Session T4C INTEGRATING COMPUTING RESOURCES IN THE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING Nancy LaTourrette1 , Yaakov Varol 2 Abstract Computing resources are a necessity for course work in all engineering disciplines. Some departments respond to these needs by creating small departmental computing laboratories with little collaboration, significant overlap in software and hardware, and ineffective use of space. Combining computing resources for a college can transform a decentralized, disconnected group of computers and labora tories into a centralized, unified computing environment. This could result in greater access, increased software availability, and better equipment. In this paper we report on a transition to an integrated computing center and on the design and layout of such a facility. We discuss the hardware and software resources of a multi-platform, multidiscipline computing environment. Advantages and disadvantages of a centralized computing facility are addressed. The pros and cons are presented from the different viewpoints of the lab’s constituents: academic administrators, faculty, students, and facility staff. Index Terms Centralized computing, integrating computing resources, laboratory infrastructure.
INTRODUCTION A chronic topic of heated partisan debates at universities has been the issue of centralized versus decentralized computing resources. Over time there has not been a clear and uniform answer to the question of what level and degree of centralization is best for an institution or a unit within an institution. Before computing became a significant element of academic endeavor, most of it was centralized except for the work of a few well-funded scientists. With the phenomenal growth in the need for computing, the proliferation of computers, and the cheaper, more abundant resources, the demand for independence and autonomy grew. However, decentralization led to increased financial cost, complexity, and inefficiency. People realized that a balance had to be struck between centralized versus decentralized computing resources. What the balance is depends on the computing resources that are needed and available and the constituents interacting with them. The resources can be hardware, software, physical space, communications, and human expertise. The constituents are students, faculty, administrators, and personnel. There are significant differences how these constituents are affected by the balance of centralized versus decentralized resources, and how they view what the correct balance should be. 1 2
In a typical College of Engineering with a decentralized approach to computing resources, every department would have its own equipment, tools, laboratory, technicians, etc. responding to the needs and requirements of its own constituents. Under ideal circumstances, every department would have full control over its computing resources and would not have to share. However, the College’s financial resources would be stretched thin. Multiple labs are costly to maintain and become underutilized because they are too restrictive and cater to limited user groups. Searching for the common denominator of the computing needs of all the disciplines was the beginning of the centralization process in the College of Engineering at the University of Nevada, Reno. The process started by recognizing that all engineering students needed to take an introductory computer science/programming course. It was soon realized that a centralized computing laboratory needed to be established to provide most, if not all, the instructional needs of the college. The advantages were clear to everyone: reliability and availability, overall savings and efficiency, and increased productivity. The downside was also obvious. Such a central facility could not satisfy all the needs of all the students and faculty at all times. An ideal balance between PCs and workstations and between server-based networked software and stand-alone environments proved to be difficult to establish. In this paper, we will chronicle the path taken by the College of Engineering at the University of Nevada, Reno, the views of some constituents, what has been achieved, and what are the current and potential problems of a centralized computing facility.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CHALLENGES Prior to Fall 1999, the instructional computing resources in the College of Engineering included: i. A 22-unit PC lab used primarily for Civil and Mechanical Engineering needs. The units were not standard and did not have uniform software, and the lab was not adequately staffed. ii. An aging Hewlett Packard lab serving Electrical Engineering faculty and students. iii. A 20-unit networked PC lab used for the instruction of CS1 to all engineering majors. This lab was shared with faculty and students from the School of Mines. iv. A 20-unit networked Sun workstations lab used for research and upper level Computer Science courses.
Nancy LaTourrette, University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Computer Science, Reno, NV 89557-0030,
[email protected] Yaakov Varol, University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Computer Science, Reno, NV 89557-0030,
[email protected]
0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV 31 st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T4C-1
Session T4C There were also individual units or clusters of research facilities in faculty offices and special labs. The general networking needs of the College were taken care of by a Hewlett Packard server in Electrical Engineering. The Computer Science department had its own network and a number of SUN servers, independent from the College network. Space and significant initial funding were prerequis ites to creating a unified and centralized computing laboratory facility for the College. Space had to be contiguous and centrally located. When the Engineering library was moved to another building and combined with the Mines library about 4,000 square feet became available. Funding could not be carved out from existing college resources, and there was no hope for new institutional resources to be forthcoming. Through gifts and grants of money, equipment, and services, adequate resources were found to renovate the space and properly equip the Center. A third challenge was securing an ongoing operational budget. To a large extent, this was achieved by pooling a portion of student course fees, previously allocated to individual departments.
