NERSC FY 1999 User Survey Results - Summary

This year 177 users responded to our survey, compared with 138 last year. In general user satisfaction with NERSC was rated higher than last year, by an average of 0.6 on a 7-point scale across 27 questions common to the two years. The biggest increases in satisfaction were with the allocations process, the HPSS system and the T3E. See FY 1998 to FY 1999 Changes.

On a scale from 7 (very satisfied) to 1 (very dissatisfied) the average scores ranged from a high of 6.6 for timely response to consulting questions to 4.0 for PVP batch wait time. The areas users are happiest with this year are consulting services, HPSS reliability and uptime, as well as PVP and T3E uptime. Areas of concern are batch wait times for both PVP and T3E systems, visualization services, the availability of training classes, and PVP resources in general. See the table that ranks all satisfaction questions.

The areas of most importance to users are the overall running of the center and its connectivity to the network, the available computing hardware and its management and configuration, consulting services, and the allocations process. Access to cycles is the common theme. See the Overall Satisfaction and Importance summary table.

In their verbal comments users focussed on NERSC's excellent support staff and its well run center with good access to cycles (although users wish we could provide even more), hardware and software support, and reliable service. When asked what NERSC should do differently the most common response was "provide even more cycles". Of the 52 users who compared NERSC to other centers, half said NERSC is the best or better than other centers, 23% simply gave NERSC a favorable evaluation or said they only used NERSC, 19% said NERSC is the same as other centers or provided a mixed evaluation, and only 4 said that NERSC is less good. Several sample responses below give the flavor of these comments; for more details see Comments about NERSC.

• "I have found the consulting services to be quite responsive, friendly, and helpful. At times they went beyond the scope of my request which resulted in making my job easier."
• "Provides reliable machines, which are well-maintained and have scheduling policies that allow for careful performance and scaling studies."
• "Provides a stable, user-friendly, interactive environment for code development and testing on both MP machines and vector machines."
• "It would be nice if there were fewer users, so turn-around time could be faster."
• "NERSC provides a well-run supercomputer environment that is critically important to my research in nuclear physics."

• We more frequently notified you of important changes and issues by email: This year 95% of users said they felt adequately informed, compared with 82% last year.
• We changed the way we present announcements on the web. (We have no comparison rating between the two years.)
• We restructured the queues on the Cray T3E: the satisfaction rating for T3E batch queue structure went up by one point (from 4.5 to 5.5).
• We added additional debug queues on all the Crays: last year we received 2 complaints in this area; this year none.

Below are the survey results. For the survey itself, click here.

1. Table Legend
2. Overall Satisfaction and Importance
3. All Satisfaction Questions
4. FY 1998 to FY 1999 Changes
5. User Information
6. Visualization
7. Consulting and Account Support
8. Information Technology and Communication
9. Hardware Resources
10. Software Resources
11. Training
12. Comments about NERSC

    ---

    1. Table Legend

    Satisfaction	Value	Importance	Value
    Very Satisfied	7	Very Important	3
    Mostly Satisfied	6	Somewhat Important	2
    Somewhat Satisfied	5	Not Important	1
    Neutral	4
    Somewhat Dissatisfied	3
    Mostly Dissatisfied	2
    Very Dissatisfied	1

    
    

    ---

    
    

    2. Overall Satisfaction and Importance

    Topic	Satisfaction			Importance
    	No. of Responses	Avg.	'98/Change	No. of Responses	Avg.	'98/Change
    Consulting services	154	6.58	5.87/+0.71	145	2.63	2.70/-0.07
    Account support	136	6.39	5.67/+0.72	124	2.48	2.31/+0.17
    Overall satisfaction	176	6.25	5.43/+0.82	162	2.87	2.77/+0.10
    Network connectivity	143	6.17	5.70/+0.47	130	2.87	2.84/+0.03
    Mass storage facilities	120	6.06	5.13/+0.93	115	2.47	2.06/+0.41
    Available software	129	5.99		116	2.57
    Available computing hardware	138	5.96		127	2.82
    Software maintenance and configuration	114	5.89		100	2.54
    HPCF web site	134	5.87	5.54/+0.33	123	2.31	2.51/-0.20
    Allocations process	118	5.87	4.60/+1.27	109	2.61	2.31/+0.30
    Hardware management and configuration	121	5.71		107	2.69
    Software documentation	117	5.46		104	2.50
    Web-based training	69	5.19		75	1.81
    Training classes	59	4.85		69	1.52
    Visualization services	57	4.37		67	1.58

