Share
FollowComments 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
What does NERSC do well? - 91 responses
- Consulting and support staff, good people: 40 responses
Qualified people and good support hotline.
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.
People to people issues are done very well.
I appreciate the help from the consulting staff. I have used NERSC computers for years, and rarely asked for help until this year, when I made the transition to parallel computing. I have been happy with the assistance I received.
[...] The interaction with your staff is a particular pleasure.
I am impressed with the rapid response that I have seen in all areas: hardware problems, software questions, and new account creation. I have not run into many problems, and my experience so far leads me to believe that if I ever have a problem it will be attended to very quickly.
Very good consultant knowledge when I have a question.
As a very new user, I have not yet interacted with many NERSC employees. But those who I have worked with have all been wonderful. You have a great set of people up there.
NERSC consulting and accounting services are good. In general, I get good and rapid response to my inquiries.
As PI I am not as up on things that happen as I would like. I have a tendency to forget passwords, but NERSC staff have always been helpful
good support staff
friendlyness and promptness of user services. Francesca is really good. [...]
I appreciate very much the consulting staff: they are very reliable and competent
Human interaction is great.
[...] The ability to quickly contact consultants, support, and operations staff is nice. They're always frendly and helpful.
[...] Good consulting
Outstanding phone support!
Service and consulting
User support. [...]
[...] - mostly knowledgeable consultant staff
consulting services
[...] Personally, I am very satisfied with the software availability and Consulting services, [...]
[...] and friendly consulting personnel.
Gets someone on consultant questions immediately.
We've been very happy with the support (we're not heavy users though). It seems we wait a long time in queue for batch jobs on the J90s (longer than last year). Also, the machines were down for a while over the summer.
[...] and response of staff is great
The management of accounts [...] is very professional.
User support - efficiency
Tech. support was very good
NERSC is strong in user support, consulting [...]
[...] and help with parallilization.
The consultants are great.
[...] good consulting
[Visualization] "What's New" page is datedInteract with people. Technically sound. Keep emphasis on the end user.
performance of [...] and support excellent.
consulting, keeping us informed of changes
Providing valuable [...] technical assistance when needed.
Consulting staff and user support are excellent.
Majority of the time NERSC keeps the user abreast of status and availability of machines.[...] The help I have received from the consultants is excellent.
[...] The consulting services are also excellent.
- Provides cycles, access to high performance computing, good hardware or software support, reliable service: 38 responses
NERSC provides a well-run supercomputer environment that is critically important to my research in nuclear physics.
Provides reliable machines, which are well-maintained and have scheduling policies that allow for careful performance and scaling studies.
NERSC is a good facility. It provides a very great service to users who need the supercomputers to do their research.
Provides a stable, user-friendly, interactive environment for code development and testing on both MP machines and vector machines.
Provide an extremely powerful computing resource in a very reliable, usable way.
Support and maintain one of the best high performance computer facilities in the world.
NERSC provides access to a good machines and supports them well. I look forward to using the IBM SP.
Provide state-of-the-art high speed computing
The computers and software are very reliable.
NERSC offers the best computational resources that I have ever found. [...]
Provide a very nice facility for us to run lattice QCD code.
For the 16 years that I have been using NERSC, it has provided the most computational power accessible to me by far.
Deliver a lot of cycles to users on state-of-the-art machines.
The computers and related resources run very smoothly. [...] It is the best supercomputer facility I have used.
system maintenance, notification of scheduled down time, availability of many software packages, libraries, tools
Provides resources for large computing problems which are difficult to implement on a workstation.
NERSC provides vital computing cycles to my (Magnetic Fusion) community in as advanced and reliable a computing environment its resources allow.
Overall, NERSC is doing pretty good in providing valuable computing resources to science community. Personally, I am very satisfied with the software availability [...]
Provide reliable high performance CPU cycles.
[...] Take care of software and hardware maintenance in a professional manner. [...]NERSC maintains the usability of the computing resources very well. I have had no major problems related to system crashes, corrupt output, etc. I am pleased with this aspect.
Fast and efficient, but long awaiting in queues.
[...] Computer maintenance.
NERSC has the good computers, and they are up most of the time.
Machine reliability and availability [...]
uptime [...]
