todo
follow the guidelines
re-read the NSF's grant solicitation
re-read the Proposal Prepartion Instructions, lots of details
re-read Jerry's mail messages
re-read the NSF's grant proposal guide (NSF 01-2)
re-read the Linux lab grant and feedback
re-read the parallel course grant and feedback
re-read the president's council report on HPC, open source software
read Merit Review Criteria: Standard National Science Board approved criteria.
read Additional considerations: See Section VI, Proposal Review Information.
read the NSF's strategic plan to see what's important to them.
* jerry did this, see his mail message for the quotes
where is the best place(s) to incorporate the response to this?
check for spelling, ???, bibliography
follow the guidelines
check the folder of previous grants in Wildman for re-usable text
fixup www.cs.earlham.edu content
larry wall pix
esr pix
hip
pa-rdbms
current classes
follow the guidelines
setup preliminary items in FastLane
assemble bibliography, where should it go?
people to review the proposal
Jerry, 616 842 5272, jerryb@novagate.com
Alex's mom
Paul Ogren
Lew
resources to check
visual display of quantitative information, tufte
guidelines for preparing proposals, meador
* good suggestions in the NSF section
questions for Joe Burt - 703/292-8040
where should the bibliography go?
is it ok to include a small piece on dissemination? if so where
where should I put the prose "this is why I think we're poised
to run with a project like this, even though it's a very big step
for us"
questions for len
can students be paid more than work study amount from a grant? is
there a difference between summer and academic year?
* len trying to take sci div concerns seriosly, trying to finance
hughes without matthews, but we're heading towards a time when
matthews and other summer science money is getting tighter
* terrible breach of procedure that a/d let donors and scientists
talk about how the money would be used without consulting len,
doug, alice, etc.
MRI Program Goals
? Support the acquisition, through purchase, upgrade, or
development, of major state-of-the-art instrumentation for research,
research training, and integrated research/education activities at
U.S. institutions;
? Improve access to and increase use of modern research and research
training instrumentation by scientists, engineers, and graduate and
undergraduate students;
? Enable academic departments or cross-departmental units to create
well-equipped learning environments that integrate research with
education;
? Foster the development of the next generation of instrumentation
for research and research training; and
? Promote partnerships between academic researchers and private
sector instrument developers.
increase access to scientific and engineering equipment for research
and research training.
improve the quality and expand the scope of research and research
training in science and engineering.
foster the integration of research and education by providing
instrumentation for research intensive learning environments.
Proposal Review Criteria
What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and
understanding within its own field or across different fields? How
well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the
project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality
of prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest
and explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and
organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to
resources?
What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while
promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the
proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented
groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To
what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and
education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and
partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance
scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits
of the proposed activity to society?
Principal Investigators should address the following elements in
their proposal to provide reviewers with the information necessary to
respond fully to both of the above-described NSF merit review
criteria. NSF staff will give these elements careful consideration
in making funding decisions.
Integration of Research and Education
One of the principal strategies in support of NSF's goals is to
foster integration of research and education through the programs,
projects and activities it supports at academic and research
institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities
where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as
researchers, educators, and students and where all can engage in
joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery
and enrich research through the diversity of learning perspectives.
Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities
Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all
citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons
with disabilities -- are essential to the health and vitality of
science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of
diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and
activities it considers and supports.
Additional Considerations
In addition to the evaluation criteria stated above, NSF will
consider the following factors in making MRI awards:
? Instrument development with a private sector partner;
? The ability to demonstrate the shared use of the instruments for
research and/or research training;
? Whether the research and/or research training served by the
instrumentation advances the goals and aligns with the goals and core
strategies articulated in the Foundation's strategic plan (available
on the NSF homepage at );
? Commitment of the MRI program to supporting quality proposals
from non-Ph.D. granting and minority-serving institutions;
? Geographic distribution and distribution across Ph.D. and
non-Ph.D. granting institutions; and
? Management plans for oversight of acquisition of instruments to
be developed by third parties.
Research Training: Training of individuals (including advanced
undergraduates, graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and faculty) in
research techniques where such activities utilize the same facilities as
research activities. Research training does not include introductory
science or engineering instruction, whether in a classroom or
instructional laboratory.
The proposal should present the (1) objectives and scientific or
educational significance of the proposed work; (2) suitability of the
methods to be employed; (3) qualifications of the investigator and the
grantee organization(see endnote 2); (4) effect of the activity on the
infrastructure of science, engineering and education; and (5) amount of
funding required. It should present the merits of the proposed project
clearly and should be prepared with the care and thoroughness of a paper
submitted for publication. Sufficient information should be provided so
that reviewers will be able to evaluate the proposal in accordance with
the two merit review criteria established by the National Science Board.
