UK e-Science Technical Report Series
ISSN 1751-5971
Review of Network Provision for Research Needs
Undertaken on behalf of the JISC
John Duke and Andy Jordan
03-2006
Abstract:
This review examines the network infrastructure provision and use patterns in leading research
departments in the UK. The information was gathered by visits, telephone interviews, and web surveys
conducted with 5*-rated research departments. The associated ICT service departments were also
surveyed.
For a number of services, there are significant differences between groups who are aware of the Grid
and groups who are not, with Grid-awareness being largely associated with science and engineering
departments. Grid-aware respondents are generally happier with the speed and reliability of their
network connections than non-Grid-aware respondents. They are also more likely to find their research
work impaired by departmental firewalls. Grid-aware departments make greater use of departmental
servers for specialist software, data storage and backup, while non-Grid-aware departments make much
more use of central servers. The ICT service departments’ responses are generally similar to those of
the non-Grid aware research groups.
Some issues of concern arise from the survey. There is a pressing need to replace legacy networking in
about 30% of institutions. Many users rely on personal media (DVDs, CDs and other external media)
for data storage and backup, and this fact is not fully appreciated by ICT departments. Lack of
information about Grid computing and the apparently closed nature of the Grid community are barriers
to wider use of the Grid.
The review makes the following recommendations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The third of institutions with researchers served by coaxial networks and the rather larger
group with researchers served by shared network access should ensure that they possess and
implement plans to replace this with current technology.
Institutions should ensure that systematic approaches are used to back up research data.
JISC and UKERNA should produce clear and timely guidance for institutions on adoption of
new network applications.
National and institutional policies and planning need to reflect the potential impact upon
working practices presented by this technology-based change.
Education is required to allow users to make continuing assessment of Grid technology and a
plan for its adoption is required.
UK e-Science Technical Report Series
Report UKeS-2006-06
Available from http://www.nesc.ac.uk/technical_papers/UKeS-2006-06.pdf
Copyright © 2006 The University of Edinburgh. All rights reserved.
Review of Network Provision for Research
Needs
Final Report
May 2006
Undertaken on behalf of the JISC
Jon Duke
&
Andy Jordan
1
Executive summary
1.1
Scope of the review
5
The review examined the network provision to the
284 research departments rated as 5* in the 2001
Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). This
grouping was chosen as representative of
disciplines and institutions across UK Higher
Education conducting leading edge research. The
study focused on the network infrastructure
between the computers used by research workers
and their institution’s SuperJANET5 Point of
Presence as well as the provision of networkdependent services over that infrastructure.
6
1.2
7
Process used
An initial group of ten research departments was
visited to elicit key issues. Locally nominated
contacts in a second group of about 60
departments were then telephoned to provide
more detailed understandings of the issues,
following which all departments were sent a web
survey. The ICT service departments in the same
institutions as the initial group of research
departments were interviewed. The ICT service
departments in all 60 institutions involved were
sent a web survey for factual information on the
campus network and for their perspectives on
service provision.
1.3
1.3.1
1
2
3
1.3.2
1
2
Principal findings
The sample of departments was found to be
homogeneous in its use of some services, but for
a number, it could be differentiated into two
groups: those who were aware of the Grid and
those who were not. These sub-populations also
aligned fairly cleanly with use of different groups
of research-funding sources.
3
4
Network Connections
Most departmental networks provide switched
links to users at 100 Mbps.
About 80% of institutions have some of their
research staff connected at 10 Mbps.
Coaxial cabling is present in about 30% of
institutions and is often a consequence of
being bound in with protracted building
refurbishment cycles. It is thus a cause of
inadequate network provision to research
workers.
5
6
Research departments are well satisfied with
the speed and reliability of their network
connections to departmental and institutional
resources. They are also satisfied with
Duke & Jordan
Network services
Knowledge of the Grid is largely associated
with science and engineering departments.
The single most common form of data backup,
used by nearly 80% of users/departments, is
to users’ personal media (DVDs, CDs, or
portable tape drive). The most common
reasons stated are:
a. Inadequate quotas offered on institutional
resources.
b. Cost of central storage and backup
services, when these are available.
Recommendation 2
Institutions should ensure
that systematic approaches are used to backup
research data.
Recommendation 1
The third of institutions
with researchers served by coaxial networks and
the rather larger group with researchers served by
shared network access should ensure that they
possess and implement plans to replace this with
current technology.
4
connections into and beyond JANET,
although hardly surprisingly the levels of
satisfaction diminished with distance.
Grid aware respondents are generally happier
with the speed and reliability of network
connections within their departments and
institutions than are non-Grid aware
respondents. This could be because
a. Grid aware respondents spend more on
their networks;
b. Grid aware respondents have more local
support for their use of the network;
c. Grid aware respondents are more tolerant
of weaknesses in the technology.
It is the norm for institutions to possess a
firewall.
Firewalls, mainly through their policy aspects
and their impacts upon ad hoc laptop use,
impair research work in about a third of
departments, most of which are Grid aware.
7
Page 2
In general, ICT service departments
overestimated the use of central facilities and
underestimated use of personal media.
The most common place to store data is on
the user’s desktop, and personal external
media are widely used for storage as well as
backup.
The Grid aware departments make
substantially greater use of departmental
servers for access to specialist software as
well as data storage and backup than the nonGrid aware departments, who make rather
more use of central servers than the first
group.
For the overwhelming majority of research
departments, video-conferencing in all its
forms is only used to a slight extent, even
amongst the Grid aware. Suite based video
conferencing is the most common choice,
used by about 40% of departments and is
rated as generally satisfactory. Other forms of
video communications (e.g. desktop
videoconferencing) are little used, even
though there is interest in them.
Skype is used by about half of the
departments contacted. The lack of central
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
guidance about its adoption has been
interpreted in different ways by institutions, but
presently the trend is towards acceptance.
Recommendation 3
JISC and UKERNA
should produce clear and timely guidance for
institutions on adoption of new network
applications.
8
Broadband ADSL and VPNs are permitting
large amounts of research work to be
performed from home. As well as having
implications for research productivity, this will
facilitate more flexible patterns of work and
employment, such as use of short-term or
part-time contracts.
Recommendation 4
National and institutional
policies and planning need to reflect the potential
impact upon working practices presented by this
technology-based change.
9
Amongst the science and engineering
departments there is widespread use of locally
clustered computing, which is commonly felt
likely to provide capacity to meet needs for at
least the next two years.
10 Amongst the science and engineering
departments about a third of respondents felt
that they would be making appreciable use of
the Grid by two to four years time.
11 A substantial number of potential Grid users
have consciously decided to hold back from
involvement because of the learning curve
involved and the availability of their own
clusters.
12 Science and engineering departments with
their own HPC resources can be expected to
continue to continue to develop them, and
their doing so will inevitably tend to offset the
attractiveness of moving to the Grid. Thus the
appeal of the Grid will need to grow faster
than that of local resources if it is to remain as
an attractive option for migration in the short
or medium term.
Recommendation 5
Education is required to
allow users to make continuing assessment of
Grid technology and plan for its adoption is
required.
13 Of those replying to the question asking how
access to ubiquitous unlimited network
bandwidth would change their working
patterns, nearly half envision improved
working from home: a quarter seek more
ubiquitous wireless networking and another
quarter improved video conferencing services.
14 Generally the ICT service departments’
responses were similar to those of the nonGrid aware research departments but differed
from those of the Grid aware departments.
This could be because the Grid aware
departments have more internal support and
therefore do not need the central service as
much as the non-Grid aware departments.
Duke & Jordan
Page 3
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Table of contents
1
2
3
4
5
Executive summary ..........................................................................................................2
1.1 Scope of the review................................................................................................2
1.2 Process used .........................................................................................................2
1.3 Principal findings ....................................................................................................2
1.3.1 Network Connections...................................................................................2
1.3.2 Network services..........................................................................................2
Basis of the Review..........................................................................................................7
2.1 Requirements.........................................................................................................7
2.2 Scope .....................................................................................................................7
2.2.1 The group of departments used...................................................................7
2.2.2 Focus of the study .......................................................................................7
2.2.3 Terminology .................................................................................................7
2.3 Approach ................................................................................................................8
2.4 Principles................................................................................................................8
2.5 Review process......................................................................................................8
Collection of information...................................................................................................9
3.1 Identification of departments ..................................................................................9
3.2 Selection of departments .......................................................................................9
3.3 Identifying information providers ..........................................................................10
3.3.1 The 5* departments ...................................................................................10
3.3.2 The ICT service departments ....................................................................10
3.4 Visits.....................................................................................................................10
3.5 Phone interviews..................................................................................................11
3.5.1 The 5* departments ...................................................................................11
3.5.2 The ICT service departments ....................................................................11
3.6 Web surveys ........................................................................................................11
Findings ..........................................................................................................................12
4.1 The respondents to the web surveys ...................................................................12
4.1.1 The respondents to the survey of 5* research departments .....................12
4.1.2 The respondents to the survey of ICT services departments....................13
4.1.3 Caveat........................................................................................................13
4.2 Network Infrastructure..........................................................................................13
4.2.1 Departmental level .....................................................................................13
4.2.2 University level...........................................................................................15
4.2.3 Extra-University level .................................................................................16
4.2.4 Legacy networks ........................................................................................17
4.2.5 Firewalls.....................................................................................................17
4.3 Research activities using the network..................................................................18
4.3.1 Access to data ...........................................................................................18
4.3.2 Storing data................................................................................................19
4.3.3 Data backup...............................................................................................20
4.3.4 Access to software.....................................................................................21
4.3.5 Access to compute power..........................................................................22
4.3.6 Collaboration..............................................................................................24
4.3.7 ‘Blue Sky’ thinking......................................................................................27
4.4 User perceptions ..................................................................................................28
4.4.1 Cultural issues ...........................................................................................28
4.4.2 Departmental resources ............................................................................28
4.4.3 Institutional resources ................................................................................29
4.4.4 JANET........................................................................................................34
4.4.5 The Internet................................................................................................34
4.4.6 Home .........................................................................................................35
4.4.7 Overall view ...............................................................................................35
4.5 Management ........................................................................................................36
4.5.1 Network Development ...............................................................................36
4.5.2 Network management................................................................................37
4.5.3 Network funding .........................................................................................38
Discussion ......................................................................................................................39
Duke & Jordan
Page 4
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
5.1
Network Infrastructure..........................................................................................40
5.1.1 Departmental infrastructure .......................................................................40
5.1.2 University level...........................................................................................40
5.1.3 Extra-University level .................................................................................40
5.1.4 Legacy networks ........................................................................................40
5.1.5 Firewalls.....................................................................................................41
5.2 Research activities using the network..................................................................41
5.2.1 Data storage and access ...........................................................................41
5.2.2 Data backup...............................................................................................42
5.2.3 Access to software.....................................................................................42
5.2.4 Access to compute power..........................................................................42
5.2.5 Collaboration..............................................................................................43
5.2.6 ‘Blue Sky’ thinking......................................................................................44
5.2.7 Home working ............................................................................................44
5.3 Management and funding ....................................................................................45
5.3.1 Differences between institutions ................................................................45
5.3.2 Differences of perception within institutions ..............................................45
6
Conclusions and recommendations ...............................................................................46
6.1.1 Network Connections.................................................................................46
6.1.2 Network services........................................................................................46
Appendix I
5* departments and universities ................................................................48
Appendix II
List of topics for discussion sent out before visits to departments ............54
Appendix III
List of topics for discussion sent out before phone calls to academic
departments 55
Appendix IV
List of topics for discussion sent out before phone calls to ICT service
departments 56
Appendix V
Web survey sent to academic departments ..............................................57
Appendix VI
Web survey sent to service departments ..................................................76
Table of Figures
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
Figure 17.
Figure 18.
Figure 19.
Figure 20.
Figure 21.
Figure 22.
Figure 23.
Duke & Jordan
The funding bodies.............................................................................................. 13
Proportion of institutions having some provision to researchers of type shown . 14
Connection speed to the desktop ....................................................................... 14
ICT department view of speeds and reliabilities of departmental network
connections ......................................................................................................... 15
Connection speed from department network to institutional backbone .............. 15
ICT department view of speeds and reliabilities of network connections into
central resources................................................................................................. 16
ICT department view of speeds and reliabilities of network connections to
machines on JANET and the Internet ................................................................. 17
ICT department view of speeds and reliabilities of network connections between
the Internet and the institutional network by VPN ............................................... 17
Problems with firewalls........................................................................................ 18
Services provided by ICT departments............................................................... 18
Use of the network to download data by end-users............................................ 19
Use of the network to access data storage by end-users................................... 19
Where users store data....................................................................................... 19
Where users store data - the ICT department view ............................................ 20
Where users backup data ................................................................................... 20
Where users backup data - the ICT department view ........................................ 21
Use of the network to access specialist software by end-users ......................... 22
Use of the network to access compute power by end-users .............................. 22
Clustered computing - likelihood of outgrowing local provision .......................... 23
Grid computing - current and likely future level of use........................................ 24
Collaborative tools - Email - Extent of use .......................................................... 25
Collaborative tools - Video-conferencing and IP telephony - Level of use ......... 26
Collaborative tools - Other means - Level of use................................................ 27
Page 5
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 24.