The management of accounts and hardware is very professional.
provides the satisfactory and reliable access to the computers with appropriate sofware over the ethernet.
For me, it gives me the ability to use large computer resources in a relatively comfortable environment.
[...] and delivering reliable service to a variety of users
Deliver cycles [...]
provide high performance computing
provides lots of CPU cycles, [...]
Delivers a lot of cycles [...]
performance of computing resources and [...] excellent.
Providing valuable computer resources and [...] when needed.
provides high performance computing
Provide high performance computing cycles to high priority projects.
For me, it provides large-scale computing facilities in a reasonable way.
- Everything: 12 responses
As far as I have seen, everything.
Seems to be everything to me.
Quite a lot --- basically an excellent center.
NERSC is a supercomputing facility par exellence.As I have checked out "Very Satisfied" ( I should have checked "excellent" but no such option exists in this questionnaire ), NERSC does exellent in all phases of its activity, from Consulting to guidance, help, advice so as to get the most important work done, viz, supercomputing. My sincerest thanks to all of you at NERSC for giving me the opportunity to use NERSC facilities for my research.
almost everything
plenty
I think you do everything pretty well. [...]
just about everything
I think it is doing very well.
THe general organization is good.
I twice filled out this form in its entirety, only to have Netscape crash each time. Sorry for the sparsity of comments. Summary: NERSC does most everything very well. I would like the mass storage (HPSS/migration) to be more reliable and to have some inspection capability (if I've waited 30 minutes for a file to de-migrate, is it because there's a tape stuck, a daemon not running, or just in a long line).
I am overall satisfied with NERSC.
- Good T3E support: 8 responses
queue system on T3E
For the T3E nersc provides good cycle time and turn around.
NERSC does a good job of providing massively parallel hardware and the software necessary to use it to a large scientific community.
The machine is up, it works and an effort is made to make it useful. [T3E user]
Throughput on the T3E is fantastic.
- only a few crashes on th T3E
- high uptime %[...]Very stable environment from parallel point of view. Good maintenance [...]
NERSC has traditionally provided an environment aimed at the big production user. There have been some moves away from this recently, but nothing that can't be corrected. Management of the T3E has been good.
- Good web documentation, training, online tutorials: 7 responses
[...] as well as web based training (online manuals and references).
Documentation on the web.
[...] and user documentation to get started
I find the information on the website quite useful. Although I did not get around to taking part in the training yet (I've been using NERSC only for a few months), the things offered by NERSC (web tutorials, teleconference lectures) seem to be quite useful.
[...] The documentation/training while not perfect is certainly better than anywhere else I have used.
[...] Provide training resources on timely topics
Good web site [...][...] Online documentation of compilers, software, tutorials.
- Good allocations process: 3 responses
[...] I was pleased that I could get additional time in july-august when I had used my time at the end of the 3rd quarter. it is difficult to live in the allocation structure .
[...] - generous additional CPU "donation" for busy users year around
Allocation process using the web.
- Good HPSS support: 2 responses
I mainly use the HPSS file storage system and find that the system works very well for my "modest" needs.
[...] and excellent storage capacity.
- Good support for interactive computing: 1 response
I find that working interactively goes very well. [...]
- Good support for remote users: 1 response
Support remote users. Other large supercomputing facilities that I've worked with have been very poor at this.
What should NERSC do differently? - 53 responses
- Comments on computers, disks, inodes cycles, downs: 16 responses
- 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)
It would be nice if there were fewer users, so turn-around time could be faster.
More processors. Less down time.
less downtime, more forethought in planning changes (e.g., CFS and the A-machine were removed at the same time. That took place during a critical time before when everybody was scrambling to finish other things before the holidays. Add to that the changes in the allocation process, etc. As a NERSC Account manager, I ended up spending 20 % of my time on NERSC business. This was excessive.
NERSC should try listening to the users more. Among my co-workers, there is rampant dissatisfaction with the CRAYs' interactive and batch performance, but nothing seems to change over many years. [...] [PVP user]
Improve the PVP disk system to give at least an order of magnitude more inodes. Some increase in the total disk space should be provided.
A better handle on the PVP machines - the J90's were appalling - put more pressure on the hardware vendor for quicker solutions.