    
    

    ---

    
    

    3. How Satisfied are you? - All Satisfaction Questions

    Topic	Satisfaction
    	No. of Responses	Avgerage
    Consulting: Timely response	134	6.64
    Consulting overall	154	6.58
    Consulting: Quality of technical advice	134	6.52
    HPSS: Reliability	81	6.46
    Consulting: Followup	106	6.43
    Account support	136	6.39
    HPSS: Uptime	81	6.33
    PVP: Uptime	93	6.29
    Consulting: Response to special requests	103	6.28
    Account support: Ease of obtaining account info	124	6.26
    T3E: Uptime	93	6.26
    Overall satisfaction with NERSC	176	6.25
    Web: Accuracy	94	6.22
    Training: classes (attendees)	21	6.19
    Software: Programming Libraries	50	6.18
    Training: Online Tutorials	40	6.17
    Network connectivity	143	6.17
    T3E: Overall	64	6.17
    Account support: Ease of modifying account info	124	6.15
    Software: User Environment	68	6.12
    Software: Fortran Compilers	68	6.12
    HPSS: Overall	69	6.12
    Web: Getting Started Guide	73	6.08
    Mass storage overall	120	6.06
    HPSS: User interface	72	6.06
    Web: Timeliness	90	5.99
    Web: T3E Section	72	5.99
    Available software	129	5.99
    Available computing hardware	138	5.96
    Training: Online class slides	19	5.95
    Web: NERSC-specific info	72	5.93
    Software: General tools and utilities	44	5.90
    HPSS: Performance	73	5.90
    Software maintenance and configuration	114	5.89
    HPCF web site overall	134	5.87
    Allocations process	118	5.87
    Web: File Storage Section	66	5.82
    Software: C/C++ Compilers	40	5.81
    Training: Teleconference lectures	9	5.78
    Software: Bug resolution	34	5.77
    Software: Local documentation	52	5.76
    Web: Programming Info	86	5.74
    Software: Accounting tools	47	5.73
    Hardware management and configuration	121	5.71
    Web: Ease of navigation	117	5.70
    Training: Streaming AV	10	5.70
    Software: Application software	33	5.69
    Web: Searching	83	5.69
    Web: PVP Section	55	5.69
    HPSS: Response Time	75	5.68
    T3E: Ability to run interactively	85	5.60
    PVP: Disk configuration and I/O performance	93	5.56
    T3E: Batch queue structure	81	5.47
    Software documentation	117	5.46
    Software: Performance and Debugging Tools	49	5.45
    Visualization Server: Escher	11	5.45
    Software: Vendor Documentation	37	5.26
    Math Server: Newton	12	5.25
    T3E: Disk configuration and I/O performance	71	5.23
    Web-based training	69	5.19
    PVP: Ability to run interactively	68	5.18
    PVP: Overall	58	5.05
    T3E: Batch wait time	71	5.04
    PVP: Batch queue structure	60	5.03
    Training classes (all responses)	59	4.85
    Visualization services	57	4.37
    PVP: Batch wait time	62	3.95

    
    

    ---

    
    

    4. FY 1998 to FY 1999 Changes

    The following is a comparison for questions common to the FY98 and FY99 user surveys.

    Topic	FY99 Satisfaction	FY98 Satisfaction	Change
    Allocations process	5.87	4.60	+1.27
    HPSS: User Interface	6.06	4.88	+1.18
    HPSS: Overall	6.12	5.09	+1.03
    T3E: Overall	6.17	5.20	+0.97
    T3E: Batch Queue Structure	5.47	4.51	+0.96
    HPSS: Reliability	6.46	5.51	+0.95
    HPSS: Uptime	6.33	5.39	+0.94
    Mass Storage overall	6.06	5.13	+0.93
    Consulting: Followup	6.43	5.57	+0.86
    Overall Satisfaction	6.25	5.43	+0.82
    Account Support	6.39	5.67	+0.72
    Web: File Storage Section	5.82	5.10	+0.72
    Consulting overall	6.58	5.87	+0.71
    T3E: Uptime	6.26	5.58	+0.68
    Consulting: Quality of technical advice	6.52	5.88	+0.64
    T3E: Batch Wait Time	5.04	4.43	+0.61
    PVP: Uptime	6.29	5.69	+0.60
    Web: Getting Started Guide	6.08	5.54	+0.54
    Web: T3E Section	5.99	5.48	+0.51
    Network Connectivity	6.17	5.70	+0.47
    Web: PVP Section	5.69	5.69	+0.35
    HPSS: Performance	5.90	5.46	+0.44
    HPSS: Response Time	5.68	5.29	+0.39
    HPCF Website	5.87	5.54	+0.33
    PVP: Batch Queue Structure	5.03	4.85	+0.18
    PVP: Overall	5.05	4.92	+0.13
    PVP: Batch Wait Time	3.95	4.79	-0.84

