Apon, Amy

English

Clemson University: TigerPrints

Clemson UniversityTigerPrintsPresentations School of Computing10-2009Writing a Supercomputer Proposal for the NationalScience Foundation's Major ResearchInstrumentation SolicitationAmy AponClemson University, aapon@clemson.eduFollow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/computing_presPart of the Computer Sciences CommonsThis Presentation is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Computing at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion inPresentations by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu.Recommended CitationApon, Amy, "Writing a Supercomputer Proposal for the National Science Foundation's Major Research Instrumentation Solicitation"(2009). Presentations. 4.https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/computing_pres/4WRITING A SUPERCOMPUTER PROPOSAL FOR THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION'S MAJOR RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION PROGRAMAmy Apon, DirectorArkansas High Performance Computing CenterWork supported in part by NSF Grant #0722625 and Grant #0918070NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATIONMAJOR RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION (MRI)Equipment can be requested as a part of any research proposal, not just MRIMRI is designed for the acquisition or development of equipment that falls outside the scope of a typical research proposal, or that can be used by several research projectsAcceptance rates of MRI as high as 40%This higher than many research solicitationsMRI-R2 is currently being competedThere has been an MRI competition every year for the last 22 yearsThere may not be a competition this JanuaryMRI AND SUPERCOMPUTINGThis talk is based on the solicitation that was due on August 10, 2009The guidelines change a bit for each solicitationRead the solicitation carefully !I’ll try to point out some things that have varied in the last few yearsMRI GUIDELINESProposals can be for instrument acquisition or for instrument developmentLimit of three proposals per institution, but a maximum of two can be for instrument acquisition – check for your campus competitionA cluster of commodity computer components is considered to be an instrument acquisitionCost sharing requirements have varied from year to yearSometimes there is no requirement,Sometimes it depends on the institutionSometimes it is 30% (mol) of the total budgetREAD THE SOLICITATION CAREFULLY!THERE ARE MANY REASONS THE PROPOSAL MAY BE RETURNED WITHOUT REVIEWProposals that do not contain, as a supplemental document, a signed statement from the sponsored research officeclassifying the performing organization as either non-Ph.D.-granting, Ph.D.-granting, or non-degree-granting (see SectionIV);Proposals that wholly or substantially duplicate those that were accepted for review under NSF 09-502;Applicable proposals that do not indicate appropriate levels of cost-sharing (Line M of the budget in Fastlane), and that donot contain required documentation demonstrating organizational cost-sharing commitment (Sections V.A and V.B);Proposals from institutions of higher education that are not ranked among the top 100 of those receiving Federal researchand development funding must include a signed letter from the institution's President or Provost to be eligible for the cost-sharing exemption. The letter must certify that the proposal will: 1) make a substantial improvement in the institution'scapabilities to conduct leading-edge research; 2) provide research experiences for undergraduate students using leading-edge facilities; and 3) broaden the participation in science and engineering research by women, underrepresented minoritiesand persons with disabilities (Sections V.A and V.B). Applicable proposals indicating exemption from cost-sharing that donot contain this explicit certification will be returned without review;Proposals that do not separately address the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts review criteria in the Project Summary;Proposals requesting funding to support postdoctoral researchers that do not include, as a supplementary document, adescription of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. The mentoring plan must not exceed onepage;Proposals describing activities that fall outside of the scope of those supported by the MRI-R2 program (Section II.A);Proposals describing activities that fall outside of the scope of those supported by NSF (Section II.B);Proposals that exceed an organization's submission limit (Section IV);Proposals that represent standard research projects that are appropriate for submission to regular grants programs at NSF(Section II.A);Proposals to place an instrument at a facility of another Federal agency or one of their FFRDCs that are not submitted byconsortia (Section IV);Proposals for instruments that augment the scope of a project currently receiving funding through the NSF Major ResearchEquipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account (Section IV);Proposals that do not contain required supplemental documentation, or that contain supplemental documentation other thanthose required and/or encouraged by the MRI program (as prescribed in Section V.A) and by the Grant Proposal Guide(GPG);Proposals that do not conform to font, margin and page limitations;Proposals that do not contain a Management Plan in the Project Description (Section V.A);Applicable proposals that do not contain Results from Prior MRI Support in the Project Description (Section V.A).GOAL OF MRIIncrease access to shared scientific and engineering instruments for research and research trainingFoster the integration of research and education in research-intensive learning environmentsA single instrument or system of related instruments that share a common or specific research focusDon’t make the mistake of writing a proposal for what you want to doWrite a proposal for what they want to fund!SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL MRI PROPOSALS#1) Describes good science – this 60% of the proposalScience description must be written for an interdisciplinary panelStrong list of supporting references and cited publications – your own plus othersStrong current funding for the researchNo current funding sets a bad starting point for the panel reviewersDescribe the “hero” users first (2 to 4)Follow with a set of other users that will benefit from the system SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL MRI PROPOSALS#2) Makes the case that the research needs the  instrument – match the request with the needThis is criticalCan use various metrics to make this justificationYour usage on currently available resourcesComparison to typical usage for research of this typeThe smaller the request the easier this justification isA large request (>$1M has been the threshold) falls into a more competitive category.  Avoid this for first time submissions.SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL MRI PROPOSALS#3) Justifies the technology you want to acquireInclude at least one specific vendor quoteAllow several weeks to work with the vendor on the quoteSelect the technologies, justify them.  Can’t just say you want a GPGPU cluster without knowing what that meansBalance the system with needs.  Can’t just ask for 500TB of storage for no reason.Get a reasonable academic price, which may not include all possible discountsSay you will rebid this at time of purchaseGet a technology expert to review your descriptionSOME CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL MRI PROPOSALS#4) Makes plans for housing the instrumentSay where the cluster will be located (this was required in the most recent solicitation)Describe this in terms of floor space, A/C, power, and UPSIf you don’t have the facility now, explain how you will prepare it.  Get a letter of support from your institution that says thisA large cluster request must have a careful description and consideration of physical needs and target locationSOME CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL MRI PROPOSALS#5) Makes plans for administrating the instrumentDescribe the qualifications of who will administrate the clusterSome years these costs could be included in the proposal, and some years these are excludedMake sure the quote includes warranty and maintenance for three yearsInclude scheduling software (e.g., Maui, Torque)Describe your scheduling and allocation policyFair share among all users is OKSOME CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL MRI PROPOSALS#6) A good management planBest if the PI is a tenured faculty memberHave a Faculty/Research Advisory Committee.  Say who will be on this, and how long they will serve if not for the duration of the projectInclusion of External Advisers (especially for large requests) is well receivedProvide a deployment scheduleDescribe how this instrument fits into the university’s overall plan for research infrastructureDescribe the networking connectivity  and access to this instrumentDescribe what will happen to the instrument after the grant endsSOME CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL MRI PROPOSALS#7) Strong broader impact, including impact to training and education infrastructureDescribe how this instrument can be leveraged to provide training and access to national or larger scale resourcesHow will the instrument attract researchers and students and contribute to broader participation by underrepresented minorities – use best practice and describe how you will measure thisHow will the instrument improve the quality of research and research trainingShow strong evidence of student research – cite articles that include student authorsBe careful about how much the instrument is used for teaching – this solicitation is for research trainingLAST POINTSProposals for smaller clusters at undergraduate-serving institutions are well-receivedFall into a different category of competitionIt’s OK for the faculty members to administrate these themselvesStill, focus on research training, research experiences for undergraduates, training that complements national resourcesBe careful about letters of support – in at least one solicitation the inclusion of these was a reason for return without reviewRead the solicitation carefully!QUESTIONS?Amy Apon, aapon@uark.eduDavid Chaffin, dchafffin@uark.eduJeff Pummill, jpummil@uark.eduArkansas High Performance Computing Centerhttp://hpc.uark.edu

Writing a Supercomputer Proposal for the National Science Foundation\u27s Major Research Instrumentation Solicitation

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=computing_pres

Writing a Supercomputer Proposal for the National Science Foundation\u27s Major Research Instrumentation Solicitation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Clemson University: TigerPrints