Up to the demise of the c90, I was very happy with NERSC. Forcing us onto the j90, without the PVP cluster inplace, actually causes us to look for other computing resources, inhouse and at the San Diego Supercomputing Ceneter. If you get the PVP cluster returned to significant interactive use, we would be much happier. [...]
I primarily run Gaussian 98 jobs. Lately, the jobs just sit in the database and never run. I can run jobs faster on my Pentium III PC. [...] [PVP user]
Improve I/O on T3E
Some changes in the hardware and queue configurations. Jobs are a bit slow getting through the queues and the inode limits are to restrictive. [T3E user]
More memory per PE on the T3E.
Get a distributed memory/disk machine (the SP addresses that)I was pleasantly surprised with the success of porting our 3-D plasma fluid turbulence code to the T3E (Bill Dorland of the Univ. of Maryland did this for us). However, as you know, typical performance on cache-reliant RISC-based MPP's is only about 5-10% of the theoretical MFLOP/CPU, while on the Cray C-90 it was common to get 50% of the theoretical MFLOP/CPU rate. I am concerned that the bandwidth to local memory, and the communications bandwidth to remote memory, are not keeping up with CPU speed, and that the promise of true multi-TeraFLOP performance has not been realized. Perhaps there is nothing NERSC could have done about it, but it is a little disappointing that the IBM SP-2 that was purchased doesn't seem to be very different in capability from the older T3E. We have to communicate to our sponsors and to hardware vendors that many important scientific codes require high bandwidth, and that sticking lots of PC's on an ethernet might be okay for some problems but is completely inadequate for other important problems. It is worth paying the extra money needed for specialty high-bandwidth parallel supercomputers at centralized high-performance computing centers like NERSC. I would prefer a 500-processor MPP with a very high speed per processor to an MPP with 20000 slow processors.
To a user, it seems that the management of hardware could be handled in a way that impacts users less severely. The scheduled Tuesday and Thursday afternoon shutdowns are interruptive and frustrating, particularly because mcurie usually goes down at least once a week anyways. However, as a system administrator for a workstation cluster, I recognize that maintenance is much more difficult than is usually apparent to users.
NERSC needs to stay abreast of the latest hardware technology available.
Make HPSS more dependable and efficient.
enhance symbolic math server
- Comments on queues: 11 responses
- 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)
On the T3E I would like to be able to run jobs longer than 4 hours with fewer than 64 processors
4 hours of duration for batch run and 0.5 hour for interactive run is too short. [T3E user]
Queues in the T3E system should be more flexible in time limit restrictions.
more long batch jobs [T3E user]
Some changes in the hardware and queue configurations. Jobs are a bit slow getting through the queues [...] [T3E user]
I had some trouble with queue structures ... when the job just did not fit into anything. i.e. was just a little too long (10 min. or so) don't be so strict with queue structures!
Queuing system is not straightforward. qstat command does not display job id's
make the batch queue process more transparent (i.e., understandable) to the general user. This thing about finding your batch job via the web is cumbersome & the result ('pending') pretty much useless.
An improvement in the batch queue I think would be very important, jobs that wait for 4-7 days in the queue might be needed in short time. [PVP user]
[...] I would suggest limiting the number of jobs that each user can put in the batch queue. [PVP user]
[...] Go back to an execution based priority system fore PVP batch jobs. [...]
- Comments on web documentation, training: 8 responses
- 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
Basic orientation for new users needs to be improved. I still have no idea what HPSS is or does, or what it means that I have an "HPSS account".
I would like a few pages written as welcome, together with some start-up info, instead of only the email. [...]
Better docs/web training for people who cannot regular attend NERSC talks.
People in the east cannot have too much access to the workshops and training sessions that are mostly offered in the west.
I would like easier/quicker access to the "information I need." Sometimes I don't know what I need, oftentimes you do not either. It's a difficult job trying to read the minds of your users.
Provide better web links to performance tuning.
write better web code -- for instance, I had filled out more than half of this form when I clicked on a link and came back to find all my answers gone -- hence the minimal response
Stop modifying the NERSC website (most importantly its structure) continuously. There was a period in the last 12 month where every single time I went to the NERSC website, it looked different. Even if it is getting "better" every time you touch, it is very annoying to figure out where the important piece is located now, within the new and different structure. Updating it too often defies the purpose of easy and fast acces of info.