    
    

    ---

    
    

    5. User Information

    Number of responses: 177

    What NERSC resources do you use?

    PVP Cluster	115	(65%)
    Web Site	106	(60%)
    Cray T3E	104	(59%)
    Consulting Services	93	(53%)
    HPSS	81	(46%)
    Account Support	57	(32%)
    Operations Support	23	(13%)
    Math Server	8	(4%)
    Visualization Server	7	(4%)
    Other	5
    PDSF (2)
    Visualization lab
    Teleconference seminars
    AFS

    How long have you used NERSC?

    More than 3 years: 81 (48%), 6 months to 3 years: 68 (40%), less than 6 months: 21 (12%)

    What desktop systems do you use to connect to NERSC?

    (Percentages may sum to greater than 100% since each user could choose multiple platforms.)

    SUMMARY
    UNIX	147	(85%)
    PC	66	(38%)
    MAC	46	(27%)
    XTerminal	2	(1%)
    VAX/VMS	1	(1%)
    SPECIFIC OPERATING SYSTEMS
    Linux	65	(38%)
    Sun Solaris	65	(38%)
    Apple MacIntosh	46	(27%)
    SGI IRIX	39	(22%)
    Windows 98	31	(18%)
    Windows 95	29	(17%)
    IBM AIX	25	(14%)
    DEC OSF	22	(13%)
    HP HPUX	21	(12%)
    Windows NT	20	(12%)
    Windows 3.0	2	(1%)
    DOS	2	(1%)
    OS/2	1	(1%)

    How often do you connect to NERSC from:

    Location	Often	Sometimes	Never
    Office	144	32	0
    Home	37	74	43
    Elsewhere	2	50	58

    Connection type:

    Location	Ethernet	Cable Modem	DSL	ISDN	Modem
    Office	158	1	0	2	1
    Home	11	28	2	7	65
    Elsewhere	31	1	1	0	11
    Total	200	30	3	9	77

    
    

    ---

    
    

    6. Visualization

    Do you use visualization software to analyze or display your results?

    No: 86, Yes: 84

    Have you used NERSC visualization resources?

    No: 147, Yes: 19

    Describe the visualization software used to analyze or display your results - 94 responses

    • 28:    Download data and do visualization locally
    •   8:    Gave general description of what is visualized
    •   7:    Use home brew software
    • 51:    Others who listed software used
      • NCAR Graphics: 16
      • IDL: 14
      • AVS: 9
      • Matlab: 6
      • gnuplot: 6
      • Mathematica: 5
      • kaleidagraph: 5
      • xmgr: 4
      • noesys: 4
      • xmol: 3
      • vmd: 3
      • MSI Insight II: 3
      • 26 other software packages
        had 1 or 2 users

    If you don't use visualization software, why not? - 25 responses

    •   9:    Don't know enough about it, don't know how to use it
    •   6:    Don't need visualization software
    •   3:    Haven't found the right software yet
    •   2:    Network access too slow
    •   2:    NERSC doesn't support the software I want
    •   2:    Learning curve is too steep, don't have the time
    •   1:    Not yet ready; might use in the future

    Describe the NERSC visualization resources you have used - 19 responses

    •   7:    Use / have used NCAR Graphics
    •   4:    Use / have used AVS
    •   3:    Help from members of the Visualization group
    •   6:    Other visualization software

    What additional visualization services or software could NERSC provide for you? - 36 responses

    • 18:    Don't need NERSC visualization services
    •   9:    Individual software requests
    •   7:    Don't know what I need, don't know what you offer
    •   1:    Help with AVS
    •   1:    Need more interactive computing

    
    

    ---

    
    

