Committee on IT Infrastructure (CITI) Meeting
May 8, 2007
Meeting Summary

CITI Attendees:  Sue Abeles, Mitch Creem, Glyn Davies, Jim Davis, Vijay Dhir, Rick Greenwood, Nick Hernandez, Tom Lifka, Sam Morabito, Patricia O’Brien, Steve Olsen, Roberto Peccei, Terry Ryan, Albert Setton, Gary Strong

Guests: Carmela Cunningham, Warren Mori, Karen Ribback, Nick Reddingius, Margo Reveil, Mike Schilling, Marsha Smith, Greg Spotts, Don Worth

Meeting Called to order at 2:05 pm.

Agenda Item 1: IDRE Data Center in the CNSI

Roberto Peccei presented a report on Data Centers for Research. 

An increasing share of the UCLA faculty requires computational resources for research.  Key recruits are also attracted by access to major computational resources, and UCLA competes with other universities that are making large investments in research computing.

The Math Sciences cluster is running out of physical space.  Recent investment increased capacity from 400 to 900 nodes, of which 808 are already in use. 

An initial investment of $175,000 will allow IDRE to build space to support 400 nodes at the CNSI building in a space that has a theoretical capacity of 1,600 nodes.  The total cost of building out the 1,600 nodes is estimated at $4,898,000.  These 1,600 nodes would not keep pace with growing demand.  By 2012, UCLA expects demand for 2,229 nodes in addition to the 900 existing nodes in Math Sciences.

Several models for node usage are contemplated for different types of researchers, such as General Purpose Clusters, Shared Clusters, Special Purpose Clusters, and Condominium Clusters.

Points of Discussion:

• Which services should be recharged to users, and which should be institutional contributions to the overall research environment?  There are significant cost savings in consolidating nodes into a data center, including cooling, power and staffing.   If computational charges are too high, researchers may fund their own freestanding, less-efficient clusters.

• Centralized data centers provide additional benefits to researchers due to increased reliability via cooling and redundancy.

• Should the CNSI data center be organized as a self-financing business unit, charging all users for the actual cost of providing services?  If so, should initial build-out costs be recouped through recharges, or only operating costs?

• UCLA’s competitors are often subsidizing computational resources as a means to attract top talent.

• Growth in demand for research computing is substantially higher than the growth in demand for business computing.  Collaboration between ATS and AIS in projecting trends can help focus infrastructure investments. 

Action: CITI requests development of a five-to-seven year demand forecast, to evaluate the benefits of building a larger data center rather than two consecutive smaller projects.

Agenda Item 2: Repositioning IT/TIER:

Marsha Smith presented a report on TIER criteria and funding principles along with a summary of the projects that are seeking TIF-TIER funding.

The TIER approach would transcend the question of whether centralized or decentralized services are best for the campus.  TIER looks to combine the benefits of scale with customization that was previously unavailable in a centralized environment.

Networking, data centers, security and email services can be provided by customized, locally controlled networks and applications running on a shared hardware infrastructure. For example, the Repositioning IT initiative substantially reduced costs for Business and Administrative Services by consolidating network and email infrastructure. Units such as Dentistry will be migrating to a shared environment in the next few months, and other units are considering joining the program.

TIER draws its $2.1 million in annual funding the TIF charge.  One of the efficiencies targeted by TIER is shared management of a single hardware infrastructure for multi-tenant buildings.  These types of TIER-funded networks provide for shared local, regional and central management.  This concept is considerably different than the current environment in Murphy Hall, for example, which features nine separate hardware networks.

The business unit and the TIER fund share the costs of TIER-organized projects.  At present cost-sharing is determined on a case-by-case basis, rather than according to a fixed percentage. 

One key question for CITI is how TIER-funded servers will be maintained, because software that is not kept current can present security vulnerabilities. 

Discussion Points:

• Formulating guiding principles for the cost-sharing formula will help ensure that units feel they are being treated uniformly.
• Calculating savings that are realized from individual TIER projects will provide helpful information for future projects.
• Business and Administrative Services is deploying a robust content management system to allow for updating of more than 40 websites that previously were managed individually.
• One way to think of TIER is that it is taking on the the task of centralizing commodity equipment and services while retaining local control and customization.

Agenda Item 3: Common Collaborative Learning Environment (CCLE)

Jim Davis presented a brief background report on the CCLE. 

The selected course management system, Moodle, has been deployed on an alpha basis for 15 courses in the Spring 2007 quarter, and will be expanded to 60 courses in Fall 2007.  A planning team of Terry Ryan, Rose Rocchio and Julie Austin is exploring academic and technical issues, including centralized versus federated infrastructure models.  IT directors of academic departments, the Deans, and other stakeholders are being including in the planning process.  A seed funding request will be presented to CITI by Fall 2007.

Discussion Points:

• The alpha phase and planning process will help Deans and CITI members evaluate the seed funding request when it is ready.

Action: CITI endorses the continuation of the CCLE planning process.

Meeting adjourned at 4:03 pm.