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 <bws@lanl.gov> 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"
<ssio-2018-bounces@lists.mcs.anl.gov on behalf of mohror1@llnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Scott,

I think I/O fits under  ‘Storage Systems’.

Kathryn

From: Klasky, Scott A. <klasky@ornl.gov>
Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 4:27 PM
To: Mohror, Kathryn <mohror1@llnl.gov>; Ross, Robert B.
<rross@mcs.anl.gov>; ssio-2018@lists.mcs.anl.gov
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 <mohror1@llnl.gov>
Date: April 9, 2018 at 11:54:47 PM GMT+2
To: Ross, Robert B. <rross@mcs.anl.gov>,
ssio-2018@lists.mcs.anl.gov <ssio-2018@lists.mcs.anl.gov>
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 <ssio-2018-bounces@lists.mcs.anl.gov>
On Behalf Of Ross, Robert B.
Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 11:33 AM
To: ssio-2018@lists.mcs.anl.gov
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. <rross@mcs.anl.gov> 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. <rross@mcs.anl.gov> 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 <lee@SANDIA.GOV> 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. <klasky@ornl.gov> wrote:


Hi Rob,

Has there been a doodle poll for this?



Scott



From: ssio-2018 [mailto:ssio-2018-bounces@lists.mcs.anl.gov] On
Behalf Of Ross, Robert B.
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:18 PM
To: ssio-2018@lists.mcs.anl.gov
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. <rross@mcs.anl.gov> 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: ssio-2018@lists.mcs.anl.gov 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
ssio-2018@lists.mcs.anl.gov
https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018













_______________________________________________
ssio-2018 mailing list
ssio-2018@lists.mcs.anl.gov
https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ssio-2018










<2018-01-15-eh-pre-workshop-document.pdf><ml-pre-workshop-doc-20180124.pdf