User perceptions of speeds and reliabilities of network connections within the
department .......................................................................................................... 29
User perceptions of speeds and reliabilities of network connections within the
institution ............................................................................................................. 29
Collaborative tools - Email - Satisfaction with service ........................................ 30
Collaborative tools - Video-conferencing and IP telephony - Satisfaction with
service ................................................................................................................. 31
Collaborative tools - Other means - Satisfaction with service............................. 32
Collaborative tools - Email - Extent to which user needs are considered met.... 32
Collaborative tools - Video-conferencing and IP telephony - Extent to which user
needs are considered met .................................................................................. 33
Collaborative tools - Other means - Extent to which user needs are considered
met ...................................................................................................................... 34
User perceptions of speeds and reliabilities of connections from the desktop to
machines elsewhere in the UK ........................................................................... 34
User perceptions of speeds and reliabilities of connections from the desktop to
machines outside the UK .................................................................................... 35
Overall user perceptions of their network connections ....................................... 36
Balance of responsibility for planning the network.............................................. 36
Balance of responsibility for managing the network ........................................... 37
Balance of responsibility for supporting network users....................................... 38
Balance of responsibility for funding the network ............................................... 39
Figure 25.
Figure 26.
Figure 27.
Figure 28.
Figure 29.
Figure 30.
Figure 31.
Figure 32.
Figure 33.
Figure 34.
Figure 35.
Figure 36.
Figure 37.
Figure 38.
We gratefully acknowledge the guidance and assistance given to us throughout this
piece of work by its sponsors, Brian Gilmore (Director, Edinburgh University
Computing Services), Dr Bryan Lawrence (Head of the British Atmospheric Data
Centre, NERC) and Prof Peter Clarke (Deputy Director, National e-Science
Centre).
Additionally, we thank the many people we have of necessity contacted in the
course of the work for the timely and diligent assistance they so generously gave:
•
The researchers we contacted for information.
•
The staff in the ICT service departments we contacted for information.
•
The many people we contacted en route to obtaining names for people in the
above groups. These included Pro Vice Chancellors, Heads of Department,
Heads of ICT services, administrators and support staff.
Jon Duke and Andy Jordan
www.dukeandjordan.co.uk
Duke & Jordan
Page 6
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
2
2.1
Basis of the Review
Requirements
This review has been carried out for the JISC Committee for the Support of Research (JCSR) for
consideration at its May 2006 meeting. Its purpose is to investigate how well the network provision
to internationally rated UK research departments meets the needs of their research workers. The
study has been conducted in the context of the imminent commissioning of SuperJanet5 and has
entailed considering the quality and performance of the network infrastructure between the
SuperJANET5 Points of Presence and the departments.
2.2
2.2.1
Scope
The group of departments used
The review was planned to examine the network provision to all the internationally rated research
departments in UK higher education institutions, specifically those rated as 5* in the 2001
1
Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) . There are 284 of these departments and 60 Universities
are involved. This grouping was chosen as it yielded a sample of manageable size that spanned
the institutions and disciplines conducting leading edge research in UK Higher Education. By way
of comparison, had the nationally rated research departments with a 5 rating been included, the
number would have risen to 1,000, drawn from 97 Universities.
2.2.2
Focus of the study
The principal focus of the study has been the network infrastructure between the computers used
by research workers and their institution’s SuperJANET5 Point of Presence as well as the
provision of network-dependent services over that infrastructure.
The review collected information from nominated individuals in the 5* departments to cover the
areas listed below, in order to form a picture of present usage of network based resources, users’
degree of satisfaction, any constraints they experience, and their needs in the short and medium
term:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The network technologies used by institutions to provide their research workers with
network access.
The different IT resources that research workers access and the purposes that these are
used for.
Any use of specialised network-based resources, including computationally intensive or
Grid resources.
How research workers use the network to collaborate and communicate with each other.
Research workers’ views on the quality of the service provision and the network
connections involved
How the networking they use within their institution is funded and supported.
What difference to research could result if unlimited network bandwidth were available to
researchers.
The review also contacted the central ICT services in all the 60 institutions to obtain the service
provider’s viewpoint. These service departments were asked a very similar set of questions to
those asked of the researchers, with extra questions about networking technologies and their
deployment.
2.2.3
Terminology
Research may be conducted by individuals working alone, by research groups, or even by whole
departments working in unison. Because the RAE rating reported on departments, the study was
formally couched in a departmental context, although in discussions with researchers this would
often shift to that of a research group or of individuals. This was felt to be inescapable. However
1
These results are published on the HERO web site at http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/Results/
Duke & Jordan
Page 7
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
in the presentation of results, although we refer to the unit of research activity as the department, it
should be borne in mind that the research activity may arise from only certain groups or individuals
within the department.
2.3
Approach
It was planned to survey the research departments and ICT services using web surveys, but to
ensure that the surveys asked the right questions, and to add depth to the reviewers’
understandings, two substantial prior stages of contact were made with the departments.
In the first stage, an initial set of questions was discussed in visits to a group of about 10
departments. With lessons learnt from that, in the second stage of evidence gathering, about 60
departments were telephoned, again using a previously distributed script.
In a parallel activity, which slightly lagged with the contact with departments, the relevant ICT
service departments were contacted for their perspectives on network provision to researchers.
A significant task within the project was the identification of suitable contacts.
2.4
Principles
Our principles are to make our deliverables evidence-based and to run an open process as far as
is possible. Evidence is handled confidentiality and reporting is performed unattributably: all
contributors were assured that their evidence would only be used in an aggregated or anonymised
form, unless prior agreement had been obtained to use it in an identifiable manner
2.5
Review process
The project plan comprised seven work packages as shown in the table below. Some detail
changed during the course of the project, the main change being that, because of the difficulty of
obtaining names of people to speak with, rather over 60 contacts in the 5* departments were
interviewed by phone, as compared with the originally intended number of about 100.
Duke & Jordan
Page 8
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Work Package
1 Project set-up
2 Collection of basic
contact data
3 Visit a first group of
departments
4 Telephone a second
group of
departments
5 Contact ICT services
Description
To confirm in detail the scope and activities of the project with its
sponsors and key stakeholders and make initial preparations to
run the project.
Gather the contact data for the 5* departments, i.e. people,
e-mail addresses and phone numbers.
Visit an initial group of about ten 5* departments, using an initial
interview script
Undertake telephone interviews with a larger group of about 60
departments, using a script developed from the previous work
package, and summarise the results of this activity
Undertake telephone interviews with the ICT services of the
institutions involved in work package 3 in order to obtain a
description of their institutions’ network infrastructure along with
their perspectives of their network based services.
6 Conduct web
surveys
Conduct two web surveys:
1.
Using a script developed from work package 4, send a
web survey to all the 5* departments.
2.
Using a script developed from work package 5, send a
web survey to all the ICT service departments.
The results of the surveys were then analysed alongside each
other.
7 Reporting the project
Report on progress about halfway through the project. Deliver a
final report on the work for JCSR. Make presentations of the
results as required by JCSR.
3
3.1
Collection of information
Identification of departments
The departments were identified from the HEFCE output from the 2001 RAE exercise, which was
available as an Excel spreadsheet. A small number of institutions had more than one 5*
department in a particular RAE area.
3.2
Selection of departments
The initial group of 10 departments to be visited was chosen so as to span the academic areas
(arts and languages, engineering, humanities, medicine, science and the social sciences), the
Funding Councils and the UK.
From the remaining 274 departments, about 50 were then selected for interview by telephone.
The selection was done using a randomising algorithm, which aimed at ensuring that institutions
with 5 or more 5* departments would be called at least once and that key RAE areas would be
covered by at least one call.
This methodology was modified with time. The most noteworthy change was a decision to contact
by telephone all the 5* departments in the institutions that had been visited. This yielded a sample
of institutions where a picture of service provision could be formed from the 5* departments’ views,
which could then be compared with the views of the ICT service department. However as many
as possible of the 50 randomly selected departments were interviewed by phone.
The web survey was sent to all those 5* departments for which contact information had been
obtained: this included both departments visited and phoned. It amounted to about 250
departments.
Duke & Jordan
Page 9
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
After the majority of the phone interviews had been carried out, a representative of the ICT service
department was interviewed in each of the 10 institutions which had been selected for contact in
work package 3, using either phone calls or visits. A web survey was sent to the ICT service
department of each institution for which we had appropriate contact information, including those
interviewed.
3.3
3.3.1
Identifying information providers
The 5* departments
Preliminary examinations showed that there was no straightforward way of obtaining the contact
details of a person in each 5* department who would be in a good position to provide information
on how well the networking provision to research workers meets their needs. As it was felt that the
Heads of these departments would be in a good position to nominate such a person, it was
decided to devise an approach that involved them.
However, attempts to use University web sites to directly obtain contact information for Heads of
department were not fruitful, so it was decided to initially approach the Universities through their
Pro Vice Chancellor for Research or equivalent. Advantages of this route turned out to be:
1.
It reliably yielded the correct name for the department.
2.
The Pro Vice Chancellors saw that it was in their University’s interest to contribute.
2
Accordingly these peoples’ contact details were collected. The Aimhigher site was helpful in a
small number of cases, but in the main this information had to be collected by telephone. Email
contact with the Pro Vice Chancellors yielded contact details for the majority of Heads of
Department, who were then emailed seeking the name of a contact who could speak for
researchers regarding networking. For a while, there were concerns that the Pro Vice Chancellors
might not be replying, so a secondary route, asking Directors of ICT services in each institution for
the departmental networking contact’s names, was also used. In both routes, email reminders
were found to be necessary – about half the names were obtained followed the sending of
reminders. In a number of cases the telephone had to be used to bring the emails to peoples’
attention. Considerable persistence was needed in this stage of the work, which required careful
record keeping to track the replies received from about 1,700 emails that were sent to about 650
people.
In the event, the Pro Vice Chancellor route yielded far more names than the ICT Director one, and
by the end of the task it was felt that they had just needed to be given a little time to operate their
part of the process. Additionally, the telephone interview stage of the project showed that the
people nominated by Heads of department in the first mentioned route were more consistently
research active staff who could give authoritative views.
Only one University declined to provide names for all their 5* departments. The reason given was
that their research staff were too busy.
Overall, contact names for 260 of the 5* departments were obtained by these means.
3.3.2
The ICT service departments
Using email contact information kindly provided by UCISA and RUGIT, the Directors of ICT
services at all the 60 institutions were contacted and the names of networking contacts in 58 of
these department was obtained.
3.4
Visits
The visits were the first stage of contact with the 5* departments and their purpose was, by making
contact with a sample of different types of department, to encounter the main issues in the review
area. Ten of the 5* departments were selected for this work. In the event it proved possible to
arrange meetings with nine. Each visit used a script which had been sent to the networking
contact beforehand. A copy of the script is shown in Appendix II. As this stage completed, the
script was revised for use in the next stage of the project.
2
http://www.aimhigher.ac.uk
Duke & Jordan
Page 10
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
3.5
3.5.1
Phone interviews
The 5* departments
The network contacts nominated in the 5* departments were contacted by email and telephone
appointments booked. The script used is shown in Appendix III, and copies were sent to all
contacts beforehand.
Notes from the interviews were recorded in an online form, and a software tool was used to
facilitate analysis of the information from all the interviews.
3.5.2
The ICT service departments
The network contacts nominated in the ICT service departments were contacted by email and
telephone appointments booked. The script used was chosen to have a number of questions in
common with the one used for the 5* departments, and is shown in Appendix IV. Copies were
sent to all contacts beforehand.
Again, notes from the interviews were recorded in an online form to facilitate analysis
3.6
Web surveys
Based upon what had been learnt in the preceding two phases, a web survey tool was used to
create a survey form for the 5* departments and the ICT services departments. The survey was
set up so that only one response could be received from each department.
The survey to the research departments had the following organisation:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
An introduction to the survey
About the respondent
a. Role in the department
About the research department
a. Sources of research income
b. Its use of IT resources
The department'
s use of network services.
a. Its use of, and satisfaction with, network services
i. Transport of data in use over the network
ii. Data backup over the network
b. How the network is used to facilitate research
collaboration
c. Any firewall issues
Network funding and support
a. Balance of responsibility between the department and the
centre
Clustered computing and the Grid.
a. Use and anticipated use
Overall
a. A ‘Blue Sky’ question (what use could be made if infinite
network bandwidth were available?)
b. General comments
The survey to the ICT service departments had a similar structure, as shown:
1.
2.
