3dhh Attendees. We should start thinking about attendees. I've attached the list of people from the SSIO workshop back in late 2014 as a starting point. Can someone volunteer to create a Google spreadsheet that we could use for organizing possible participants. Note that we don't have permission to have the meeting at this point, so we're really just discussing who we think key thinkers are in the area. I'm also attaching the EH and ML pre-workshop documents as examples of the kind of report we need to prepare. Thanks, Rob --- On Mar 1, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Ward, Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Rob tasked me with trying to kick this off. I had something different in mind but I suspect a call is a better idea. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Klasky, Scott A. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, Has there been a doodle poll for this? Scott From: ssio-2018 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B. Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ssio-2018] SSIO 2018 Workshop Planning Forgot the attachment, of course. -- Rob On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Ross, Robert B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I've chatted with all of you previously about this, but I've been lax in getting moving. Lucy has asked me to organize a workshop to help define priority research directions for scalable storage and I/O (SSIO), ideally leading to a call for proposals some time in 2018. Additionally, there is some interest from Almadena on the NSF side to restart an inter-agency activity in this space. We will be the organizers that drive the ASCR process forward. We'll see also how things develop on the inter-agency front and what role we might play in that process. Our goal is to organize our thoughts about future research directions, produce an initial document capturing that thinking and describing state of the art, plan and hold a workshop to identify a set of priority research directions, and produce a final workshop report capturing this information. My initial plan is based off the experiences from the old HEC-FSIO process, the more recent 2014 ASCR SSIO workshop (for which there is a 2015 report), and the most recent Extreme Heterogeneity workshop planning (for which we will have the workshop soon). All of this is up for discussion/negotiation. Summary and action items. - Think about what you think the big issues are in SSIO research for enabling DOE science, talk with your team and colleagues. - Start putting together the "virtual" summit materials. - Look for the Doodle poll for a summit date. - Look for a Doodle poll for a time we could regularly meet to discuss progress. Details follow. Thanks in advance for your help in making this a success! Rob --- Organizers. Here's our team: - Gary Grider (LANL) - Scott Klasky (ORNL) - Glenn Lockwood (LBNL) - Kathryn Mohror (LLNL) - Lee Ward (SNL) Lucy Nowell is our ASCR contact, and I expect that Laura Biven will be included and possibly take over as contact before we are done. We have a mailing list: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for discussion. You have been added to the list. Please let me know ASAP if for some reason you cannot help. Topical areas and initial discussion. Five focus areas were discussed for further investigation at the prior workshop. - HW/SW architectures - Metadata, name spaces, and provenance - Supporting science data - Integrating with external services - Understanding SSIO systems I propose that we do a "virtual" summit (i.e., videoconference) for 3/4th of a day, rather than flying somewhere for a day to meet in person. Each organizer would present their view on challenges as relate to mission and discuss if/how they think we should adjust the topical areas in response to changes since 2015. I think of these as 20 minute presentations that are devoid of our own research specifics/propaganda and focus on these big picture items. From this we would select a set of topical areas used to organize the factual status document (see below). Factual status document. We are modeling our process after the BES "basic research needs" approach (see attachment), with adaptations to the scope of the area and ASCR needs. This process includes the generation of a factual status document (FSD) prior to the workshop. There is a separate group working down this path for an Extreme Heterogeneity FSD and workshop, too. The FSD can be thought of as the background sections of the final workshop document, and that's how we will approach it. With this in mind, we will organize the document around our initial guesses at topical areas, understanding that the topical areas may have to be adjusted in the final report as a result of discussion. The goal would be to complete the following for the FSD: - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps -- what we need to know that we don't know - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - Topic 2 ... - Appendix: References This is likely to be a 50 page document. This document would be partitioned into sections to be managed by individual organizers. Rather than requesting white papers from potential attendees, organizers would invite experts in respective areas to participate in the development of requisite sections. It might be easiest to develop this document using an online system such as Google Docs, understanding that eventually it would be turned into a Word document and finally into a PDF for publication as the workshop report. Position papers. In the Extreme Heterogeneity planning, we asked for position papers. We got over 100 of them. Parsing them has been a real challenge for the organizers. We should think about what approach we might employ for gathering input from the community prior to the workshop and what we would do with that material prior to the workshop vs. incorporating into the final report. Workshop. We will shoot for around 60 attendees, maybe 30/20/10 lab/university/industry. This helps keep the justification and planning fairly simple. We would plan for a 1.75-day workshop to facilitate covering five topical areas as separate, single-track discussions. If for some reason we end up needing only 1.5 days for the meeting proper, this would leave more time for the organizers to meet and discuss report completion. We will (mostly) assume that attendees have read the FSD prior to arrival at the meeting. Never the less, we will spend 1/2 day bringing the attendees up to speed, focusing on the background material from the FSD. This is similar to the opening plenary session portion of the BES workshop structure. The remainder of the meeting could follow the model from the 2014 SSIO meeting: 90-minute moderated discussion sessions, with notes captured live in PPT. With 1.75 days we can accommodate 5 total discussion topics. We will place a topic of broad interest last to encourage attendees to participate for the full meeting. These sessions will identify current status in the area, its CS challenges, its opportunities, and its research needs, reflecting the breakout session portion of the BES workshop structure. Because the meeting is single track, there is no need for outbrief sessions (i.e., the participants will have been present for all discussions). Report. The final report will be generated by augmenting the FSD with material summarizing the outcomes of the workshop. We will target a 75-100 page document (the 2015 report was approximately 90 pages). The outline for the report will look something like this: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Science Challenges - Technology Challenges - Knowledge Gaps (need to understand what this typically includes) - Research Needs - Topic 1 - Definition/summary of area - Current status - CS challenges and opportunities - Priority research directions (3-5) - Topic 2 ... - Priority research directions _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 _______________________________________________ ssio-2018 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018 <2018-01-15-eh-pre-workshop-document.pdf><ml-pre-workshop-doc-20180124.pdf>
participants (8)
-
Glenn Lockwood -
Grider, Gary Alan -
Klasky, Scott A. -
Mohror, Kathryn -
Nowell, Lucy -
Ross, Robert B. -
Settlemyer, Bradley Wade -
Ward, Lee