    7. Consulting and Account Support

    Topic	Satisfaction
    	No. of Responses	Avg.	'98/Change
    Timely response to consulting questions	134	6.64
    Quality of technical advice from consultants	134	6.52	5.88/+0.64
    Followup to initial consulting questions	106	6.43	5.57/+0.86
    Response to special requests	103	6.28
    Ease of obtaining account information	124	6.26
    Ease of modifying account information	96	6.15

    Comments and suggestions regarding NERSC Consulting Services - 36 responses

    • 22:     Provides good service
    •   6:     Commented on other topics
      • Provide more hours and more inodes.
      • Setcub is cryptic.
      • 16-bit integer support in the Cray compilers.
      • Problems with lost HPSS data and J90 checkpoint files.
    •   5:     Service is uneven, too slow
      • Was confronted in a somewhat threatening tone about my misbehaving application.
      • Problems with accounts at the start of FY 2000.
    •   3:     Haven't used
      • Since most of the information I needed was on the web.
    •   1:     They should know BASIS

    Comments and suggestions regarding NERSC Account Support Services - 25 responses

    • 14:     Provides good service
    •   7:     Could be improved
      • Would like to choose my username.
      • Put dates on emails.
      • Confusion about a T3E allocation.
      • ERCAP user lists confusing.
      • Took too long to get an inode increase.
      • Don't make us change passwords so often.
    •   2:     setcub improvements
    •   1:     Commented on other topics
      • Provide script for tracking progress of batch jobs.

    
    

    ---

    
    

    8. Information Technology and Communication

    HPCF Web Site

    Topic	Satisfaction
    	No. of Responses	Avg.	'98/Change
    Accuracy of information	94	6.22
    Getting Started Guide	73	6.08	5.54/+0.54
    Timeliness of information	90	5.99
    T3E Section	72	5.99	5.48/+0.51
    Info on using NERSC-specific resources	87	5.93
    File Storage Section	66	5.82	5.10/+0.72
    General programming information	86	5.74
    Search Facilities	83	5.69
    Ease of finding information	117	5.70
    PVP Section	55	5.69	5.34/+0.35

    How useful are these for keeping informed of NERSC issues and changes?

    Topic	Usefulness
    	No. of Responses	Avg.
    E-mail notices from NERSC	136	2.63
    News and Announcement web pages	120	2.16
    MOTD on computers	114	2.09
    Phone calls from NERSC	103	1.89
    Online web magazine	105	1.54

    Do you feel you are adequately informed?

    Topic	Yes	No	%	'98/Change
    Do you feel you are adequately informed about NERSC changes?	128	7	95%	82%/+13%
    Are you aware of planned outages 24 hours in advance ?	106	10	91%
    Are you aware of major changes at least 1 month in advance?	109	13	89%
    Are you aware of software changes at least 7 days in advance?	87	18	83%

    Do you like the new hpcf.nersc.gov web site? 42 responses

    We created a new web site just for users of the NERSC High Performance Computing Facility. The URL is http://hpcf.nersc.gov/. Do you like the new web site?
    • 33:     Like it
    •   6:     Could be improved / changed
      • Some info buried too far down (batch queue structures, how to submit batch jobs).
      • More cross-referencing between machines, in general more cross references.
      • Fewer links were required on old site to obtain detailed info (T3E queues).
      • Too many changes are confusing.
      • Having more than one website for NERSC is confusing.
      • Too much clutter for slow-speed connections.
    •   5:     Don't use it, no answer

    How could we improve our web site? 25 responses

    •   6:     Improve its organization and searching abilities
      • Add an acronym list.
      • Steer users directly to the most important topics.
      • Improve f90 documentation.
    •   3:     Provide more optimization info
    •   2:     Better software documentation
      • Provide a short reference of the most important commands, queue limits, whatever one tends to forget.
    •   2:     Comments pertaining to www.nersc.gov
      • www.nersc.gov easier to remember than hpcf.nersc.gov
    •   6:     Other suggestions
      • Website should be updated within minutes when machines are unavailable.
      • Ability to setup, submit and monitor jobs via the web.
      • Don't change its design so often.
      • No web passwords.
      • Provide user discussion boards.
      • Improve access over low speed connections.
    •   6:     No specific suggestions

    How would like to keep informed of changes and issues at NERSC? 42 responses

    • 22:     By email (only email mentioned)
    •   4:     By email and motd
    •   2:     Use email more
      • Provide ability to sign up for email announcements on specific topics.
      • Notify us of planned outages by email.
    •   2:     Use email less
    •   6:     Improve the motd / don't like motds
    •   5:     Current methods are good
    •   2:     Keep us better informed of plans
      • Tell us more about planned hardware and software acquisitions before they occur.
      • Have a user comment period before final decisions are made on major changes.
    •   2:     Comments on the online newsletter
      • Didn't know it existed.
    •   2:     Other comments
      • Maintenance times are awkward.
      • Use the "news" system.