Duke & Jordan
An introduction to the survey
About the respondent
a. Role in the department
Page 11
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
About the service department
a. Principal network service areas
Network provision
a. Deployment of particular networking technologies
b. Perceptions of satisfaction of research users with network
services
c. Any firewall issues
d. Any constraints to obtaining the benefits of SuperJANET5
Network Use by Researchers
i. Transport of data in use over the network
ii. Data backup over the network
Clustered Computing and the Grid.
a. Use and anticipated use
Network Funding and Support
a. Balance of responsibility between departments and the
centre
Overall
The surveys are reproduced in full in Appendix V and VI respectively.
4
4.1
4.1.1
Findings
The respondents to the web surveys
The respondents to the survey of 5* research departments
130 responses were received to the web survey sent to research departments. The responses
came from 42 institutions and covered 58 RAE areas. About two thirds of the respondents were
research active staff, a minority of whom were heads of department. About a quarter were in
administrative or support roles. The remainder felt that neither of the above roles characterised
them and about a half in this category had roles with responsibilities for IT.
One of the questions asked of respondents was whether or not they were aware of cluster
computing or of the Grid. 61 replied that they were so aware and this was used as a measure –
however rough – of the ICT involvement of the respondents’ departments. The remaining 69
respondents either replied No to the question or did not reply to it. These two almost equally sized
groups were used throughout the analysis of the data.
Respondents were asked for the principal funders of their research. The results are shown below.
Duke & Jordan
Page 12
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 1. The funding bodies
% of responding of all responding depts funded
0
10
20
30
40
50
AHRC
BBSRC
British Academy
British Council
EPSRC
ESRC
EU
Government department
Non-grid aw are users
Industry
Grid aw are users
Leverhulme Trust
MHRA
MRC
NERC
PPARC
Royal Society
Wellcome Trust
Other
It is clear from this that Grid aware users are predominantly those funded by the science and
engineering oriented research councils and that the non-Grid aware users are those funded by
arts and humanities oriented councils.
4.1.2
The respondents to the survey of ICT services departments
There were 39 responses to the survey of ICT departments. Nearly two thirds of these
respondents were managers responsible for networking or technology or infrastructure. Almost all
of the remainder were either Heads or Deputy/Assistant Heads of Service.
4.1.3
Caveat
Not all responses included an answer to every question! For the purposes of analysis, the
assumption has been made that a lack of response to a multi-choice question indicates a Don’t
Know or Not Applicable response: this assumption has been made despite the fact that most
questions permitted such an answer as one of the choices. In turn, the analysis usually ignores
the Don’t Know answers: this equates to assuming that the responses from those giving a definite
answer can be extrapolated to those answering Don’t Know. Where different assumptions have
been made in the analysis, they are stated.
4.2
Network Infrastructure
The survey of researchers did not ask directly about the detail of the network infrastructure. This
was quite deliberate as it was clear from the telephone interviews that only a limited proportion of
respondents had such knowledge. We therefore sought to obtain this information from the ICT
respondents.
4.2.1
Departmental level
The survey of ICT departments sought information on the nature of the network within the
institution. The following graph shows how many institutions have any use of either coaxial cable
or shared network connections to serve researchers.
Duke & Jordan
Page 13
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 2. Proportion of institutions having some provision to researchers of type shown
Percentage of institutions
0
20
40
60
Coaxial netw ork cable
Shared netw ork connection to
the desktop
This shows that about 30% of institutions responding have some research active staff being
served by coaxial cable. The graph also shows that between 40% and 50% of institutions serve
some of their researchers with shared network connections to the desktop.
The next graph shows the ICT respondents’ figures for the speeds of connections to the desktop.
The graph shows each of the responses in cumulative fashion. Each line therefore represents a
single institution: No institution has any connections at 0 Mbps and all have all their connections at
1 Gbps or less. Superimposed lines have been artificially separated by small amounts so that the
graph can illustrate the behaviour of the whole sample.
Figure 3. Connection speed to the desktop
%age of researchers in institution having this
speed of connection
100
0
0 Mbps
10 Mbps
100 Mbps
1000 Mbps
Speed
This graph shows that most institutions have the majority of desktop connections running at 100
Mbps. There are however a significant number of institutions running to some desktops at 10
Mbps together with a substantial number running to a small number of desktops at 1 Gbps.
The ICT respondents were also asked about the quality, in terms of speed and reliability, of the
connections from desktops to departmental servers. Respondents clearly see the reliability as
generally excellent but are less sanguine about the speed of connection.
Duke & Jordan
Page 14
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 4. ICT department view of speeds and reliabilities of departmental network
connections
% of institutions holding this view
0
20
40
60
80
100
From desktop machine to departmental
server (all activities) - Speed
Excellent
Adequate
Inadequate
From desktop machine to departmental
server (all activities) - Reliability
4.2.2
Very poor
University level
The ICT respondents were also asked questions similar to the above about services at an
institutional level. The following graph shows what speed of link between the department and the
institutional backbone serves researchers. Each response is a line showing the cumulative set of
connections from zero to greater than 1 Gbps.
%age of researchers in institution having
this speed of connection
Figure 5. Connection speed from department network to institutional backbone
100
0
0 Mbps
10 Mbps
100 Mbps
1 Gbps
>1 Gbps
Speed
It shows that the two principal models are
• Most connections are at 100 Mbps with some at 1 Gbps
• Some connections are at 100 Mbps with most at 1 Gbps.
There are some outliers at 10 Mbps and at greater than 1 Gbps.
The following graph shows the ICT respondents view of the speeds and reliabilities for a range of
links to centrally managed systems. The links cover
• Desktop machine to centrally managed server including high performance computing for all
activities;
• Data backup from departmentally managed server to centrally managed server;
Duke & Jordan
Page 15
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
• Wireless connected machine to institutional network.
It seems that users perceive connections as not being so good for data backup as for general
activities. For wireless connections, the view is that reliability is generally adequate but that the
speed of such links is inadequate.
Figure 6. ICT department view of speeds and reliabilities of network connections into
central resources
% of institutions holding this view
0
20
40
60
80
100
From desktop machine to centrally
managed server including high
performance computing facilities (all
activities) - Speed
From desktop machine to centrally
managed server including high
performance computing facilities (all
activities) - Reliability
From departmental server to centrally
managed server (data backup only) Speed
Excellent
Adequate
From departmental server to centrally
managed server (data backup only) Reliability
Inadequate
Very poor
From w ireless connected machine
into institutional netw ork - Speed
From w ireless connected machine
into institutional netw ork - Reliability
We also asked ICT respondents about bottlenecks between the desktop and the regional network:
this question was designed to elicit the slowest part of the network between the user’s desktop
machine and the Internet. This showed up no information that was not present in the other
answers.
4.2.3
Extra-University level
ICT departments were also asked about the speed and reliability of connections from desktop
machines to machines on JANET and elsewhere on the Internet. Respondents clearly consider
that connections to systems elsewhere in the JANET domain are better than to a different domain
on the Internet.
Duke & Jordan
Page 16
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 7. ICT department view of speeds and reliabilities of network connections to
machines on JANET and the Internet
% of institutions holding this view
0
20
40
60
80
100
From desktop machine to server
elsew here in the JANET domain (all
activities) - Speed
From desktop machine to server
elsew here in the JANET domain (all
activities) - Reliability
Excellent
From desktop machine to server outside
the JANET domain (all activities) - Speed
Adequate
Inadequate
Very poor
From desktop machine to server outside
the JANET domain (all activities) Reliability
A significant number of institutions offer VPN or SSH access for staff to their network. The
following graph shows what the ICT respondents believe to be the quality of those connections.
Figure 8. ICT department view of speeds and reliabilities of network connections between
the Internet and the institutional network by VPN
% of institutions holding this view
0
20
40
60
80
From machine on Internet via VPN
into institutional netw ork - Speed
Excellent
Adequate
From machine on Internet via VPN
into institutional netw ork - Reliability
Inadequate
Very poor
ICT respondents were asked whether either the institutional or the regional network imposed any
constraints on researchers. 20% suggested that the institutional network imposes constraints and
15% that the regional network does. One respondent wrote “If there are constraints, we will
address them.”
4.2.4
Legacy networks
Figure 2 shows that more than 25% of institutions have some research staff being served by
coaxial cable. The same graph shows that over 50% of institutions have a significant number of
research staff being served to the desktop at 10 Mbps. Whether this matters may be assessed in
the light of the following comment from one ICT respondent: “We are able to offer any researcher
any bandwidth they require. In general the majority are happy with 10 or 100 Mbps. We get an
occasional request for 1 Gbps which we have no problem with delivering anywhere on campus.”
However another wrote that a “programme … to replace co-ax cabling is awaiting approval.”
4.2.5
Firewalls
ICT respondents were asked about whether or not the institution provided a firewall. Only one
respondent replied in the negative. This respondent wrote “We use a range of [access control
lists] on the edge router to block specific ports.”
Duke & Jordan
Page 17
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
While users were not in general asked about the details of the network, they were asked about
whether network firewalls caused them problems. 31% of research respondents suggested that
they did have such problems. The following graph shows the reasons for these problems: it also
demonstrates that those responding to this question were predominantly Grid aware respondents.
Figure 9. Problems with firewalls
% of respondents answering question citing this as a problem
0
20
40
60
80
Difficulties w ith
firew alls elsew here
Restrictions imposed by
firew all policies
Video conferencing
performance affected
by firew all
Non-grid aw are
users
Grid aw are
users
Services available to
visitors'laptops
constrained by firew all
Other (please specify)
About two-thirds of those saying firewalls cause problems blamed policies.
4.3
Research activities using the network
In the ICT web survey, respondents were asked about the provision of specific services. The
following graph shows the proportions of responding departments providing various services. It
showed that data archiving is a minority activity.
Figure 10. Services provided by ICT departments
% of responding depts providing service
0
20
40
60
80
100
Specialist softw are
Compute pow er
Data storage
Data backup
Data archiving
VPN or SSH connection for remote access
A w ireless service
4.3.1
Access to data
Users download data from a number of sources. The following graph shows where they access it
from. This analysis includes all respondents.
Duke & Jordan
Page 18
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 11. Use of the network to download data by end-users
% of responding depts in sub-group making this use of network
0
20
40
60
80
Deptl srvr - Dow nloading data
Centrally managed m/c - Dow nloading
data
Non-grid
aw are users
M/c elsew here in the UK - Dow nloading
data
Grid aw are
users
M/c elsew here outside the UK Dow nloading data
4.3.2
Storing data
Storage of data by users can be in a number of different places. Departmental and institutional
servers are equally important – and far ahead of the use of machines off campus. This analysis
includes all respondents.
Figure 12. Use of the network to access data storage by end-users
% of responding depts in sub-group making this use of network
0
20
40
60
80
100
Deptl srvr - Access to data storage
capacity
Centrally managed m/c - Access to data
storage capacity
Non-grid
aw are users
M/c elsew here in the UK - Access to data
storage capacity
Grid aw are
users
M/c elsew here outside the UK - Access to
data storage capacity
In a separate question, researchers were asked where they store data. The answers to this match
those in the previous graph well – in both graphs the use of departmental and central servers is
about 60% - but also demonstrate that CDs, DVDs and the like are used extensively.
Figure 13. Where users store data
% of respondents in sub-group utilising this means
0
20
40
60
80
100
On CDs, DVDs or
other external media
On desktop m/c
Non-grid aw are users
Grid aw are users
On Deptl srvr
On centrally
managed srvr
The same question – where do users store data – was also asked of the ICT respondents.
Duke & Jordan
Page 19
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 14. Where users store data - the ICT department view
% of institutions with proportion of users utilising this means
0
20
40
60
80
100
Stored On CDs or
DVDs
Stored On desktop
machine
A lot
Significant
Slightly
Stored On
departmental server
Very little
Stored On centrally
managed server
One of the issues which the interviews identified was the quota of storage space allocated to
individual users. One research respondent wrote
“department backup is quite limited (3 months) so users must take responsibility for longer
storage. We have no idea what the real lifetime of this data will be.”
and another said
“the huge problem we face is the absence of a departmental server and that centrally-provided
storage space is so small as to be useless.”
This last comment was made from an institution with sophisticated central data storage
arrangements.
4.3.3
Data backup
Data backup can represent a substantial load on the network in the otherwise quiet hours.
Researchers were asked where they backup their data.
Figure 15. Where users backup data
% of respondents in sub-group utilising this means
0
20
40
60
80
100
On CDs, DVDs or
other external media
On desktop m/c
Non-grid aw are users
Grid aw are users
On Deptl srvr
On centrally
managed srvr
ICT respondents were asked to estimate the same information.