- Comments on software: 9 responses
- 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
The accounting system mystefies me.
I like the change to default yearly accounting, the monthly accounting was a headache!
As a NERSC PI, I would appreciate it if you could provide access to better accounting information. For example, I find a number of things I don't like about setcub. It would be helpful if it would explicitly print out in the "user time remaining" and "charge time" columns what units are being used (i.e., PE-minutes, PE-hours) and over what time period the time remaining units apply (e.g., month's or year's allocation). This is confusing to users and tends to make them ignore setcub. Another capability which would be helpful to account managers would be if you would provide access to time history information by account and user; i.e., usage on a daily basis through the whole year which I could download into a spreadsheet for plotting and to extrapolate at what rate we're using up our time and check which users are burning it up most rapidly and if usage patterns have changed over time. Obviously, I could run setcub every day and collect this information myself, but that's a pain.
[...] Avoid changes in the compiler software if at all possible. Improve notification when it happens
I/we typically run FORTRAN codes at NERSC and port the data back to the office for plotting. We like to see minimal changes in compilers, graphics routines, software, etc... Once a code is working, we do not like to debug it or have to troubleshoot it.
[...] Also, I once requested that PGPLOT be installed on the CRAYs. This is free software, super-easy to install, and generally a wonderful library. But I got beaten down and told it was junk and would not be installed. In my opinion, NCAR Graphics is junk, yet you support it and promote it at the expense of simpler, better alternatives like PGPLOT. In this case, it really doesn't matter since I was able to install it myself in my own area in five minutes. But I'd rather use official, system-installed software whenever possible. and a terrific package for simple graphics.
I deplore the erosion of the engineering software and loss of DISSPLA graphics particularly nine months ago.
work on portability between PC-based programs and NERSC
[...] In the 'good old days' NERSC remedied deficiencies in vendor-supplied software by writing software of their own. This should be revived.
- Comments on interactive computing: 6 responses
- increase interactive resources (4 responses)
- don't increase interactive resources (1 response)
- wrtite software to enforce the T3E interactive policy
Interactive computing with 16-32 processors can be very helpful for some applications, even for production. I much prefer such computing to batch submissions, but I realize batch is a necessity. So do what you can for interactive computing.
My work requires that I run interactively. I may execute a program thirty to forty times a day, with each run requiring information from the previous one. With the availability of only one interactive machine (Killeen), NERSC seems to be strongly discouraging interactive use. There are several batch machines and those are always the ones that get the improvements and upgrades first. If it is NERSC's policy to minimize interactive computing , then that policy and reasons for it should be clearly stated.
NERSC should try listening to the users more. Among my co-workers, there is rampant dissatisfaction with the CRAYs' interactive and batch performance, but nothing seems to change over many years. [...] [PVP user]
I would appreciate very much if you could extend the interactive hours use. We would like to have ,at least some, processors at night, between 10 and one at night.
I think NERSC should heavily penalize people who use the facility interactively. There has been some recent suggestion that it be made more interactive and I strongly oppose that move.
Enforce the interactive usage policy on mcurie automatically (i.e., with software).
- Comments on the allocations process: 4 responses
Allocations
simplify application process
[...] At the same time, an explanation of how my proposal has been judged and why this amount of computing time has been reserved would be useful for my next proposals. I can't say much about the system itself, since I've just received the login and now I'm optimizing my codes. So, basically I haven't used the system jet.
Make the ERCAP request form somewhat shorter and the Web interface more bulletproof. Do not penalize T3E users so heavily for not using their time in the first two quarters of the year (some researchers have a lot more personal time/student assistants to accomplish more in the summer quarter than the previous 3 quarters).
- Other comments: 3 responses
Have consultants respond immediately rather than leave a message and have the consultant call back
Since I'm sited at LBL, I'd like there to be more seminars such as the ones CASC at LLNL hosts. That is, of course, peripheral to NERSC's charter, but maybe the center can help.
This is difficult to say from the user's point of view, as there are , I am sure many constraints on the NERSC staff and personnel who ensue a smooth operation of NERSC. I know it is only personal matter , but discontinuance of a toll-free telephone access from CANADA has caused me some concerns to contact NERSC by phone when I should do this. However, if I am alone in this position, I would go along with this policy as I have been doing for over a year now.