    
    

    ---

    
    

    9. Hardware Resources

    Cray T3E - MCurie

    Topic	Satisfaction
    	No. of Responses	Avg.	'98/Change
    Uptime	93	6.26	5.58/+0.68
    Overall	64	6.17	5.20/+0.97
    Ability to run interactively	85	5.60
    Batch queue structure	81	5.47	4.51/+0.96
    Disk configuration and I/O performance	71	5.23
    Batch job wait time	80	5.04	4.43/+0.61

    Question	No. of Responses	Avg.
    Uptime estimate (%)	56	89.6
    Batch wait time estimate (hours)	49	14.5
    Max. number of PEs used	77	142.2
    Max. number of PEs code can effectively use	60	379.4

    Cray PVP Cluster

    Topic	Satisfaction
    	No. of Responses	Avg.	'98/Change
    Uptime	73	6.29	5.69/+0.60
    Disk configuration and I/O performance	54	5.56
    Ability to run interactively	68	5.18
    Overall	58	5.05	4.92/+0.13
    Batch queue structure	60	5.03	4.85/+0.18
    Batch job wait time	62	3.95	4.79/-0.84

    Question	No. of Responses	Avg.
    Uptime estimate (%)	48	88.6
    Batch wait time estimate (hours)	43	43.7

    HPSS

    Topic	Satisfaction
    	No. of Responses	Avg.	'98/Change
    Reliability	81	6.46	5.51/+0.95
    Uptime	81	6.33	5.39/+0.94
    User Interface	72	6.06	4.88/+1.18
    Overall	69	6.12	5.09/+1.03
    Performance	73	5.90	5.46/+0.44
    Response Time	75	5.68	5.29/+0.39

    Question	No. of Responses	Avg.
    Uptime estimate (%)	50	91.7
    Reliability estimate (%)	45	94.2
    Performance estimate (MB/sec)	12	11.8

    Servers

    Topic	Satisfaction
    	No. of Responses	Avg.
    Visualization Server - Escher	11	5.45
    Math Server - Newton	12	5.25

    Comments on NERSC's Cray T3E - 39 responses

    •   7:     A good machine / get more T3E processors
      • Stable, reliable.
      • Good scalability.
      • Provides lots of production time.
    •   7:     Comments on queue structure
      • 7 asked for longer time limits.
      • 1 asked for fairer turnaround across queues.
    •   6:     Comments on throughput, performance
      • 4 said bad; 2 said good.
    •   6:     Comments on interactive computing
      • 4 asked for more; 2 said good.
    •   5:     Comments on disks, inodes, file systems
      • 4 said inodes too restricted.
      • 1 said /usr/tmp too full.
    •   2:     Comments on memory
      • 1 said enough; 1 said need more.
    •   5:     Other comments
      • need more optimization info.
      • Provide better queue stats (let us know which queue best to use now).
      • PVM errors, I/O bottlenecks.
    •   7:     Don't use it (yet) / no specific comments

    Did the C90 retirement go as smoothly as possible? - 42 responses

    • 31:     Yes
    •   2:     Yes, but...
      • Would have liked access to C90 files right away.
      • Too many changes at the same time.
    •   5:     No
      • Too much congestion on the J90s afterwards.
      • We lost cf77 and DISSPLA.
      • Now there is less interactive access.
      • Should not have removed C90 until full SV1 cluster was in place.
      • "As smoothly as possible" should have meant keeping the C90!
    •   4:     Didn't use the C90 / hadn't used it recently

    Does the current NERSC PVP cluster meet your vector computing needs? - 52 responses

    • 24:     No
    •   3:     Probably no / am waiting to see
    •   3:     Yes, but... / yes and no
      • Slow throughput / slow processors: 20 responses.
      • Need interactive SV1s / interactive too slow: 8 responses.
      • Shouldn't interactive environment be same as batch environment?
      • Doesn't like charging rate.
      • Problems with multitasking (OpenMP) and C++.
      • Disk system poorly configured.
      • Poor network access.
      • cqstatl response slow
      • Wants prompt to use the arrow keys.
      • Doubts he can run BASIS.
    • 21:     Yes
    •   1:     No answer