Duke & Jordan
Page 20
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 16. Where users backup data - the ICT department view
% of institutions with backup of users utilising this means
0
20
40
60
80
100
Backed up On CDs
or DVDs
A lot
Significant
Backed up On
departmental server
Slightly
Very little
Backed up On
centrally managed
server
These graphs suggest that the ICT respondents underestimate the use of CDs and the like for
data backup in comparison with other means. One ICT respondent said “Data backup is provided
against system crashes only. Other backup is the end-user'
s responsibility.”
However it is also clear that many institutions recognise the issue and are planning developments
in this area. Responses from ICT departments included the following:
“[We are planning an] extension this year to [a service delivering] document management, sharing,
archiving, version control and offsite storage.”
“Data storage facilities do not cover all Researcher needs; where departments have specific needs
they have put their own facilities in place and rely on my department to provide more generic
facilities.”
“In 2006 we are introducing a SAN with archiving for long term storage of research data.”
“The greatest demands at [my institution] are currently around data storage, retention and
retrieval.”
“We are about to implement a data storage service for research groups which will obviously
include data backup.”
“Central data storage and archiving facilities are not sufficient and plans are in place to increase
this.”
Another respondent noted that “there is currently a technology lag in the types of storage that can
affordably be connected to HPC clusters that deliver adequate performance and scalability.”
4.3.4
Access to software
The following graph shows how many responding departments access such software across the
network.
Duke & Jordan
Page 21
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 17. Use of the network to access specialist software by end-users
% of responding depts in sub-group making this use of network
0
20
40
60
80
Deptl srvr - Access to specialist softw are
Centrally managed m/c - Access to
specialist softw are
Non-grid
aw are users
M/c elsew here in the UK - Access to
specialist softw are
Grid aw are
users
M/c elsew here outside the UK - Access to
specialist softw are
It is noteworthy that Grid aware users make greater use than the non-Grid aware users of
departmental servers and less use of centrally managed servers. There is little difference between
the two groups in the small amount of access of off-campus software.
4.3.5
Access to compute power
4.3.5.1
General
Users were asked the extent to which their departments access compute power across the
network. The following graph shows the responses.
Figure 18. Use of the network to access compute power by end-users
% of responding depts in sub-group making this use of network
0
20
40
60
80
Deptl srvr - Access to compute pow er
Centrally managed m/c - Access to
compute pow er
Non-grid
aw are users
Grid aw are
users
M/c elsew here in the UK - Access to
compute pow er
M/c elsew here outside the UK - Access to
compute pow er
To be noted are the use of departmental servers and external machines for computing by Grid
aware users.
4.3.5.2
Cluster computing
Both users and ICT respondents were asked about current use of cluster computing (“Low”,
“Medium” or “High”) and what they thought the likelihood was that demand in the future would
outgrow local provision. The purpose of the question about the future was to ascertain the
likelihood that access to external resources – such as through use of the Grid – would be required.
The next graph shows the responses to these questions. The responses of researchers and of
ICT respondents are similar in shape and show that both groups think the most likely outcome
over 4 years is that local provision will be outgrown. It should be noted that the web survey
allowed research department respondents to skip both this and the questions about Grid
computing if they were not aware of such computing systems.
Just under 40% of all research department respondents and about 70% of all the ICT respondents
answered this question on clustered computing. The graph immediately below shows the
proportions of these sub-groups: the Don’t Know category is included in the analysis but omitted
Duke & Jordan
Page 22
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
from the graph. It will be seen from the graph that the Don’t Know category increases with
distance ahead.
There is considerable similarity in the profiles of the two groups.
Figure 19. Clustered computing - likelihood of outgrowing local provision
% of those responding to this question
More than 4
years
Within 4 years Within 2 years
Within 1 year
0
20
40
60
80
100
Research
respondents
ICT respondents
Research
respondents
Low
ICT respondents
Medium
Research
respondents
High
ICT respondents
Research
respondents
ICT respondents
4.3.5.3
Use of the Grid
Users and ICT respondents were asked similar questions about use of the Grid to those asked
about cluster computing. Both the present level of use (“Low”, “Medium” or “High”) and the likely
future level of use were sought. Just over 40% of all research department respondents addressed
this question. The following graph shows proportions of that 40%. The number of Don’t Knows for
“Current use” is largely due to those not providing any answer to Current Use.
82% of all ICT respondents answered the similar question in their survey. The graph below shows
proportions of that 82%. The Don’t Know proportion of answers is high – around 40% of all the
answers – but is remarkably consistent across the time period.
The graphs for both sets of respondents show similar profiles. Both anticipate a substantial
increase in use of the Grid from a low starting point.
Duke & Jordan
Page 23
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 20. Grid computing - current and likely future level of use
% of those responding to this question
Likely level of Likely level of Likely level of
use in 4 year'
s use in 2 year'
s use in 1 year'
s
time
time
time
Current use
0
4.3.6
20
40
60
80
100
Research
respondents
ICT
respondents
Research
respondents
ICT
respondents
Low
Research
respondents
High
Medium
ICT
respondents
Research
respondents
ICT
respondents
Collaboration
Interviews showed that a major use of the network by researchers was in support of collaboration
with others. Both surveys asked about the use of collaborative tools.
4.3.6.1
Email
Both surveys asked about the use of email and of email with large attachments, which interviews
showed to be an important means of exchanging large amounts of data. The following graph
shows the importance of email to collaboration. There is great similarity between the responses of
all three groups.
Duke & Jordan
Page 24
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 21. Collaborative tools - Email - Extent of use
% of respondents in sub-group to this question
0
20
40
60
80
100
Email
Non-grid
aw are users
Grid aw are
users
ICT
A lot
Email with large
attachments
Significant
Non-grid
aw are users
Slight
Grid aw are
users
ICT
One ICT respondent noted that they put a “limit on email attachment size for operational reasons.”
4.3.6.2
Video conferencing and telephony
Interviews showed that video conferencing is an important tool, especially from custom built suites.
The following graph shows the responses from the two surveys to questions on the extent of use
of video conferencing and Skype or other Internet telephony.
Duke & Jordan
Page 25
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 22. Collaborative tools - Video-conferencing and IP telephony - Level of use
% of respondents in sub-group to this question
40
60
80
100
Grid aw are users
ICT
Non-grid aw are users
Grid aw are users
Desktop video
phone between
two people
ICT
Non-grid aw are users
Non-grid aw are users
Skype or other
telephony over the
Internet
20
Non-grid aw are users
Desktop video
phone involving
more than two
people
Video
conferencing using
Video
equipment carried conferencing from
on a trolley
a custom-built suite
0
A lot
Grid aw are users
Significant
Slight
ICT
Grid aw are users
ICT
Non-grid aw are users
Grid aw are users
ICT
This graph shows that the ICT respondents believe more use is being made of these tools than do
the research respondents and that the Grid aware users make more use of these services than do
non-Grid aware users.
A number of ICT respondents noted that they do not allow the use of Skype:
• “Because of Skype'
s parasitic behaviour, we cannot allow it to be run without restrictions.”
• “We have a ban on the use of Skype at the minute, mainly because of its licensing terms
and …. its supernode behaviour.”
• “Limit on email attachment size for operational reasons. Network supports desktop video,
Skype, etc. but they are not guaranteed services.”
Another noted that “in 2006 we have launched a project to identify solutions …. to deliver voice
and video over IP and secure alternatives to Skype.”
An interesting approach came from a research department respondent who wrote “An alternative
to real time provision is the podcast, which we are now adopting.”
4.3.6.3
Other
The surveys also asked about the use of Virtual Research Environments and of the Access Grid.
The following graph shows that neither of these tools is currently in wide use.
Duke & Jordan
Page 26
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 23. Collaborative tools - Other means - Level of use
% of respondents in sub-group to this question
Virtual research
environment (analogous to
a VLE)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Non-grid aw are users
Grid aw are users
ICT
A lot
Significant
Slight
Access Grid
Non-grid aw are users
Grid aw are users
ICT
4.3.7
‘Blue Sky’ thinking
Both sets of respondents were asked what effect unlimited access to network bandwidth would
have on the ways in which research is undertaken. We offered four examples, drawn from
interviews:
• High resolution viewing of artefacts held remotely;
• Working at home as if you were at work;
• Using specialist facilities that are linked in real-time over the network;
• Accessing the network using wireless.
These four choices were confirmed as of importance by the web surveys. Respondents noted the
impact on jobs:
• “Allowing specialists, e.g. statisticians, to be part of several projects in several institutions
simultaneously [and] avoiding contract staff having to move frequently.”
• “Improved teleworking by researchers in non UK universities who hold part time research
appointments here.”
Viewing images is important to a range of disciplines:
• “Speedy and high-resolution viewing of ancient documents, medieval manuscripts, early
printed books etc. held remotely. Enhanced ability to collate different editions or
manuscripts of same text on-line.”
• “High resolution viewing of digital images of primary text materials stored remotely.”
• “Obviate the need to bring back telescope images on multiple DAT/DLT/DVD.”
• From a department of electrical engineering: “Local streaming of uncompressed HighDefinition video from remote sources in real-time.”
• From a department of biological science: “Using specialist facilities that are linked in realtime over the network: we have a lot of image data that cannot be viewed over [the
institutional] network.”
• From a Social Science department: “Better use of video as [a] data source.”
• From a music department: “It'
s possible our composers would be interested in real-time
internet-based interaction.”
• Some frequently occurring terms in researchers’ responses that are considered to be of
significance are reported below:
Duke & Jordan
Page 27
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Term
Home access or VPN
Video conferencing
Wireless
4.4
4.4.1
Frequency
41
18
20
User perceptions
Cultural issues
The JCSR members who project managed this work are all scientists or engineers as are the two
people carrying out the work. This may therefore explain the occasional problems met in
explaining the nature of the work to some colleagues in the arts and humanities.
One philosopher for example asked “What do you mean by a network?” A respondent from a
language department wrote “I have consulted with colleagues and we have to say we are
somewhat bemused by what you are describing; we are a small Arts department….and are not
aware of using (or even perhaps needing) the sort of thing you describe for our work.”
Others indicated that our use of the phrase “research group” was essentially alien to them.
As a result of the experience of the extensive interview process undertaken before sending out the
web surveys, the design of the survey for research departments reflected these cultural
differences. A number of technical questions were omitted because they might deter some
respondents from replying to the whole survey. Such problems could perhaps have been
overcome by extended explanations of the questions: this however might also have had the
alternative deterrent effect of so lengthening the survey that respondents considered it excessive.
The design of the surveys was therefore a compromise between asking all the questions to which
we wanted answers and keeping the length of the survey acceptable.
The answers received therefore need to be seen in this light.
4.4.2
Departmental resources
Users were asked how good they considered the connection to be from the desktops in their
department to departmental servers. The following graph shows that both speed and reliability are
held in good esteem, though the Grid aware users have a higher opinion of the reliability of these
connections than do their non-Grid aware colleagues.
Duke & Jordan
Page 28
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 24. User perceptions of speeds and reliabilities of network connections within the
department
% of users in sub-group holding this perception
Grid aware users
Non-grid aware users
0
20
40
60
80
From desktop
m/c to Deptl
srvr - Speed
From desktop
m/c to Deptl
srvr - Reliability
Excellent
Adequate
Inadequate
From desktop
m/c to Deptl
srvr - Speed
Very poor
From desktop
m/c to Deptl
srvr - Reliability
4.4.3
Institutional resources
In similar vein to the question addressed in the last section, users were asked about the quality of
the connections to central machines from both desktop systems and departmental servers. The
following graph shows the results, which are significantly worse than the quality of links within the
department.
Figure 25. User perceptions of speeds and reliabilities of network connections within the
institution
% of users in sub-group holding this perception
Grid aware
Non-grid
users
aware users
Grid aware
Non-grid
users
aware users
0
20
40
60
80
From desktop m/c to centrally managed srvr Speed
From desktop m/c to centrally managed srvr Reliability
From desktop m/c to centrally managed srvr Speed
Excellent
From desktop m/c to centrally managed srvr Reliability
Adequate
From Deptl srvr to centrally managed srvr Speed
Inadequate
Very poor
From Deptl srvr to centrally managed srvr Reliability
From Deptl srvr to centrally managed srvr Speed
From Deptl srvr to centrally managed srvr Reliability
The surveys asked the degree of satisfaction with the quality of the collaborative tools provided for
use. The same questions were also asked of the ICT respondents. In general their answers were
very similar to those of their customers.
Duke & Jordan
Page 29
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
The next graph shows the user view of the email service. The provision of the email service for
large attachments is clearly not wholly satisfactory.
Figure 26. Collaborative tools - Email - Satisfaction with service
% of respondents in sub-group to this question
0
20
40
60
80
100
Email
Non-grid
aw are users
Grid aw are
users
ICT
A lot
Email with large
attachments
Significant
Non-grid
aw are users
Slight
Grid aw are
users
ICT
This graph omitted Don’t Knows from the analysis: there were very few of them.
The next graph shows the responses to the same questions when asked about video conferencing
and telephony tools. The analysis underlying this graph did include Don’t Knows of which there
were a large number.