- Shorter survey: 2 responses
Your survey should be shortened if you want many people to respond.
Get the "importance" part of the survey to default to "Somewhat Important" :-). Make the survey shorter...I've nothing to say about most of these subjects. Maybe a checkbox at each section, "Section Does Not Apply" (e.g. training, have taken none from NERSC).
- Don't Know, No changes: 2 responses
Too early for me to tell.
None.
What additional services would you bke NERSC to provide? - 29 responses
- Software requests: 11 responses
Better critical evaluation of state-of-the art math/scientific/computational/visualization software. i.e., put together a sort of "consumer reports" evaluation of the available packages to assist users in making choices.
software support
make users better aware of support services in general-- perhaps a list and brief description could be made available to new usersThe ability to use rsh, rlogin, rcp, ssh, would greatly improve the access to the NERSC systems.
MOLPRO, Gaussian 98 [PVP user]
software porting services [...]
I would like NERSC to implement ssh-2 (secure shell - 2) as soon as possible. We are running it on some of our local workstations. Of course, ssh-1 is better than no ssh at all.
I would like to have a non-graphics debugging tool.
I hope Fortran77 is still supported
The PVP CRAYs really need to have GNU enscript installed. This is software I can hardly live without. Also, GCC is needed but I hear there is a problem with that. In general, you should have as much of GNU as you can get working.
T3E NCAR.
Allow me to put whatever software that I need onto the public space
- Web services, training, dissemination of information: 8 responses
User message board
Web server for users?
see below [email notification of downs]
Perhaps the ability to check how jobs are running from a web page, rather than having to log in. Would be especially useful if trying to connect from an unreliable service.
Get me the "information I need to do my work on your machines effectively and efficiently," quickly and concisely.
[...] meeting with scientist users
how about running classes on selected topics off-site (e.g., here at MIT)? You guys did a wonderful job when we converted from CTSS to unix.
Many production codes spend most of the CPU time on a small section of the code. NERSC experts could help user to optimize these critical part.
- More computers, cycles, inodes: 5 responses
A 2048-node T3E-1200 ...
more computer times
More inodes in T3E tmp storage space :-)
More PVP capacity
Singificant Beowulf cluster (bigger than current, say 100-400 CPUS)
- Visualization requests: 3 responses
More visualization tools
A few basic graphics programs: IDL, gnuplot, ...
Develop additional in-house (not dependent on LBL's graphics group) 3D/movie generation expertise and provide good Web pages (and or links to tutorials by other graphics groups at other institutions) in these areas. Present pages are not of uniformly high quality and/or seem to be frozen in time. For example, the "What's new" page is dated 5 June 1998 (as of 27 Sept. 1999). Also, there appears to be an emphasis on the Khoros/XPRISM tools as opposed to (possibly) more mainstream ones such as IBM's DataExplorer which has become more freely available (at least on workstations).
- Don't know / no specific requests: 3 responses
Don't know at this time.
Service is not the issue. I just want to run my jobs.
Keep updating machines and software (very general).
How does NERSC compare to other centers you have used? - 54 responses
- NERSC is best, better than: 26 responses
Excellent.
I use [name deleted].
NERSC is far superior...NERSC provides more computation cycles than NCSA or SDSC.
The best I have used. Others I have used include: (1) Argonne , (2) Pittsburg, and (3) San Diego.
NERSC is easier to get in and out of than LANL/ACL, which is the other center I use. Most of my experience is at NERSC, so I can't say much more than that.
Much better machines and support (ORNL CCS, SNL to a lesser extent).
Big advantage of NERSC: no limit on the number of jobs you can submit at any one time. It doesn't have no-queue-flood requirements.
North Carolina SuperComputer center.Much better than the [name deleted].
NERSC is the best I know of.
I'm using SDSC's SP and UGA's supercomputer (O2000, IBM SP). NERSC has by far the best turnaround time of all of these, the SDSC hardware is better for my application but waiting time is too long.
Better.
Much better than anywhere else (SDSC, LANL, NCEP(NOAA)
the best service and computers
The best one
I stopped using [name deleted] quite sometime ago because your allocation process is much easier and yours staff is so helpful.