    Comments on NERSC's Cray PVP Cluster - 26 responses

    • 15:     Slow throughput, slow processors, need more PVP cycles
    •   5:     Need interactive SV1s, interactive too slow
    •   4:     Comments on software, configuration
      • Doesn't like the automatic logout on killeen.
      • Doesn't like f90 compiler.
      • Multitasking (OpenMP) instabilities.
      • Disk system poorly configured.
      • Needs more info on text editors.
    •   4:     They're good machines, satisfied
      • Stable, good software development/testing environment.
      • Excellent accuracy.
      • Running short jobs works well.
    •   3:     Comments on queues
      • Needs a queue with 200 MW memory, 50 GB disk, 100-150 hours.
      • Make scheduling fairer.
      • Too many jobs are allowed for 1 user.
      • Too many job failures.
      • Frustrated when exceeds CPU and disk limits.
    •   1:     Haven't used them

    Comments on NERSC's HPSS Storage System - 38 responses

    • 12:     It's a good system, satisfied
      • Can easily handle large (8+GB) files.
      • Happy with reliability.
    • 11:     Would like a better user interface
      • More like Unix, more like NFS (3 responses).
      • Provide the ability to manipulate entire directories (3 responses).
      • Provide better failure recovery (2 responses).
      • Provide better search capabilities (2 responses).
    •   7:     Improve the transfer rate
    •   4:     Command response too slow
    •   3:     Stability problems
    •   2:     Password problems
    •   4:     Don't know what it is, don't use:

    Comments about NERSC's auxiliary servers - 10 responses

    •   2:     Like them
    •   1:     Newton needs an upgrade
    •   1:     Provide a data broadcasting web server
    •   6:     Don't use them, no answer

    
    

    ---

    
    

    10. Software Resources

    PVP Software

    Topic	Satisfaction
    	No. of Responses	Avg.
    User environment	52	6.08
    Fortran compilers	52	6.04
    Programming libraries	33	5.94
    General tools and utilities	35	5.89
    Accounting tools	38	5.74
    Local (NERSC) documentation	44	5.68
    Software bug resolution	24	5.62
    Application software	26	5.54
    Performance & Debugging Tools	35	5.46
    C/C++ Compilers	20	5.45
    Vendor documentation	31	5.03

    T3E Software

    Topic	Satisfaction
    	No. of Responses	Avg.
    Programming libraries	50	6.42
    Fortran compilers	66	6.20
    User environment	68	6.15
    C/C++ Compilers	40	5.97
    General tools and utilities	44	5.91
    Software bug resolution	34	5.91
    Application software	33	5.85
    Local (NERSC) documentation	52	5.83
    Accounting tools	47	5.72
    Vendor documentation	37	5.49
    Performance & Debugging Tools	49	5.45

    Comments about NERSC's software resources, suggested improvements, future needs - 24 responses

    •   8:     Comments on compilers
      • f90 slow, unforgiving, I/O is slow, data structures cryptic
      • f90 needs to optimize for the SV1
      • KCC slow and doesn't work with totalview
      • wants gcc
      • wants FORTRAN 77
    •   5:     Comments on graphics
      • NCAR on the T3E (2 requests)
      • more graphics on the T3E in general
      • wants DISSPLA, PGPLOT
      • wants graphics other than NCAR
      • uses own version of gnuplot
    •   5:     Comments on debuggers, analysis tools
      • Problems using totalview on the T3E, doesn't work with KCC.
      • Provide better performance profiling tool on the T3E.
      • Needs easier ways to debug (as easy as on a workstation).
      • Needs a non-graphics based debugging utility.
    •   4:     Comments on utilities, editors, shells, user environment
      • doesn't like modules
      • GNU tools and emacs need to be kept up-to-date
      • system doesn't recognize user's terminal type
      • wants easier editors
    •   3:     Comments on setcub
      • it's cryptic
      • wants job level accounting
      • doesn't have updated account info
    •   5:     Other comments
      • prompt fix of MPI bug
      • need good man pages
      • as a center, should help with software performance improvements

    
    

    ---

    
    