Duke & Jordan
Page 30
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 27. Collaborative tools - Video-conferencing and IP telephony - Satisfaction with
service
% of respondents in sub-group to this question
40
60
80
100
Grid aw are users
ICT
Non-grid aw are users
Grid aw are users
Desktop video
phone between
two people
ICT
Non-grid aw are users
Non-grid aw are users
Skype or other
telephony over the
Internet
20
Non-grid aw are users
Desktop video
phone involving
more than two
people
Video
conferencing using
Video
equipment carried conferencing from
on a trolley
a custom-built suite
0
A lot
Grid aw are users
Significant
Slight
ICT
Grid aw are users
ICT
Non-grid aw are users
Grid aw are users
ICT
The responses to questions about user satisfaction with VREs and the Access Grid are similarly
dominated by the Don’t Knows. ICT respondents rather overestimated the degree of user
satisfaction with the Access Grid.
Duke & Jordan
Page 31
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 28. Collaborative tools - Other means - Satisfaction with service
% of respondents in sub-group to this question
Virtual research
environment (analogous to
a VLE)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Non-grid aw are users
Grid aw are users
ICT
A lot
Significant
Slight
Access Grid
Non-grid aw are users
Grid aw are users
ICT
Users and ICT respondents were also asked to what extent collaborative tools met their needs.
The next graph shows the responses for email. The responses of all three groups are remarkably
similar.
Figure 29. Collaborative tools - Email - Extent to which user needs are considered met
% of respondents in sub-group to this question
0
20
40
60
80
100
Email
Non-grid
aw are users
Grid aw are
users
ICT
A lot
Email with large
attachments
Significant
Non-grid
aw are users
Slight
Grid aw are
users
ICT
The next graph shows the extent to which users thought their needs are met by the video
conferencing and telephony tools available to them. Here the ICT respondents generally
overestimate the extent to which user needs are met, though all the groups considered needs only
slightly met.
Duke & Jordan
Page 32
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 30. Collaborative tools - Video-conferencing and IP telephony - Extent to which user
needs are considered met
% of respondents in sub-group to this question
40
60
80
100
Grid aw are users
ICT
Non-grid aw are users
Grid aw are users
Desktop video
phone between
two people
ICT
Non-grid aw are users
Non-grid aw are users
Skype or other
telephony over the
Internet
20
Non-grid aw are users
Desktop video
phone involving
more than two
people
Video
conferencing using
Video
equipment carried conferencing from
on a trolley
a custom-built suite
0
A lot
Grid aw are users
Significant
Slight
ICT
Grid aw are users
ICT
Non-grid aw are users
Grid aw are users
ICT
The extent to which user needs are met by the VRE and access grid tools is shown in the next
graph.
Duke & Jordan
Page 33
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 31. Collaborative tools - Other means - Extent to which user needs are considered
met
% of respondents in sub-group to this question
Virtual research
environment (analogous to
a VLE)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Non-grid aw are users
Grid aw are users
ICT
A lot
Significant
Slight
Access Grid
Non-grid aw are users
Grid aw are users
ICT
4.4.4
JANET
The user view of the connection from their desktop machines to systems elsewhere in the JANET
domain is shown next.
Figure 32. User perceptions of speeds and reliabilities of connections from the desktop to
machines elsewhere in the UK
% of users in sub-group holding this perception
Grid aware users
Non-grid aware
users
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
M/c elsew here in the UK - Speed
Excellent
M/c elsew here in the UK - Reliability
Adequate
Inadequate
M/c elsew here in the UK - Speed
Very poor
M/c elsew here in the UK - Reliability
There is considerable agreement here between the two sub-groups
4.4.5
The Internet
As the next graph shows, research respondents only perceive their connection to systems
elsewhere on the Internet as Adequate with a significant tail of respondents seeing the speed as
being less than adequate. As in Figure 32, the graph showing similar data for machines in the UK,
there is considerable similarity in the views of the two sub-groups.
Duke & Jordan
Page 34
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 33. User perceptions of speeds and reliabilities of connections from the desktop to
machines outside the UK
% of users in sub-group holding this perception
Grid aware
users
Non-grid
aware users
0
4.4.6
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
M/c elsew here outside the UK - Speed
Excellent
M/c elsew here outside the UK - Reliability
Adequate
Inadequate
M/c elsew here outside the UK - Speed
Very poor
M/c elsew here outside the UK - Reliability
Home
Many users expressed the view that better bandwidth could enable working from home to
resemble working within the workplace. It was clear from many interviews that the advent of ADSL
had enabled a dramatic change to working practices. Many institutions provide a VPN service to
enable home users to access the university network directly. The following examples of
comments in this area are indicative of many:
• “VPN service is an essential part of working from home into college: this allows access to …
subscription services.”
• “[I] use VPN at home and find it very good.”
• “{I] would set things up so that home computing looks like the office e.g. Citrix. Everything
goes through SSH (looks like VPN): this is more secure than straight VPN but setting it up is
more finicky.”
• “A MAJOR element in the equation …. is working at home and elsewhere using VPN
connections--we do this a great deal (and, if there was the bandwidth I would sometimes
send large AV files).”
• “We all like working at home as if we were at work. Given that we mostly just read journals,
case reports (we mostly do that online these days), and books, and send and receive
emails, we can already do that from home with the [institutional] VPN, so long as our
computers are good enough and we have broadband. For a wireless UK!”
• “A number of long running experiments are monitored remotely/at home already. Desktops
are currently routinely logged into from home.”
4.4.7
Overall view
Overall users have the following view of their network connection. The modal responses of both
groups of users for speed and reliability are “Adequate”. However, the Grid aware users have a
better opinion of their network connections than do non-Grid aware users.
Duke & Jordan
Page 35
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 34. Overall user perceptions of their network connections
% of users in sub-group holding perception
Grid aware users
Non-grid aware
users
0
4.5
20
40
60
80
Excellent
Adequate
Inadequate
Very poor
Speed
Reliability
Excellent
Adequate
Inadequate
Very poor
Management
The surveys posed a series of parallel questions about the management of the network. These
questions were generally framed in terms of the respondent’s view of where the responsibility lies
between the local department and the central ICT service for various aspects of network
management.
4.5.1
Network Development
4.5.1.1
Planning
Both researchers and ICT staff were asked where they believed the balance of responsibility lies
for planning the network. The following graph presents their responses and shows that each
group tends to the view that their own group has the responsibility. The modal response of the
Grid aware researchers is that it is a departmental responsibility and of the non-Grid aware that it
is shared: the ICT modal response is that it is a central responsibility.
Figure 35. Balance of responsibility for planning the network
% of sub-group respondents
Planning the development of departmental
networks
0
20
40
Non-grid
aw are
users
Departmental responsibility,
ie not top-sliced
Shared departmental and
central responsibility
Grid
aw are
users
Duke & Jordan
60
Central responsibility
Don'
t know
ICT
Page 36
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
4.5.1.2
Building refurbishments
Building refurbishment drives the timetable for much network change. Interviewees told us
• ‘There is some legacy network left, which is generally being left for refurbishment.’
• ‘We develop the network as part of refurbishment and then work closely with Estates to
decide what is done.’
• ‘Building refurbishments have cabling costs in project costs. Asbestos is a problem here.
They try to dovetail as best they can.’
Web responses from researchers included “Our researchers are currently in a building which is
due for complete refurbishment this year. At that point I would expect to go from 10 Mbps lines to
Gigabit lines [with] a consequent rise in speed and reliability.”
One ICT responses said “Network equipment is largely funded centrally, either through
refurbishments or [the central ICT service].”
4.5.2
Network management
4.5.2.1
Managing network equipment
We also enquired about the balance of responsibility for managing network equipment within
departments. The following two graphs show the responses. There was a tendency to think that
“we” do it. There was a very high propensity for the ICT respondents to consider it a central
responsibility while the Grid research respondents took the opposite view. The non-Grid aware
research respondents were between the two but much closer in view to the ICT respondents.
Figure 36. Balance of responsibility for managing the network
% of sub-group respondents
Managing the network equipment installed within
departments
0
20
40
Non-grid
aw are
users
60
Departmental responsibility,
ie not top-sliced
Shared departmental and
central responsibility
Grid aw are
users
Central responsibility
Don'
t know
ICT
4.5.2.2
Supporting network users
Both sets of respondents were asked where the balance of responsibility lies for providing first line
support for users of the network. The two graphs which follow show a similar response to that for
where the responsibility for managing network equipment lies, but rather more starkly. The ICT
respondents saw their own department as being predominantly responsible whereas the Grid
aware research respondents were very clearly of the view that the department has the
responsibility.
Duke & Jordan
Page 37
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 37. Balance of responsibility for supporting network users
% of sub-group respondents
Providing first line support to users of
network services
0
20
40
Non-grid
aw are
users
60
Departmental responsibility,
ie not top-sliced
Shared departmental and
central responsibility
Grid aw are
users
Central responsibility
Don'
t know
ICT
4.5.2.3
Security management
By and large, our interviews showed that the security imposed within departments is governed by
university-wide policies. The principal exceptions to this were where client or patient confidentiality
was at stake. As one ICT respondent noted, “Network security can have an impact on what
researchers wish to do, especially if they are working with the NHS.” Because there was
reasonable clarity about this from the interviews, where security was addressed directly, we did
not pursue the issue per se in the web surveys, a fact which did not escape all those researchers
we surveyed: “I am surprised at the omissions from this questionnaire (….network security).”
There were some comments from ICT respondents about network security including
• “The design of Grid technologies is naive about security. It assumes that it needs only to be
concerned about access to the Grid itself.”
• “There are potential conflicts between large bandwidth e-Science type of activities and
effective network security, e.g. firewalls capable of wirespeed Gbit protection are very very
expensive compared to those that we use for ordinary production work.”
4.5.3
Network funding
In both surveys, respondents were asked about the balance of responsibility for funding the
network, both in capital and recurrent terms. In the survey, the question was couched to mean
that top-sliced funding within an institution was equivalent to central funding. Here the views of the
three groups were more similar than in the other questions about responsibility but here too there
was a division between the non-Grid aware users and ICT respondents on the one hand and the
Grid aware research respondents on the other.
Duke & Jordan
Page 38
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Figure 38. Balance of responsibility for funding the network
% of sub-group respondents
Recurrent funding of departmental
networks
Capital funding of departmental network
upgrades and new connection points
0
20
40
60
Non-grid
aw are
users
Grid aw are
users
Departmental responsibility,
ie not top-sliced
Shared departmental and
central responsibility
ICT
Central responsibility
Non-grid
aw are
users
Don'
t know
Grid aw are
users
ICT
How funding is managed does affect the way the network is used. One ICT respondent
commented that “network traffic here is moderated by the need for departments … to contribute to
the [national] network charge that we distribute proportionally by [departmental] network traffic
each quarter.”
5
Discussion
Section 4 shows that overall, the sample of departments could be viewed as homogeneous in its
use of some services, but for a number of services, a breakdown into two groups according to
whether the departments were aware of the Grid or of cluster computing showed that these subpopulations behaved in different ways. The Grid aware grouping included as expected the science
and engineering departments, but also included Applied Mathematics, Statistics, and Psychology
departments. These sub-populations also aligned fairly cleanly with use of different groups of
research-funding sources.
The Grid aware departments were also characterised by typically possessing their own support
staff, their own servers with developed storage and backup regimes, and a wider variety of
technical needs (e.g. coping with firewalls, and more use of laptops by visitors).
The ICT service departments generally understood research users’ needs well, though when the
opportunity to compare presented, their views of the network and network services provision
tended to align more with that of the non-Grid departments than of the Grid aware ones. This
could be because the Grid aware departments have more internal support and therefore do not
need the central service as much as the non-Grid aware departments. The ICT service
departments also tended to overestimate the level of use of centrally provided services in cases
where there were departmental alternatives. For example, in the area of data backup it was felt
Duke & Jordan
Page 39
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
that often the ICT departments were unaware of the sheer amount of data being backed up (or
not) within the research departments.
5.1
5.1.1
Network Infrastructure
Departmental infrastructure
While provision to the desktop at 100Mbps is most common, there is a considerable spread of
provision, and as about 80% of institutions have appreciable proportions of their research users
connected at 10Mbps, there is still appreciable scope for upgrading these slow links. Arts users so
connected have reported concerns:
•
8
‘Speed limitations when dealing with images are noticeable’.
In general, reliability of the departmental infrastructure is not an issue as evidenced by the
very low level of adverse comments from both the researchers and the ICT service
departments. It is noteworthy though that the ICT service departments score networks as
being appreciably more reliable than did the users. This could be because
a. Grid aware respondents spend more on their networks;
b. Grid aware respondents have more local support for their use of the network;
c. Grid aware respondents are more tolerant of weaknesses in the technology.