NEEDS AND RATIONALE Students want computer resources that are available on demand. They want human resources that are immediately accessible and have the answers to their questions. They also want a friendly and familiar interface, ample space, and the opportunity to interact and collaborate. Faculty want to see students’ needs satisfied and their questions answered – minimizing the need for faculty involvement in dealing with and resolving students’ computing-related problems. They want to have the freedom to choose software and assign projects purely based on academic concerns and leave the follow-up, the details, and the ensuing problems to someone else. Typically, faculty are not always willing to invest their time and intellect to learning and mastering new tools. They prefer to rely on technicians and assistants. This resistance to change presents a serious problem with the ever-changing landscape of computer hardware and software. Finally, faculty sometimes are less than realistic in assuming that there can be unlimited funding and limitless expertise that can be devoted to their needs. For instance, faculty may want to have MathCad and MatLab and half a dozen software packages that essentially do the same things on all the machines. They may want the latest office tools and software development environment. Conversely, they may not be willing to give up old software or environments that might not be compatible with the rest of the system because of their comfort level with that particular resource. There are two other constituents with different views of the challenges and opportunities inherent in this debate of centralized versus decentralized computing resources. They are the academic administrators of the College and the staff
who are responsible for the delivery of the computing resources. The administrators, including the Dean and Department Chairs, have to balance fiscal commitments on the one hand and provide resources which are not only necessary for instruction and research but also enhance the quality and productivity of instruction and research. The staff, which may include an overall Director, system and networking personnel, and help desk personnel, also have conflicting interests. On the one hand, they wish to provide the best possible service, but on the other hand, they want to minimize the complexity and amount of administration, while keeping the constituents happy. They are aware of the fact that because of fiscal and system limitations, they and the computing resources can not be all things to all constituents at all times. Furthermore, resource allocation inherently makes some people happy at the expense of others. This conflict of interest extends to system security which demands a balance between what is best for the group versus restrictions on the individual.
CURRENT LAYOUT Cognizant of the challenges described above, the College set out to establish a computing center that would have both walk-in and classroom portions, Windows-oriented PCs and UNIX-based workstations all in one centralized location with a certain degree of unified network backbone. The physical layout of the Center took shape as 4 computer rooms, a server room, and a central waiting area surrounding a help desk. The front two rooms on either side of the lab are the drop-in rooms - one containing Windows machines, the other UNIX workstations. The back two computer rooms are the teaching classrooms, again split between Windows and UNIX machines. Overall, the Center has 85 client machines: 43 Silicon Graphic’s O2s running IRIX and 42 CUBIX boxes running Windows NT as thin clients. In addition, there are 13 servers: 6 Windows and 7 UNIX machines. The Windows servers consist of 2 domain controllers (one a file server) and 4 application servers. The UNIX servers consists of a file server, two mail servers, a remote login host, a web server, a log server, and a printer server. The printer server runs Samba and controls printing for both the Windows and UNIX clients. The Windows application servers have Citrix Metaframe running on top of Windows 2000 Terminal Services. The Windows clients then act as thin clients, wherein all computing is done on the servers. The thin client environment was chosen because of economics and the desire for efficient systems administration. Technically, all computers have most, if not all, the software needed for the various disciplines, but not all software applications work in this environment The help desk, with adequate room to seat four staff members, houses four computers. The remote login host
0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV 31 st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T4C-2
Session T4C resides there along with three of the client machines: two UNIX workstations and one Windows box. The other 82 client machines are distributed among the drop-in labs and teaching classrooms. The Windows and UNIX classrooms house 24 computers each and the drop-in labs contain 16 computers each. Each drop-in lab also has a media machine which is configured with a zip drive, CDROM drive and/or floppy drive. The Center opened in the Fall semester of 1999 and began to be referred to as the Engineering Computing Center (ECC).
CS Research Lab
Windows Classroom
Unix Classroom
Server Room
The College has a computing committee, consisting of a representative from each discipline, the Dean, the Director, a lab manager, and the systems staff. The computing committee helps in setting long range goals and addressing long term needs, both financial and computing. They also help set the overall policies of the lab. The lab manager oversees the day-to-day operations of the lab. This oversight includes hiring and assigning duties to student workers, setting and implementing policies, working with systems staff and doing systems administration, scheduling classroom times and coordinating with faculty on software needs, and maintaining software licenses and hardware maintenance contracts. The lab manager is supported in systems work by personnel from the University-wide Campus Telecommunications and Computing division on an as needed basis. The help desk is staffed during all hours of operation by student workers. Their duties range from clearing paper jams to helping students with software to doing systems work. The drop-in labs never have scheduled classes and are for student use during all hours of operation. The classrooms have priority use by courses either on a weekly or semester basis. When no course is scheduled, the classrooms are used as drop-in overflow. Engineering faculty and staff may have an account. Students with a primary major in the college are automatically issued an account and monthly printing quota. Students with a major outside of the College, but taking an engineering class, are also eligible for an account with reduced printing privileges.