(See Chapter III .)
GRB: Watch their schedule for when they will make the grant. This
determines when you can start the project.
B. FORMAT OF THE PROPOSAL
1. Proposal Pagination Instructions
Proposers are advised that FastLane does not automatically paginate a
proposal. Each section of the proposal that is submitted through use of
a PDF file must be paginated.
2. Proposal Margin and Spacing Requirements
Proposals must have 2.5 cm margins at the top, bottom and on each side.
The type size must be clear and readily legible, and conform to the
following three requirements: 1) the height of the letters must not be
smaller than 10 point; 2) type density must be no more than 15
character ûs per 2.5 cm; (for proportional spacing, the average for any
representative section of text must not exceed 15 characters per 2.5
cm); and 3) no more than 6 lines must be within a vertical space of 2.5
cm. The type size used throughout the proposal must conform to all
three requirements. While line spacing (single-spaced, double-spaced,
etc.) is at the discretion of the proposer, established page limits
must be followed. (Individual program solicitations may eliminate this
proposer option.)
While the guidelines specified above establish the minimum type size
requirements, PIs are advised that readability is of paramount
importance and should take precedence in selection of an appropriate
font for use in the proposal.
1. Project Summary Ñ Proposal Section A
The proposal must contain a summary of the proposed activity suitable
for publication, not more than one page in length. It should not be an
abstract of the proposal, but rather a self-contained description of
the activity that would result if the proposal were funded. The summary
should be written in the third person and include a statement of
objectives, methods to be employed and the potential impact of the
project on advancing knowledge, science and mathematics education,
and/or human resource development. It should be informative to other
persons working in the same or related fields and, insofar as possible,
understandable to a scientifically or technically literate lay reader.
5. Biographical Sketches Ñ Proposal Section E
Biographical sketches are limited to two pages each and are required
for all senio ¬r project personnel. (See Appendix B for the definition of
Senior Personnel.) The following information must be provided in the
order and format specified below:
a. Professional Preparation. A list of the individualÕs undergraduate
and graduate education and postdoctoral training as indicated
below:
Undergraduate Institution(s) Major Degree & Year
Graduate Institution(s) Major Degree & Year
Postdoctoral Institution(s) Area Inclusive Dates (years)
b. Appointments. A list, in reverse chronological order, of all the
individualÕs academic/professional appointments beginning with the
current appointment.
c. Publications. (i) A list of up to 5 publications most closely
related to the proposed project. (ii) A list of up to 5 other
significant publications, whether or not related to the proposed
project. Each publication identified must include Íthe names of all
authors (in the same sequence in which they appear in the
publication), the article title, book or journal title, volume
number, page numbers, year of publication, and website address if
available electronically.
For unpublished manuscripts, list only those submitted or accepted
for publication (along with most likely date of publication).
Patents, copyrights and software systems developed may be
substituted for publications. Additional lists of publications,
invited lectures, etc., must not be included. Only the list of 10
will be used in the review of the proposal.
d. Synergistic Activities. A list of up to five examples that
demonstrate the broader impact of the individualÕs professional
and scholarly activities that focus on the integration and
transfer of knowledge as well as its creation. Examples could
include, among others: innovations in teaching and training ( óe.g.,
development of curricular materials and pedagogical methods);
contributions to the science of learning; development and/or
refinement of research tools; computation methodologies, and
algorithms for problem-solving; development of databases to
support research and education; broadening the participation of
groups underrepresented in science, mathematics, engineering and
technology; and service to the scientific and engineering
community outside of the individualÕs immediate organization.
e. Collaborators & Other Affiliations
(i) Collaborators. A list of all persons in alphabetical order
(including their current organizational affiliations) who are
currently or who have been collabo rators or co-authors with the
individual on a project, book, article, report, abstract or paper
during the 48 months preceding the submission of this proposal.
Include collaborators on this proposal. If there are no
collaborators, this should be so indicated.
(ii) Graduate and Postdoctoral Advisors. A list of the names of
the individualÕs own graduate advisor(s) and principal
postdoctoral sponsor(s), and their current organizational
affiliations.
(iii) Thesis Advisor and Postgraduate-Scholar Sponsor. A list of
all persons (including their organizational affiliations), over
the last five years with whom the individual has had an
association as thesis advisor or postgraduate-scholar sponsor. The
total number of graduate students advised and postdoctoral
scholars sponsored also must be identified.
The information in part e of the biographical sketch is used to
help identify potential conflicts or bias in the selection of
reviewers.