5.1.2
University level
At the next level, that from the departmental infrastructure to the institutional network backbone,
the story is similar to the above in that there is a rump of departments connected at 100Mbps,
though the norm is now 1Gbps. The ICT service departments see this class of network connection
as overwhelmingly excellent, though the users are rather less impressed, with about half marking
the speed and reliability of this part of the infrastructure as adequate rather than excellent.
5.1.3
Extra-University level
The research departments consider that the speed and reliability of connections to elsewhere
within the JANET domain are mostly adequate, sometimes excellent and only in a few cases
inadequate. The ICT view accorded reasonably with this except that they rated reliability
considerably higher.
For links beyond JANET, the picture from the research departments regarding speed is similar,
mostly adequate, though slightly less commonly excellent. For reliability, both pictures are
predominantly ‘adequate’, with the non-Grid aware users rating it rather better than the Grid aware
group. Here, the ICT service departments’ views accorded well with those of the researchers.
5.1.4
Legacy networks
Legacy networking was found in 30% of institutions surveyed, usually at the departmental level,
and comments from both researchers and ICT service departments show that its removal often
depends on building refurbishment cycles.
•
•
•
•
•
“No legacy networking. Refurbs a few years ago did this.”
“All cat5 – building has been through a BIG refurb in the last 6 years.”
“Since the arrival of the cat6 cabling about a year ago, things are much better – this came in
on the back of their whole building’s refurb ….. Before then it was all thin Ethernet.”
“Our researchers are currently in a building which is due for complete refurbishment this
year. At that point I would expect to go from 10MB lines to GB lines and a consequent rise
in speed and reliability.”
“In buildings there is still an appreciable installed base of thin Ethernet - this is top of the
[service department’s] list but stays there - funding is and remains the problem. Estimates
£2M of work left to do in 3 large and 2 small buildings. Asbestos is also a problem here.”
Some of the situations encountered demonstrate that maintaining an association between network
upgrades and building refurbishments in order to try and save money has caused long term
Duke & Jordan
Page 40
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
negative impact to research workers and hence to research competitiveness. The consequences
extend from poor responsiveness when accessing web pages to influencing users to operate poor
data backup procedures in order to minimise network use. As the budgets needed to provide
departmental networking to current norms are not large, it seems sensible that this issue should be
examined by institutional senior management wherever legacy networking is present.
5.1.5
Firewalls
All institutions except one had a centrally managed firewall. Some were recent and a few were still
in the process of implementation. About a third of departments (mostly from the Grid aware
grouping) reported that firewalls were causing them difficulties. Policy issues were the main cause
of problems, followed by the constraints they imposed upon laptop use by visitors. Amongst the
Other specified reasons reported by respondents were:
• The inability to use multicast.
• Problems in using University resources from home.
• Access to the NHS partner organization, which has, by necessity, to have a firewall between
its network and that of the institution.
• Delay in opening a port for video conferencing.
• Researchers don'
t always ask about restrictions or default blocks early enough!
These reasons were supported by the evidence of the interviews.
The interview group indicated clearly that being able to successfully host a flow of visitors is an
important capability of a modern research department, and a key part of this is an ability to rapidly
make a visitor productive by allowing their laptop to access the resources the user needs. A
variety of means were found to be in use for permitting this, with substantial variations generally
made in order to fit in with particular institutional policies.
Overall, respondents showed that firewalls can cause a wide variety of problems of varying
seriousness to research workers, a number of which were listed in section 4.2.5. Although there is
comprehensive guidance on network security design produced by the JISC and JANET-CERT, it
seems that the variety of solutions is sufficient to make arriving at a different university with a
laptop something of an adventure.
5.2
5.2.1
Research activities using the network
Data storage and access
The research departments report that the most common place to store data is the researcher’s
desktop. The ICT service departments recognise this too but underestimate the extent.
The research departments indicated that departmental and central servers were used for these
purposes in approximately equal measure. UK and foreign resources were used to a lower but
significant extent, and used more for downloads than for storage.
The phone interviews added detail to these figures, showing that overall the picture is of a
community making very widespread use of data, wherever it is located in the world. The users in
these departments (significant numbers of which are in the Arts area) latch on to new sources of
data very quickly, and they now make routine use of research resources that are no more than a
year or two old.
Of concern is that many research users store data on DVDs, CDs or other personal external media
rather than on resources available over the network. In some cases it was stated to be a
consequence of seriously inadequate quotas being available on the servers to which they have
access.
•
“Central [service] doesn’t seem to understand their needs (they appear to think all
users’ needs are those of the average user).”
An instance was found where a modern central storage and backup service had been introduced
in the last two years, but that it was felt to be too expensive, because it had been designed with
corporate data needs in mind, without consulting research departments at the design stage. Had
Duke & Jordan
Page 41
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
they been, presumably they could either influenced the model and its costs, or have learnt why the
costs were as they were, either which could have led them to use the service. The departments
were therefore creating their own solutions alongside the central one.
Patterns of use of research data can be complex. For example, with the advent of imaging
technologies, Departments of Psychology are now very large scale creators and users of data.
They are acquiring large servers with storage in the Terabyte range. Data files of hundreds of
megabytes are stored, exchanged with collaborators, and sent abroad for some processing.
Some research work involves using imaging systems at other locations, and experiments are
being planned that involve simultaneous real-time use of pairs of imaging systems. This work
places great demands on the network. Furthermore, some data has NHS origins and has to be
handled specially.
5.2.2
Data backup
Even more researchers (nearly 80%) were found to use personal external media for backup than
use it for storage. Using personal media was the most common way of performing backup. These
researchers are thus taking responsibility for backup upon themselves. The results also show that
many users employ a variety of means to backup their data which suggests that no single entirely
satisfactory approach is available to them.
•
“Departmental data backup is basically out of control. Lots of CDs and memory
sticks around.”
As a group, the ICT service departments appear to considerably overestimate the role played by
central servers to back up research data and to underestimate the level of use of DVDs and CDs
for this purpose by researchers. However, a number of the ICT survey responses clearly show
that central provision of backup services backup is presently being addressed. Until the overall
situation improves though, a lot of research data must be considered to be at much more risk than
it should be. One institution was found that did not offer a data backup service, expecting
departments or users to perform that task.
5.2.3
Access to software
Although access to remote software is a minority activity, it is important to those who do use it.
Some researchers move large data files abroad for data reduction, and move it back for
subsequent analysis.
5.2.4
Access to compute power
5.2.4.1
Cluster computing
The phone interviews indicated that departments with needs for high performance computing
(HPC) are most commonly using local facilities, sometimes clusters of idle PCs, using Condor
software, for this purpose. The web survey showed that, with nearly 40% of departments
providing information on usage, the activity is widespread. Citing reasons of ease of adoption,
convenience and manageability, the groups with HPC needs were most frequently using clustered
computing resources within their own department or institution. They generally felt that their
resources would meet their needs for a couple of years. Some of these users had often not
finished exploiting all the idle PCs that were available. Under a half felt they were likely to outgrow
them in the longer term, though for this response the level who could not express a view was
nearly a half.
5.2.4.2
Use of the Grid
There was a modest level of awareness of the Grid amongst users of high performance computing
(HPC), but only a handful used it beyond a low level. About 10% of the Grid aware respondents
saw themselves as making high use of the Grid in between two and four years time, with another
20% anticipating medium levels of use. Here, about a third of respondents did not offer a view.
The views from the ICT service departments anticipated a similar profile of change.
The phone interviews showed that awareness of the Grid’s existence is widespread amongst HPC
users, though it is common for them to have made a conscious decision not to get involved with
Duke & Jordan
Page 42
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
the Grid so far because of both the learning curve involved (with the risk of interruption to research
work) and the fact that many have fairly recently started using local compute clusters. Some
research users also run HPC jobs of such duration on their own clusters (e.g. up to several
months) that they doubt whether a Grid resource would be suitable.
The science and engineering departments can be expected to continue to develop their own HPC
resources and doing so will inevitably tend to lessen the comparative attractiveness of Grid
resources. Thus the latter will need to grow at least at the same rate if they are to remain as an
attractive option for migration in the short or medium term. The uncertainties found in the
responses to the cluster computing and Grid survey questions are not inconsistent with such a
scenario.
Some HPC cluster users are not convinced that the Grid will deliver resources suitable for running
their jobs, for example one of six months duration on a 20 node cluster (estimated 10Pflops).
It was clear that some of the Grid users were conducting or planning work that local HPC provision
could not have coped with. A characterising feature of some Grid users was that the data
management requirements of their work needed deep planning.
Some of the small number of Grid users recognised issues in the support technologies: this
included management of both certificates and virtual organisations, which were seen as nascent
network services.
Impressions gained were:
•
The Grid community can appear rather closed to those outside it.
•
Because the Grid is basically a concept, it remains imprecise to some. For
example, people do not know whether Grid resources would cost more, or less,
than other types.
•
There is likelihood that unless a balanced cross section of information is available
about Grid computing - one that can assist rational decision making about adoption
- some potential adopters will delay putting time into it, while others may experience
disappointment if it turns out to interrupt research output.
•
For some departments using HPC, the Grid was seen as an option, but for a
minority (with some Physics departments being the clearest example), the Grid was
essential (for the physicists in its ability to handle data).
5.2.5
Collaboration
5.2.5.1
Email
Email is reported by the research departments as an outstanding medium for facilitating research
collaboration. It works and everybody uses it. It is seen as offering advantages over all other
forms of contact for some purposes, such as working with others in widely different time zones. It
has also been mentioned as the best way of fostering some types of research community, e.g. of a
very small number of pure mathematicians sharing a particular research area. Mail lists have
been cited by numbers of departments, notably in the Arts, as a very valuable means of forming
and holding together larger research communities. Mail services are reported generally as very
good.
It was noteworthy that both the Grid aware and the non-Grid aware groups of departments were
had almost exactly coincidental views on email, demonstrating the established nature and
embeddedness of this technology.
There were a couple of downsides. Some departments report that better access to email,
including folders, would contribute to their ability to work at home. Also the use of large
attachments can be an issue: these are often used to ship data between collaborators but there
are often significant restrictions on size, restricting their benefits. These restrictions are often
imposed for good reason and alternative means of transfer are available: however such means
are not usually so convenient to the user.
Duke & Jordan
Page 43
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
5.2.5.2
Video conferencing and telephony
Video conferencing from custom built suites is used to a slight extent by about half the
departments responding. No form of video conferencing has high levels of use across 5*
departments as a group, even in the Grid aware departments the technology is in frequent use
only by a small minority, mainly using suite-based services. Only a minority of non-Grid aware
users reported on their level of satisfaction, but amongst Grid aware departments, most users
were satisfied with the suite-based services available. Only a small number of departments used
desktop or trolley-based systems. The ICT service departments’ views were similar, but with
higher levels of use estimated generally. It should be noted that the phone interviews showed that
suite based services were often provided by other service departments (e.g. Audio-Visual
Services).
There was little evidence of widespread use of IP telephony other than Skype. Skype has come in
through the back door and enjoys some use by about half of the departments contacted.
Institutional attitudes towards it vary widely. Some ICT service departments ban it, some accept it,
and others turn a blind eye to it. One University revoked an earlier ban during the course of this
review but has taken considerable technical steps to control it. As this review neared its
3
completion, the UKERNA Voice Advisory Group produced an information sheet on Skype .
The Access Grid was mentioned by over 20 research departments. Most were at an investigatory
stage, but looked towards it to meet their needs well. Some users reported problems stemming
from its fixed use of IP numbers.
5.2.6
‘Blue Sky’ thinking
Numbers of survey respondents supported the examples given in the survey:
•
Improved working from home
•
More ubiquitous wireless networking
•
Improved video conferencing services
Another group could be identified, centred upon use of high quality image data to view valuable
resources such as manuscripts, books and paintings. Streaming applications were also
mentioned by several departments.
The departments making these suggestions were drawn from all disciplines, with the implication
that there are support needs to be met if the undoubted capabilities of SuperJANET to deliver
improved bandwidth are to be realised. .
5.2.7
Home working
Many interviewees and survey respondents commented on the ease of working from home using
ADSL lines. More than 80% of the universities responding to the ICT survey offer a VPN or SSH
service for access to the institutional network. Together these facilities allow home-workers a
semblance of the workplace network environment. Some respondents without VPN access noted
that not all their needs were met, citing access to email folders and access to the .ac.uk domain as
problems
Interestingly, it was clear that working from home is perhaps the area which will benefit most from
improved network bandwidths. The benefits to researchers are obvious. For example, some
experimenters expressed a wish to monitor online instrumentation outside normal working hours.
The same sentiment was expressed regarding monitoring long-running compute jobs. Another
benefit which can be foreseen is to facilitate the employment of short term contract or part-time
workers who may be able to work from a distance rather than have to move to take a post or may
be able to work part-time at more than one institution.