    11. Training

    Overall Satisfaction and Usefulness

    Topic	No. who have used	Satisfaction		Usefulness
    		No. of Responses	Avg.	No. of Responses	Avg.
    Classes	18	21	6.19	21	2.48
    Online web tutorials	36	40	6.17	34	2.68
    Class slides on web	19	22	5.95	22	2.45
    Teleconference lectures	7	9	5.78	13	1.77
    Streaming AV on web	8	10	5.70	14	1.93

    Comments about training. In what area should we focus our attention? - 11 responses

    •   5:     Provide concise web documentation and online tutorials
      • Easily accessible, concise information.
      • Provide "cookbook recipes" rather than discourses.
      • Brief documents for every command and option, plus examples.
      • Make reference materials easily available (small number of mouse clicks).
      • Provide PDF files with tables of contents and page numbers of the longer tutorials.
    •   2:     Provide web-based training
    •   1:     Provide classroom training
    •   1:     Will need SP training
    •   1:     Continue as before
    •   1:     Don't use

    
    

    ---

    
    

    12. Comments about NERSC

    What does NERSC do well? - 91 responses

    • 40:     Consulting and support staff, good people
    • 38:     Provides cycles, access to high performance computing, good hardware or software support, reliable service
    • 12:     Everything
    •   8:     T3E support
    •   7:     Web documentation, training, online tutorials
    •   3:     Allocations process
    •   2:     HPSS support
    •   1:     Support for interactive computing
    •   1:     Support for remote users

    What should NERSC do differently? - 53 responses

    • 16:     Comments on computers, cycles, downs
      • provide better turnaround, better processors (7 responses)
      • PVP improvements (6 responses)
      • T3E improvements (4 responses)
      • fewer downs (2 responses)
      • more forethought in planning changes; listen to users more (2 responses)
      • stay abreast of latest technology (1 response)
      • HPSS more dependable and efficient (1 response)
      • enhance symbolic math server (1 response)
    • 11:     Comments on queues
      • longer T3E queues (4 responses)
      • unspecified T3E queue configuration change (1 response)
      • queuing system not straightforward (3 responses)
      • need short turnaround queues on the PVPs (1 response)
      • limit number of jobs one user can run in batch on the PVPs (1 response)
      • go back to nice scheduling for PVP jobs (1 response)
    •   9:     Comments on software
      • improve setcub (3 responses)
      • don't change software so often (2 responses)
      • didn't like that request for PGPLOT wasn't approved
      • didn't like loss of DISSPLA and other engineering software
      • provide portability for PC-based programs
      • if vendors don't have a a solution then provide NERSC solutions
    •   8:     Comments on web documentation, training:
      • better orientation for new users (2 responses)
      • better web training for those who can't attend onsite training
      • Classses are offered more often in the West; East users disadvantaged
      • easier/quicker access to the "information I need"
      • more info on performance tuning
      • write better web code (want responses to web forms to persist thru window resizing, following links etc.)
      • stop modifying website
    •   6:     Comments on interactive computing
      • increase interactive resources (4 responses)
      • don't increase interactive resources (1 response)
      • wrtite software to enforce the T3E interactive policy
    •   4:     Comments on the allocations process
    •   3:     Other comments
    •   2:     Make the survey shorter
    •   2:     Don't Know, No changes

    What additional services would you like NERSC to provide? - 29 responses

    • 11:     Software requests
    •   8:     Web services, dissemination of information
    •   4:     More computers, cycles, inodes
    •   3:     Visualization requests
    •   3:     Don't know / no specific requests

    How does NERSC compare to other centers you have used? - 55 responses

    • 26:     NERSC is best, better than
    • 12:     Favorable evaluation, only use NERSC
    • 10:     NERSC is the same as; mixed evaluation
      • Less flexible than Caltech's CACR.
      • Provide a T3E 24hr queue as Pittsburgh does.
      • I can often get bigger jobs through faster at EMSL.
      • The amount of CPU time that we can get there is much smaller than at several other centers.
      • Slower turnaround time for batch jobs but otherwise comparable to SDSC, NCSA, PSC, NASA Goddard.
    •   4:     NERSC is less good
      • NERSC's allocation structure and queues less flexible than Ohio Supercomputer Center.
      • Smaller centers have better throughput and no accounting.
      • NPACI sends out email when a system goes down unexpectedly & gives estimate of uptime.
      • NCSA has more flexibility in time limit and PE limit for batch jobs.
    •   3:     No comparison provided