For the personnel categories listed below, the proposal also may
include information on exceptional qualifications that merit
consideration in the evaluation of the proposal.
a. Postdoctoral associates b. Other professionals c. Students
(research assistants)
For equipment proposals, the following must be provided for each
auxiliary user:
a. Short biographical sketch
b. List of up to five publications most closely related to the
proposed acquisition
a. Salaries and Wages (Lines A and B on the Proposal Budget)
(i) Policies
As a general policy, NSF reco ´gnizes that salaries of faculty
members and other personnel associated directly with the
project constitute appropriate direct costs and may be
requested in proportion to the effort devoted to the project.
NSF regards research as one of the normal functions of
faculty members at institutions of higher education.
Compensation for time normally spent on research within the
term of appointment is deemed to be included within the
faculty memberÕs regular organizational salary. Grant funds
may not be used to augment the total salary or rate of salary
of faculty members during the period covered by the term of
faculty appointment or to reimburse faculty members for
consulting or other time in addition to a regular full-time
organizational salary covering the same general period of
employment. Exceptions may be considered under certain NSF
science and engineering edu Ïcation program solicitations for
weekend and evening classes or for administrative work done
as overload. (See GPM Section 611.)
Summer salary for faculty members on academic-year
appointments is limited to no more than twoninths of their
regular academic-year salary. This limit includes summer
salary received from all NSF-funded grants.
These same principles apply to other types of non-academic
organizations, such as research institutes. Since their
employment periods are usually annual, salary must be shown
under Òcalendar months.Ó For such persons, Òsummer salaryÓ is
normally inappropriate under an NSF grant.
Sometimes an independent institute or laboratory proposes to
employ college or university faculty members on a part-time
basis. In such cases, the general intent of the policies
above apply, so that an individualÕs total income will not be
augmented in ways that would not â be possible under a grant to
an academic institution.
In most circumstances, particularly for institutions of
higher education, salaries of administrative or clerical
staff are included as part of indirect costs (also known as
Facilities and Administrative Costs (F&A) for Colleges and
Universities). Salaries of administrative or clerical staff
may be requested as direct costs, however, for a project
requiring an extensive amount of administrative or clerical
support and where these costs can be readily and specifically
identified with the project with a high degree of accuracy.
The circumstances for requiring direct charging of these
services must be clearly described in the budget
justification. Such costs, if not clearly justified, may be
deleted by NSF.
(ii) Procedures
The names of the PI(s), faculty, and other senior personnel
and the estimated number of full-timeequivalent
academic- {year, summer, or calendar-year person-months for
which NSF funding is requested and the rates of pay, must be
listed. For postdoctoral associates and other professionals,
each position must be listed, with the number of
full-time-equivalent person-months and rate of pay (hourly,
monthly or annual). For graduate and undergraduate students,
secretarial, clerical, technical, etc., whose time will be
charged directly to the project, only the total number of
persons and total amount of salaries per year in each
category is required. Salaries requested must be consistent
with the organizationÕs regular practices.
The budget may request funds for support of graduate or
undergraduate research assistants to help carry out the
proposed research. Compensation classified as salary payments
must be requested in the salari •es and wages category. Any
direct costs requested for tuition remission must be listed
in the "Other" category under ÒOther Direct CostsÓ.
carefully describe my activities under the grant as technical
support and operation, not research. This program doesn't pay
for research. There is a line, which for now at least is in a
slightly different place in CS than in other disciplines, between
supporting someones use of the instrument by providing technical
expertise and actually doing their research. We need to respect
this line.
this isn't for general purpose use, specifically to support
computational intensive research in CS, math, physics, biology,
and chemistry.
how to best address the merit review criteria? See the Director's letter
misc
say something about my technical and organizational skills, work with
commercial folks on high-end system issues, plan and execute large
technical projects, etc.
check my email, files, etc. for text to reuse. build an outline,
find stuff to fill it.
do I need to sell open source and Linux specifically?
* it might still be necessary. will be reviewed by a panel with
cs people, consult with the program director in cs for mri.
* julia abrhams, 703/292-8980, jabraham@nsf.gov, she said "Use your
judgment. The reviewers will be reflecting a broad range of
backgrounds." I take this as include the text supporting open
source.
even though dissemination isn't a part of mri proposals I think
there is an important one here to make it easy, a pattern, for
small institutions to utilize Beowolf clusters in undergraduate
research environments.