3
http://www.ja.net/development/voip/skype&janet.pdf
Duke & Jordan
Page 44
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
5.3
5.3.1
Management and funding
Differences between institutions
Our interviews showed that different institutions operate very differently. Some institutions devolve
responsibility for the network within buildings almost wholly to departments whereas others
concentrate responsibility in the central ICT service. In the former case there are almost invariably
arrangements available so that departments can, for a price, contract the central department to
manage the network for them.
Some institutions are consciously changing their arrangements. One ICT respondent told us “Our
model is changing at present from department responsibility for all aspects …. of [departmental]
networks, to a more corporate style where Planning, Management and 1st line Support will
become a joint responsibility.”
Funding streams of course affect the planning cycle, particularly where funding is largely in the
hands of the department. One interviewee told us that it is important to note that nearly all the
department’s income is ‘soft’ and has to be reasonably proof against a lean year. This adversely
affects levels of expenditure and makes medium and long term planning very difficult. Another
interviewee noted that planning is an area of concern, as income streams are volatile.
5.3.2
Differences of perception within institutions
The results of the two surveys show markedly different views of who is perceived as being
responsible for managing and funding the network. Grid aware departments tend to the view that
they carry the can whereas non-Grid aware and ICT service departments tend to the view that the
network is a central responsibility. The greatest differences of view between Grid aware and ICT
service respondents are in their perceptions of who plans the network and who provides first line
support for it.
The significant difference in view between Grid aware and ICT service departments suggests
either a lack of communication or a lack of clarity about what arrangements are actually in place.
It is noteworthy that one science department said to us that its central ICT service department
does little for the physical sciences but probably more for the humanities. Another department at
the same institution said that, though planning is entirely in departmental hands, consultation
within the institution is very good. A further department at the same institution said “planning is
entirely central.”
The differences of view between Grid aware – often science and engineering departments - and
non-Grid aware departments – usually arts and humanities departments - may be for a number of
reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Science and engineering departments have larger incomes and are therefore in a
better position to spend more on departmental infrastructure.
Science and engineering departments may consider the network more important to
their work than do arts departments.
Arts and humanities departments may take the view that the network infrastructure is
not part of their core business and they therefore tend to leave it to the central ICT
service department.
All of this, however, points up the difficulties of implementing an effective and coherent planning
process. The importance of planning was however stated succinctly by a respondent to the survey
of researchers: “We are a tiny Department, …mostly occupied with lone-scholar text-based
research. I myself have moved increasingly to web-based research, and I think that others will
follow. It is incredibly difficult to plan on the basis of a current snap-shot; but in our field the cost of
traditional publication is going to be a motor in transforming the way we work and [will] enormously
[increase] the demands that we make on the system.”
Duke & Jordan
Page 45
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
6
6.1.1
Conclusions and recommendations
Network Connections
1
In most institutions, most departmental networks provide switched links to users at 100
Mbps.
2
About 80% of institutions have some of their research staff connected at 10 Mbps or below.
3
Coaxial cabling is present in about 30% of institutions, and is often a consequence of being
allowed to be bound in with very protracted building refurbishment cycles, which are thus a
cause of inadequate network provision to research workers. The reviewers were surprised
and concerned to discover the extent of legacy provision, much of which would be expected
to be 15 - 20 years old.
Recommendation 1 The third of institutions with researchers served by coaxial networks and
the rather larger group with researchers served by shared network access
should ensure that they possess and implement plans to replace this with
current technology.
4
The research departments are well satisfied with the speed and reliability of their network
connections to departmental and institutional resources. They are also satisfied with
connections into and beyond JANET, although hardly surprisingly their levels showed some
decline with distance.
5
Grid aware respondents are generally happier with the speed and reliability of network
connections within their departments and institutions than are non-Grid aware respondents.
This could be because
a)
Grid aware respondents spend more on their networks;
b)
Grid aware respondents have more local support for their use of the network;
c)
Grid aware respondents are more tolerant of weaknesses in the technology.
6
It is now the norm for institutions to possess a firewall.
7
Firewalls, mainly their policy aspects and their impacts upon ad hoc laptop use, impair
research work in about a third of departments, most of which were Grid aware.
6.1.2
Network services
1
Not surprisingly, knowledge of the Grid is largely associated with science and engineering
departments.
2
The single most common form of data backup is to users’ personal media (DVDs, CDs, or
portable tape drive), which is used by nearly 80% of users/departments. The most common
reasons stated are:
a)
Completely inadequate quotas offered on institutional resources.
b)
Cost of central storage and backup services, when these are available.
Recommendation 2 Institutions should ensure that systematic approaches are used to backup
research data.
3
In general, the ICT service departments overestimated the use of central facilities and
underestimated use of personal media.
4
The picture for data storage showed that the most common place to store data is on the
user’s desktop, and that personal external media are widely used for storage as well as
backup.
5
The Grid aware departments make substantially greater use of departmental servers for
access to specialist software as well as data storage and backup than the non-Grid aware
departments, who make rather more use of central servers than the first group.
6
For the overwhelming majority of research departments, video-conferencing (all forms) is
only used to a slight extent, even amongst the Grid aware subset. Suite based video
conferencing is the most common choice, used by about 40% of departments and is rated
as generally satisfactory. Other forms of video communications (e.g. desktop
videoconferencing) are little used, even though interest in them was found.
7
Skype enjoys some use by about half of the departments contacted. The lack of a central
steer has been interpreted in different ways by institutions, but presently the trend is towards
acceptance.
Duke & Jordan
Page 46
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
JISC and UKERNA should produce clear and timely guidance for
institutions on adoption of new network applications.
8
Broadband ADSL and VPNs are permitting large amounts of research work to be
performed from home. As well as having implications for research productivity, this will
facilitate more flexible patterns of work and employment, such as use of short-term or parttime contracts.
Recommendation 4 National and institutional policies and planning need to reflect the potential
impact upon working practices presented by this technology-based
change.
9
Amongst the science and engineering departments there is widespread use of locally
clustered computing, which is commonly felt likely to provide capacity to meet needs for at
least the next two years.
10
Amongst the science and engineering departments about a third of respondents felt that
they would be making appreciable use of the Grid by two to four years time.
11
A substantial number of potential Grid users have consciously decided to hold back from
involvement because of the learning curve involved and the availability of their own clusters.
12
Those science and engineering departments with their own HPC resources can be expected
to continue to develop them and their doing so will inevitably tend to offset the attractiveness
of moving to the Grid. Thus the appeal of the Grid will need to grow faster than that of local
resources if it is to remain as an attractive option for migration in the short or medium term.
Recommendation 5 More education to allow users to assess Grid technology and plan for its
adoption is required.
13
Of those who replied to the question asking how access to ubiquitous unlimited network
bandwidth would change their working patterns, nearly half envision improved working from
home (this group embraced all types of department), followed by a quarter each wishing
either to have more ubiquitous wireless networking or improved video conferencing
services.
14
The responses to a number of the survey questions show that generally the ICT service
departments’ responses are similar to those of the non-Grid aware research departments
but differ from those of the Grid aware departments. This could be because the Grid aware
departments have more internal support and therefore do not need the central service as
much as the non-Grid aware departments.
Recommendation 3
Duke & Jordan
Page 47
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Appendix I
5* departments and universities
A small number of institutions have more than one 5* department in an RAE area. In such cases
the number is shown in brackets after the Unit of assessment name.
Institution
Birkbeck College
Cardiff University
City University
Courtauld Institute of Art
Goldsmiths College
Heriot-Watt University
Imperial College of Science,
Technology and Medicine
Institute of Cancer Research
Institute of Classical Studies
Institute of Germanic Studies
Institute of Latin American
Studies
Keele University
King'
s College London
Lancaster University
Duke & Jordan
Unit of assessment name
English Language and Literature
History
Iberian and Latin American Languages
Civil Engineering
Education
English Language and Literature
Other Studies and Professions Allied to Medicine
Psychology
Theology, Divinity and Religious Studies
Town and Country Planning
Music
History of Art, Architecture and Design
Communication, Cultural and Media Studies
Sociology
Mineral and Mining Engineering
Applied Mathematics
Biological Sciences
Chemical Engineering
Chemistry
Civil Engineering
Clinical Laboratory Sciences
Computer Science
General Engineering
Hospital-based Clinical Subjects
Mechanical, Aeronautical and Manufacturing Engineering
Mineral and Mining Engineering
Physics
Pure Mathematics
Biological Sciences
Clinical Laboratory Sciences
Classics, Ancient History, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
German, Dutch and Scandinavian Languages
American Studies
Law
Anatomy
Classics, Ancient History, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
Clinical Dentistry
Community-based Clinical Subjects
German, Dutch and Scandinavian Languages
History
Iberian and Latin American Languages (2)
Philosophy
Politics and International Studies
Business and Management Studies
Page 48
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Liverpool John Moores
University
London Business School
London School of Economics
and Political Science
Loughborough University
Manchester Metropolitan
University
Open University
Oxford Brookes University
Queen Mary, University of
London
Royal Holloway, University of
London
School of Oriental and African
Studies
The Queen'
s University of
Belfast
University College London
University of Aberdeen
University of Bath
University of Birmingham
Duke & Jordan
Physics
Sociology
Statistics and Operational Research
Sports-related Subjects
Business and Management Studies
Accounting and Finance
Anthropology
Economics and Econometrics
History
Law
Philosophy
Social Policy and Administration
Built Environment
Sociology
Sports-related Subjects
Sports-related Subjects
Geography
History
Iberian and Latin American Languages
Law
Linguistics
French
Geography
German, Dutch and Scandinavian Languages
Music
History
Mechanical, Aeronautical and Manufacturing Engineering
Anthropology
Chemical Engineering
Chemistry
Classics, Ancient History, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
Economics and Econometrics
English Language and Literature
Geography
German, Dutch and Scandinavian Languages
Hospital-based Clinical Subjects (3)
Italian
Law
Linguistics
Pharmacology
Psychology
French
Applied Mathematics
Mechanical, Aeronautical and Manufacturing Engineering
Pharmacy
Anatomy
Page 49
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
University of Bradford
University of Bristol
University of Cambridge
Duke & Jordan
Chemical Engineering
Clinical Laboratory Sciences
European Studies
French
German, Dutch and Scandinavian Languages
Italian
Metallurgy and Materials
Middle Eastern and African Studies
Music
Psychology
Sports-related Subjects
European Studies
Anatomy
Applied Mathematics
Biological Sciences
Chemistry
Civil Engineering
Clinical Dentistry
Community-based Clinical Subjects
Drama, Dance and Performing Arts
Earth Sciences
Education
Geography
Psychology
Russian, Slavonic and East European Languages
Social Work
Statistics and Operational Research
Applied Mathematics
Archaeology
Asian Studies
Biological Sciences (2)
Celtic Studies
Chemistry
Classics, Ancient History, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
Clinical Laboratory Sciences
Community-based Clinical Subjects
Computer Science
Earth Sciences
English Language and Literature
French
General Engineering
German, Dutch and Scandinavian Languages
History
Hospital-based Clinical Subjects
Iberian and Latin American Languages
Italian
Law
Linguistics
Metallurgy and Materials
Music
Philosophy (2)
Page 50
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
University of Dundee
University of Durham
University of East Anglia
University of Edinburgh
University of Essex
University of Exeter
University of Glasgow
University of Kent at
Canterbury
University of Leeds
University of Leicester
University of Liverpool
University of Manchester
Duke & Jordan
Physics
Psychology
Pure Mathematics
Statistics and Operational Research
Biological Sciences
Clinical Laboratory Sciences
Applied Mathematics
Chemistry
English Language and Literature
Geography
History
Law
Communication, Cultural and Media Studies
Environmental Sciences
History
Computer Science
Electrical and Electronic Engineering
English Language and Literature
Geography
German, Dutch and Scandinavian Languages
Hospital-based Clinical Subjects
Middle Eastern and African Studies
Philosophy
Pure Mathematics
Economics and Econometrics
Politics and International Studies
Sociology
German, Dutch and Scandinavian Languages
English Language and Literature
European Studies
Psychology
Sports-related Subjects
Social Policy and Administration
Statistics and Operational Research
Electrical and Electronic Engineering
English Language and Literature
Food Science and Technology
Italian
Mechanical, Aeronautical and Manufacturing Engineering
Town and Country Planning
Biological Sciences
English Language and Literature
Mechanical, Aeronautical and Manufacturing Engineering
Physiology
Accounting and Finance
Biological Sciences
Computer Science
French
German, Dutch and Scandinavian Languages
Iberian and Latin American Languages
Page 51
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
University of Manchester
Institute of Science &
Technology
University of Newcastle
University of Nottingham
University of Oxford
University of Reading
University of Salford
University of Sheffield
Duke & Jordan
Metallurgy and Materials
Music
Pharmacy
Pre-Clinical Studies
Sociology
Theology, Divinity and Religious Studies
Metallurgy and Materials
Other Studies and Professions Allied to Medicine
Biological Sciences
Clinical Laboratory Sciences
Music
Psychology
American Studies
German, Dutch and Scandinavian Languages
Iberian and Latin American Languages
Music
Theology, Divinity and Religious Studies
Archaeology
Asian Studies
Chemistry
Classics, Ancient History, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
Clinical Laboratory Sciences
Community-based Clinical Subjects
Earth Sciences
English Language and Literature
French
General Engineering
Hospital-based Clinical Subjects
Italian
Law
Linguistics
Metallurgy and Materials
Music
Pharmacology
Philosophy
Physics
Politics and International Studies
Psychology
Pure Mathematics
Russian, Slavonic and East European Languages
Statistics and Operational Research
Theology, Divinity and Religious Studies
Archaeology
English Language and Literature
Environmental Sciences
Italian
Psychology
Built Environment
Library and Information Management
Biological Sciences (2)
Page 52
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
University of Southampton
University of St Andrews
University of Surrey
University of Ulster
University of Wales,
Aberystwyth
University of Wales, Bangor
University of Wales, Swansea
University of Warwick
University of York
Warburg Institute
Duke & Jordan
Electrical and Electronic Engineering (2)
Library and Information Management
Metallurgy and Materials
Politics and International Studies
Pre-Clinical Studies
Russian, Slavonic and East European Languages
Civil Engineering
Computer Science
Electrical and Electronic Engineering
European Studies
Law
Mechanical, Aeronautical and Manufacturing Engineering
Music
Physics
English Language and Literature
Psychology
Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Other Studies and Professions Allied to Medicine
Sociology
Celtic Studies
Other Studies and Professions Allied to Medicine
Celtic Studies
Politics and International Studies
Celtic Studies
Psychology
Civil Engineering
Applied Mathematics
Business and Management Studies
Drama, Dance and Performing Arts
Economics and Econometrics
English Language and Literature
Statistics and Operational Research
Computer Science
English Language and Literature
Psychology
Classics, Ancient History, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
Page 53
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Appendix II List of topics for discussion sent out