EXPERIENCE AND OUTCOME
Help Desk
Windows Drop-In
Unix Drop-In
FIGURE. 1 LAYOUT OF THE ENGINEERING COMPUTING CENTER
The facility is under the auspices of the Dean’s office. The Director is a tenured professor whose primary responsibility is to provide an interface between the various constituents and suggest politically correct solutions if, and when, conflicts arise over allocations of resources. The Director also does long range planning including securing funding and resources, in addition to setting policy.
There are currently 1300 active accounts. The lab has been accessed by all departments for classroom instruction. Usage runs from a one-time class to a series of 3-4 weekly classes to semester long classes. Observing the relatively smooth operation of ECC today, one is likely to forget the difficult and untimely initial transition that was experienced. The difficulty arose due to reliance on optimistic projections of when the physical facility would be available for hardware and software installation. A difficult mid-semester transition was forced upon the Center. The differences in the computing habits of various departments, faculty, and students were difficult to bridge. Integrating currently used software within the new system presented a challenge. Many engineers initially resis ted learning to navigate the UNIX systems. Nevertheless, problems were resolved, and people soon began to see the benefits of a centralized facility. Now that the Engineering Computing Center has had operational experience, some of the pros and cons are emerging and being crystallized. They vary among constituents groups, and they may be quite different within a particular group. However, there are several general effects of the ECC which have emerged.
0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV 31 st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T4C-3
Session T4C • • • • •
College wide, the level of computing work has increased in quality and quantity. ECC has become a focal point where students congregate and carry on academic networking. It has become a place where Teaching Assistants (and occasionally instructors) hold impromptu “office” hours or tutoring sessions. It is a modern, impressive facility which creates a positive impression on prospective students and their families and on industry partners and colleagues. It enables the College to project a technically up-to-date image.
The pros and cons attributed to the Center are significantly different as seen from the various constituents. We try to identify some and list them in the paragraphs below. For the academic administrators, the positives far out weigh the negatives. The pros are: • Overall control and ability to direct the computing resources of the College. • Capability for long-range planning. • Less duplication in software and hardware and increased buying power. • More efficiency and better utilization of computing resources. • One set of staff for College computing. The primary negative for the academic administrators is that they have to confront and satiate increased appetite and expectation for computing resources. They have to become directly involved with more details. The Dean and the Chairs have to deal collectively and, at times, compromise in trying to satisfy the increased demand. For the faculty, the advantages, once again, far out weigh the disadvantages, and they are: • The freedom to assign projects and homework knowing that resources are available. • The capability to teach software with simultaneous access by the whole class. • More effective use of Teaching Assistants’ time and talent. • The ability to divert students’ routine questions to the Center. • Increased options and choices in both software and hardware. • Improved reliability. For the typical faculty, the biggest change has been the marginal loss of direct control and the fact that requests and problem solving have been removed from the department to the College level. In addition, preferred software may not be compatible with the computing environment and compromises must be made.
The students are by far the biggest beneficiaries of the Center, although they may not realize it fully. The positives are: • Students can quickly put into practice what they have been told in the classroom. • One location where all Engineering students have equal access and opportunity. • Files used for class work in one location. • A place to gather and work together on homework and projects. • Interdisciplinary bonding and synergistic learning. As some students will readily attest, there are definitely more rules, regulations, and rigidity associated with a Center of this size and diversity. For instance, they may not be able to play computer games as they want or change the computing environment as they please. The nature and scope of the services provided by staff and systems people are significantly different in a centralized facility. Overall, the task of managing a large computing center is more complex. The primary problem is the time and effort required to make the environment respond to the needs of a large and diverse population. It is difficult to synchronize software purchases for all departments and make sure that every piece of requested software is compatible with the current system configuration. With many more scheduling requests from faculty, coordinating class times in the lab has become a secondary challenge.
CONCLUSION When faculty and students experience the advantages of a centralized computing facility, they quickly learn to adjust upward their needs and expectations. This initial premise proved to be correct and fully realized in our case. Our approach to centralized college computing did achieve a good balance between Windows and UNIX systems. The thin client approach we implemented, although short of ideal, has garnered a reasonable level of acceptance and appears to be satisfactory. As a result, many users have become computationally more active and definitely more versatile, using not only Windows but also UNIX-based products. Faculty and students do not feel constrained or limited by other users. This may soon change considering the increase in usage that is being experienced. The concerns and problems faced by administrators and systems staff have so far been mostly transparent to the users, but this may also soon change as the complexity of the facility increases to meet the sophisticated demand.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank the referees for their detailed and helpful comments.
0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV 31 st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T4C-4