Committing to open sourcing all our work is a powerful form of
dissemination. Cite the panel's recomendation to do this.
my research
high availability
rdbms performance
distributed rdbms protocols
utility server (platform ind operating system services)
first beowolf cluster
as the work load varies on the Beowulf cluster we will closely monitor
the CPU, memory, network, and disk loads and explore different architectures
and their ability to support particular activities. The different
approaches which we will consider generally fall into catagories by
resource type:
- CPU
scheduling
fault tolerance
- Memory
fault tolerance
- Disk
fault tolerance
- Network
fault tolerance
general stuff
ip address takeover
ieee cluster taskforce
beowulf.org
linux ha project website
This project will address the needs of researchers involved in solving
large nonlinear problems, which exhibit multiple solution paths, or
large-scale minimization problems with multiple local minima. It will
develop a library of visualization and computational steering tools to
address path following problems efficiently on Beowulf computer clusters.
It will also provide tools for optimization of the cluster communication.
It will produce tools that are integrated with the CUMULVS steering and
visualization environment. The software libraries will be open source and
provided to the community of researchers and users.
MRI: Acquisition and Analysis of a Multidisciplinary Beowulf Cluster
It is proposed to design, acquire, build, and test a ``Beowulf cluster``
multiprocessor that will provide a high performance computing environment for
multidisciplinary scientific research and research training at Calvin
College. The objective is to determine what cluster design is best suited for
research projects in multiple disciplines. More precisely, it is proposed to
spend three years studying the performance of three common cluster topologies
on different kinds of research problems. The aim of the study is to identify
the cluster topologies that are best suited for particular kinds of problems,
as well as identify what topology provides the best overall performance for
multidisciplinary research machine.
http://cs.calvin.edu/research/ohm/
MRI: Acquisition of High Performance Clusters for Effective Parallel
Computing in Computational Science Research and Education
The PIs request funding to purchase and operate a high speed network of
computer systems that will complement state investment in computational
science at College of William and Mary and help drive significant,
related research and educational activities. The equipment will be used
as the centerpiece of the common research focus: the effective use of
parallel systems for scientific computation. The PIs seek hardware that
balances the many needs of their activities. The selected architecture
consists of three interconnected subsystems each of which is a cluster of
workstations or PC's. Two of these are 16-processor and 32-procesor
Pentium-based Beowulf-like systems built with different interconnection
networks, and the third is a combination of four 4-processor SUN
multiprocessors.
Projects Involving Computer Science and Physics Majors in Collaboration
There is currently a need to port data analysis software to the LINUX
operating system and perhaps to produce graphical user interfaces for
some of this software. These analysis packages are used to produce,
view and manipulate one and two dimensional histograms of data. For
particularly ambitious students, there are potential projects
involving development of analysis software "from scratch."
There may be opportunities to port theoretical nuclear physics
calculations to the LINUX operating system. It would be useful to
run them on the parallel virtual machine (PVM) currently under
construction by the CS Department. We must first enlist a nuclear
theorist interested in collaborating with us.
features and benefits
open source - feature
wide dissemination - benefit
easily reconfigurable - feature
adaptive to a variety of workloads - benefit
off the shelf components - feature
easily replicable in other similar environments - benefit
low cost - benefit
Open source software and techniques ... (check the pa-rdbms notes.)
what we're going to produce
all that research
open source software kit for HPC aimed at startup institutions
documentation on the construction and support of low cost Beowolf
clusters, this is our dissemination
what they don't want
Computers as general purpose networks will not be considered.
This program will not support renovation or modernization of research
facilities or fixed equipment (see definitions).
no connection to disease or health related research. check the
exact language.
advice
mail message from Lew - 20 December 2000
Since this is a research grant and the CCLI was a pedagogical one, I
don't thing the same (curricular) objections will apply. My main
concern is that NSF reviewers will probably look for a research track
record. At least, that seems to be the way it goes in physics. Is
there a way to collaborate with Jim on a proposal? That is, would the
cluster also support his research? I can associate myself with the
proposal, but the parallel calculations we've done are not central to
the publishable stuff I do, so I would be a support but not a strong
link.
Charlie Peck wrote:
That's what I'm thinking. It looks like Ball State is going to
be a bust. The only thing I may be able to work-out with them is
a letter of introduction to IUPUI's database group that started
about a year ago. I'm not real encouraged right now about the
process aspects of all this but I am going to visit IUPUI next
week to see what's there and what it's like. I am very excited
about the work itself, the NSF grant would be a nice way to
support my project. One concern that I have is that the
reviewers of Joy's grant were pretty clear that they didn't think
parallel techniques belonged at the undergraduate level. While
not centered in parallelism like Joy's project mine is still
fairly close-by. I won't have a commitment from any institution
before Feb 7th to oversee my work. Do you think I could write-up
the application without mentioning that I'm also trying to pitch
this project as a Master's thesis?
conversation with Len - 12 January 2001
talk to amy about hughes support
talk to alice about modest f/k support for a startup project
len is willing to write a note to the two of them