before visits to departments
1. Which Research Councils fund their work.
2. The role computing plays in the research activity.
3. The research group’s uses for the network present and expected.
4. Basic network provision to the research group (i.e. to its computers). We would expect this to
cover
a)
Performance and reliability
b)
Any policies about the standards of networking provision to research workers.
c)
Any policies about security and access.
d)
Support of the research group’s networking needs by its own department
e)
Central network support provided by the contact’s institution
f)
Anything more about adequacy of basic network services.
5. Networking technology issues. This may include problems with firewalls or use of the Grid.
6. Budgets for the research group’s networking needs.
7. How access to unlimited network access bandwidth would change the way in which your
department performs research.
8. Anything else you want to tell us.
Duke & Jordan
Page 54
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Appendix III List of topics for discussion sent out
before phone calls to academic departments
1.
The principal funding bodies for the research work.
2.
The role computing plays in the research activity.
3.
The research group’s uses for the network and whether the Grid is involved. (This
includes processing, data access, software, data storage and back-up).
4.
Network provision to the research workers, covering such as technology, bandwidth,
reliability and firewalls. Any outstanding needs.
5.
Collaboration with others. The nature of services used here (e.g. email, video
conferencing and Skype). Any outstanding needs.
6.
Policies on network security and access and whether they affect research work.
7.
How network planning is conducted, e.g. involvement of central ICT services.
8.
Division of network support between central and departmental provision.
9.
Mechanisms used for network funding.
10.
How access to unlimited network access bandwidth would change the way in which the
department performs research.
11.
Any other networking issues.
Duke & Jordan
Page 55
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Appendix IV List of topics for discussion sent out
before phone calls to ICT service departments
1.
Network provision to the research workers, covering such as technologies, bandwidth,
reliability and firewalls.
2.
The research groups’ uses for the network. (This includes processing, data access,
software access, data storage, data back-up and possibly the Grid).
3.
Services used to facilitate collaboration with others (e.g. email, video conferencing and
Skype).
4.
Policies on network security and access and whether they affect research needs.
5.
How network planning is conducted, e.g. involvement of departments.
6.
Division of network support between central and departmental provision.
7.
Mechanisms used for network funding.
8.
How access to unlimited network access bandwidth might change the way in which the
departments perform their research.
9.
Any other networking issues that are relevant to research.
Duke & Jordan
Page 56
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Appendix V
Web survey sent to academic departments
!
"
#$
!
"
!
"
!%
#$
"
!
&
"
"
'
*
+
" ()*
*
*
*
*
!
"
!%
"
"
&
Duke & Jordan
"
-
"
"
"
,
!
!
!
!
!
Page 57
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
%$#&
'
"
($'
)
"
1$2
$ ,
Duke & Jordan
!
3&
,
,
*$'
"
+$'
,-
.
/0 /0
,4
. ,
&
,
,
Page 58
$
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
$'
5$2
!
,
,
"
!,
.
#
!
"
!
4
.&/
"
6$ ,
Duke & Jordan
,
!
7
0
1
$
Page 59
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
$
8$ ,
,.
!
"
$
!
.
&
/
(
2,3 4
3 , 24
2,5 4
5 ,6224
,
,
.
1
"
62 7"
622 7"
68"
62 7"
"
"
"
622 7"
"
"
"
68"
"
"
"
8
"
68"
"
Duke & Jordan
"
Page 60
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
9$ ,
"
"
!
!
.
/
62 7"
62 , 622 7"
9
622 7"
Duke & Jordan
/
,
,
2,3 4
3 , 24
2,5 4
5 ,6224
.
"
. $
!
1
"
9
8
.
,
, 68"
68"
Page 61
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
(:$;
,
,
/
.
,
,
.
!
"
.
4
"
:
+
-
+
-
1/;
+
-
1/;
+
-
"
-
:
:
:
:
+
:
.&/
:
(($
."
,,
&
!
, &,
4
Duke & Jordan
Page 62
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
(*$<
7
&
,
,$
<
/
=
1
(+$
&
Duke & Jordan
"
,
.
=
!
7
&
,
,/!,
,
,
"$
Page 63
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
(1$<
7
.
.
&
,
,
,&
.
,
"!
$
<
/
"
"
( $
"
Duke & Jordan
&
. ,
"!
&
&
,
,
,
.
Page 64
,
,
,
.
,
,&
4
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
$
=
(5$ ,
$
"
&
"
,
,
.
9
,
,
. !
"!,
1
&
>
.
9
9
9
Duke & Jordan
Page 65
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
(6$ ,
$
"
"
,
,
,
,
. !
"!,
.
9
1
&
&
!
>
.
9
9
(8$
Duke & Jordan
!
.
/!,
"!
Page 66
$
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
(9$
&
!$
*:$<
7
,
"
!
."
&
, /!,
!,
,,
&
,
,&
,
,,
/
,
/
/
,
,
.
&
!
"
$)
/
$
#
?
;(
=
;
;
.
.
,"
*
"
.
+
.?;1
Duke & Jordan
8
Page 67
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
*($ ,
,
,&
Duke & Jordan
,
,
&
. ,
"!
$
&
!
Page 68
,
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
)$ ,
"!
*
.
>
"
>
1
**$
,
!
&, $
$
8
"!
,
,
.
8
!
,
!
/
4 ,
,
,
"
"
!
?
%
6
%
3
%
@
7
Duke & Jordan
@
Page 69
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
*+$ ,
,
,
,>
! !
$
#
?
6
>
?
3
>
?
@
>
*1$
/!
Duke & Jordan
.
, ,
8
,
,
.
&
!
,
"!
.
>
$
Page 70
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
$
* $<
)
7
&
.
,
,
"
?
!!
&,
!
!!
&,
&
!
"
)
,
, <
$
! "
,
.
!$
,
!
.
,
/!,
,
,&
,
"
&
!
"
/
$
!- ,
.
,
!
&, $
A
&
7
*
&
Duke & Jordan
Page 71
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
*5$
)
,
Duke & Jordan
. ,
, <
&
.
&,
!!
Page 72
!
&,
&
4
!
"
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
>$;
*6$<
&
.
,
,
@
%,
/
, B
- ?.
A7
,
,
-2
.
-=
. !
-#
Duke & Jordan
.
$
,"
4
,
.
,
"
"!,
&
,
"
,
,
,
.
,
- "
,
Page 73
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
*8$#
.
, ""
"
!
4
*9$0
<
+:$
Duke & Jordan
!!
.
,
!
4
/
,
7
'
/!,
.
Page 74
"
,
$
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
<
Duke & Jordan
"
"!,
.
$ ,
,
Page 75
,
$
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
Appendix VI Web survey sent to service departments
!
"
#$
!
"
!
"
#$
!%
"
!
&
"
"
'
*
,
*
" ()*
-
"
*
*
"
*
+
"
!%
"
"
Duke & Jordan
"
!
!
"
&
!
!
!
!
Page 76
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
%$#&
'
"
($'
)
"
1$2
$ ,
Duke & Jordan
!
3&
,
,
*$'
"
+$'
,-
.
/0 /0
,4
. ,
&
,
,
Page 77
$
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
$'
5$2
!
,
,
"
!,
.
#
!
"
!
4
.&/
"
6$ ,
Duke & Jordan
,
!
7
0
1
$
Page 78
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
$
8$ ,
,.
!
"
$
!
.
&
/
(
2,3 4
3 , 24
2,5 4
,
,
5 ,6224
.
1
"
62 7"
622 7"
68"
62 7"
"
"
"
Duke & Jordan
Page 79
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
9$ ,
"
"
!
!
.
/
62 7"
62 , 622 7"
9
622 7"
Duke & Jordan
/
,
,
2,3 4
3 , 24
2,5 4
5 ,6224
.
"
. $
!
1
"
9
8
.
,
, 68"
68"
Page 80
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
(:$;
,
,
/
.
,
,
.
!
"
.
4
"
:
+
-
+
-
1/;
+
-
1/;
+
-
"
-
:
:
:
:
+
:
.&/
:
(($
."
,,
&
!
, &,
4
Duke & Jordan
Page 81
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
(*$<
7
&
,
,$
<
/
=
1
(+$
&
Duke & Jordan
"
,
.
=
!
7
&
,
,/!,
,
,
"$
Page 82
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
(1$<
7
.
.
&
,
,
,&
.
,
"!
$
<
/
"
"
( $
"
Duke & Jordan
&
. ,
"!
&
&
,
,
,
.
Page 83
,
,
,
.
,
,&
4
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
$
=
(5$ ,
$
"
&
"
,
,
,
,
. !
"!,
.
9
1
&
>
.
9
9
9
Duke & Jordan
Page 84
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
(6$ ,
$
"
"
,
,
,
,
. !
.
9
"!,
1
&
&
!
>
.
9
9
(8$
Duke & Jordan
!
.
/!,
"!
Page 85
$
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
(9$
&
!$
*:$<
7
,
"
!
."
&
, /!,
!,
,,
&
.
,
,&
,
,,
/
,
/
/
,
,
&
!
"
$)
/
$
#
?
;(
=
;
;
.
.
,"
*
"
.
+
.?;1
Duke & Jordan
8
Page 86
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
*($ ,
,
,&
Duke & Jordan
,
,
&
. ,
"!
$
&
Page 87
!
,
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
)$ ,
"!
*
.
>
"
>
1
**$
,
!
&, $
$
"!
,
,
.
8
8
!
,
!
/
4 ,
,
,
"
"
!
?
%
6
%
3
%
@
7
Duke & Jordan
@
Page 88
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
*+$ ,
,
,
,>
! !
$
#
?
6
>
?
3
>
?
@
>
*1$
/!
Duke & Jordan
.
, ,
8
,
,
.
&
!
,
"!
.
>
$
Page 89
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
$
* $<
)
7
&
.
,
,
?
"
!!
&,
!
!!
&,
&
!
"
)
,
, <
$
! "
,
.
!$
,
!
.
,
/!,
,
,&
,
"
&
!
"
/
$
!- ,
.
,
!
&, $
A
&
7
*
&
Duke & Jordan
Page 90
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
*5$
)
,
Duke & Jordan
. ,
, <
&
.
&,
!!
Page 91
!
&,
&
4
!
"
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
>$;
*6$<
&
.
@
%,
/
, B
- ?.
.
-=
. !
Duke & Jordan
A7
,
,
-2
-#
,
,
.
$
,
.
,
"
,"
4
"!,
&
,
"
,
,
,
.
,
- "
,
Page 92
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
*8$#
.
, ""
"
!
4
*9$0
<
Duke & Jordan
!!
.
,
!
4
/
Page 93
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006
+:$
<
Duke & Jordan
,
"
7
"!,
'
.
/!,
$ ,
.
"
,
Page 94
,
,
$
$
Network Provision for Research Needs, May 2006