By far the best.
LLNL,ORNL,LANL ACL, EPA NESC, etcTHIS IS THE BEST. I have used Canadian supercomputing facilities at U of Toronto, and Eagan Supercomputing Center.
It is more responsive to users needs (compared to [name deleted] for instance)
NERSC appears to be less bureaucratic than [name deleted], and I hope it will stay this way.
Much, much better in almost every way than [name deleted].
NERSC has tended to provide better production facilities than other centres I have used, and has been more stable (2 of the centres I can compare it with PSC and SCRI are now defunct).
better than any other used [names deleted]
NERSC ranks at the top. Have used ULCC and MCC (UK Centres).
very well compared to [name deleted], where I work
The computational power simple does not compare to any other I've used.
[NERSC offers the best computational resources that I have ever found.]I used the IBM SP at the Cornell Theory Center from 1995-1997. The batch queueing system at NERSC is a lot better than what they had there.
Compared to Maui SP and the Berkeley NOW, the NERSC machines are much more reliable.
- Favorable evaluation, only use NERSC: 12 responses
Have not used any other resource than NERSC, as I could not find a better place to run my projects.
In spite of some of my answers, I think that overall NERSC does an outstanding job and meets the bulk of my requirements. It is one of the very few (only?) computer centers that provides a useful interactive environment. Some of your consultants are absolutely outstanding, others unfortunately are not. The other centers I use are primarily NAS, GFDL, and LLNL.
Very well.
Pretty well.
I've predominately used NERSC so have nothing else to compare to.
Have not used other centers.
Pretty good
It's been so long since I used anyone else...
Excellent center
NERSC does very well.
You are very good!
I have not used other centers.
- NERSC is the same as; mixed evaluation: 10 responses
Comparable.
The only other centers I have used are:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Computing Center (LLNL LC).
NASA GoddardBetter than ORNL's CCS. On par with MHPCC (Maui). Less flexible than Caltech's CACR (but also much larger).
About as good or slightly better than NCAR.
NERSC is comparable to the other supercomputing center I am using (San Diego Supercomputing Center). SDSC has a better vector machine (t90), but it would not be a matter. SDSC will phase out t90 soon.
NERSC compares well with other centers. I would only appreciate a 24hr queue on T3E as it exists at Pittsburgh. The other computer centers I have used are: Pittsburgh, NCSA and National Laboratory.
Compares well with other computer centers (EMSL, MCS here at Argonne, the HPC centre at Auckland University and csc in Espoo, Finland with maybe the only disadvantage being that I can often get bigger jobs through faster at EMSL- this is not a big issue for me however.
NERSC is probably the best center in terms of user support, meaning consulting and account services. Probably as a result of this, there are a large number of users competing for time at NERSC, so the amount of CPU time that we can get there is much smaller than at several other centers.
I am comparing NERSC to the NSF centers at San Diego and Illinois, to the former DOE center at ORNL, and to the Pittsburgh Supercomputer Center.San Diego Supercomputer Center - about the same
Nersc and the LLNL centers compare very favorably in quality of services and performance, and excellent attitude.
Slower turnaround time for batch jobs but otherwise comparable to SDSC, NCSA, the late lamented PSC, and NASA Goddard (NCCS). As a remote user with my own codes I don't find any very significant difference, aside from turnaround and the connectivity problem above.
- NERSC is less good: 4 responses
OSC: like their flexible allocation structure (allocation committee meets every 2 months)
more flexible as far as queues are concernedI can only compare with centers consisting of fewer individuals and that is not be fair. Last year I had access to a 16 processor SGI, very lightly loaded. MPI was part of the operating system and codes were extremely easy to run. And there was no accounting!
NPACI (not really a center but a collection of centers) sends out e-mail when a system goes down unexpectedly and and also projects when the affected system will be available again. Perhaps not everyone would like to be on such an e-mail list, but I would appreciate that kind of information about the T3E.
Compared to NERSC, the NCSA supercomputer system (in Urbana-Champaign) has much more flexibility in time limit and PE limit for batch jobs.
- No comparison provided: 3 responses
Emerson Center (Emory University). This group's PC cluster.
SDSC, NAVO
North Carolina Supercomputing Center
