Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    Hands-On Career Preparation
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    Alternative Pathways
Sign In
News

Supercomputers, a Status Symbol in Academe, Compete With the Cloud

By Paul Basken October 26, 2017
When Stampede2, at the U. of Texas at Austin, began operations in July, it became the most powerful supercomputer on a U.S. campus. The university’s president said the machine would let scientists “take on the greatest challenges facing society.”
When Stampede2, at the U. of Texas at Austin, began operations in July, it became the most powerful supercomputer on a U.S. campus. The university’s president said the machine would let scientists “take on the greatest challenges facing society.”Sean Cunningham

Even with one of the nation’s biggest academic supercomputers right on her campus, Clemson University’s Amy W. Apon wanted more speed.

The computer-science professor has now found it with a fairly utilitarian choice: Amazon Web Services.

In a test just now concluding, Ms. Apon led a team that ran 17 years’ worth of abstracts from academic journals through the popular cloud service to try out some machine-learning software. For comparable equipment-usage costs, she says, Amazon appears to have run the test about 40 times as fast as Clemson’s Palmetto2, the nation’s eighth-most-powerful academic computer.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Even with one of the nation’s biggest academic supercomputers right on her campus, Clemson University’s Amy W. Apon wanted more speed.

The computer-science professor has now found it with a fairly utilitarian choice: Amazon Web Services.

In a test just now concluding, Ms. Apon led a team that ran 17 years’ worth of abstracts from academic journals through the popular cloud service to try out some machine-learning software. For comparable equipment-usage costs, she says, Amazon appears to have run the test about 40 times as fast as Clemson’s Palmetto2, the nation’s eighth-most-powerful academic computer.

Palmetto2 is still a computational marvel. But the “speedup” with Amazon, Ms. Apon said, “comes from using a lot more whole computers than is available on Palmetto.”

For a world in which having a great big supercomputer on campus has become a badge of big-league status in academe, a shift seems underway. On-site computing capability does remain important. But with demand soaring across academic fields, budgets still tight and commercial cloud options growing, value is increasingly attached to having in-house computer experts who can guide scientists to their best options in processing resources, either on campus or off.

Examples of the shift include Imagine Rio, a web-based resource for historians at Rice University that depicts the street-level growth of Brazil’s Rio de Janeiro year by year back to the city’s founding, in the 1500s. Rice doesn’t have especially large computing resources — less than a tenth of what can be found 200 miles away, at the University of Texas at Austin, home to the nation’s two biggest academic supercomputers. But Rice does have the Ken Kennedy Institute for Information Technology, which helps about 170 faculty members with advanced computing needs.

Researchers in many fields are accustomed to having on-demand computing capabilities … and don’t grasp the necessity of waiting a day or two for results when they begin using supercomputers.

One of them, Farès el-Dahdah, a professor of humanities, had the concept for Imagine Rio but little idea of how to pull it off. At the institute, his team was guided from developmental work on Rice computers to Imagine Rio’s eventual hosting on the Amazon cloud. The lack of a supercomputer at Rice made “zero difference,” he says.

That perspective differs at supercomputer giants such as the University of Texas and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. They’re among several institutions that promote their top-rated machines — many financed with federal grant support — as crucial tools and important lures for top researchers and students.

The University of Texas’ president, Gregory L. Fenves, marked the operational start in July of Stampede2 as the most powerful supercomputer at any U.S. university, as determined by the TOP500 project, a widely recognized measure that ranks computers by their ability to solve a particular set of linear equations. The machine, he said, would let scientists at Austin “take on the greatest challenges facing society.”

Return on Investment

Various financial estimates, by universities and others, have backed the wisdom of such investments. Institutions seeking government money for the most powerful tier of computing do need to build advanced hosting facilities with sophisticated cooling systems. Texas spent $38 million expanding its data center before winning more than $100 million in support from the National Science Foundation for its two Stampede systems.

But when it comes to return on investment, a study last year found that universities realized more than $40 for every dollar invested in high-performance computing. The University of Illinois issued a report this year saying its Blue Waters supercomputer, for an investment of some $500 million, mostly from the NSF, will result in a $1.3 billion economic gain for the state.

ADVERTISEMENT

And the demand for supercomputing among researchers looks strong. Texas’s previous supercomputer, the first Stampede, supported some 3,700 projects over four years in almost every academic field, says Dan Stanzione, executive director of the Texas Advanced Computing Center. Over 15 years, the investment has helped attract about $1.5 billion in research grants to campus, he says.

Because such systems are built largely with federal money, the university has direct control over only a small share of usage time on the NSF-funded portions of its systems. Most of that time is allocated nationwide through a competitive system. And, as with federal grant applications, demand for advanced computing well exceeds supply.

For Stampede’s systems, Mr. Stanzione says, researchers request five to seven times more time than is available. Actual interest is probably much higher still, he says, because supply shortages lead applicants to scale down their ambitions.

Martin Berzins knows that. After a truck carrying 8,000 wrapped explosives used in seismic testing overturned in 2005 about an hour outside Salt Lake City, exploding and wiping out the roadway beneath it, Mr. Berzins, a computer-science professor at the University of Utah, led a team that spent five years on computer simulations to figure out what had triggered the detonation and how best to safely pack such cargo. He also has worked with General Electric on improving the design of its coal boilers, using supercomputers to model machines the size of the Statue of Liberty to single-millimeter detail.

ADVERTISEMENT

Utah is not quite in the top tier of supercomputer institutions, but Mr. Berzins — who has used about a billion processor hours in the past three years at the NSF-funded facilities in Texas — is grateful that some U.S. universities are. Even companies that might benefit from safer explosives and cleaner power systems might not willingly bear the research costs, he says, adding that paying too much attention to university-specific cost-effectiveness measures “could be tragic.”

Hard data on supercomputer costs and benefits are elusive. Partly that’s because benefits, such as institutional reputation and attractiveness to faculty members and students, can be intangible. And partly it’s because important costs, like power usage and the profusion of individual components, are often poorly tracked.

“Universities are lousy at counting total cost of ownership for operating almost anything,” says Jan E. Odegard, executive director of Rice’s Ken Kennedy Institute. “A university can pretty much make any arguments it wants” about supercomputer cost-benefit ratios.

Ms. Apon, of Clemson, published a study in 2015 comparing universities with a top-500 supercomputer and those without one, which Clemson proclaimed as long-awaited proof of the value of such an investment. But the paper correlated supercomputers largely with increased research output; key costs, it acknowledged, were “hard to quantify.”

ADVERTISEMENT

An author of the study about return on investment, Steve Conway, says the importance of a particular university’s on-campus computing capacity is often overstated. He endorses an emphasis on providing faculty members with computing expertise, and on deeply integrating computing skills into the curriculum.

Fewer than 10 percent of U.S. research universities are properly preparing their engineering and science majors with necessary competence in high-performance computing, says Mr. Conway, now a research vice president in the High Performance Computing Group at Hyperion Research, a technology consultancy.

That concern was reflected in an analysis published last year by the National Academies and funded by the NSF. It urged robust federal spending on supercomputing as part of a national strategy of economic competitiveness. The report emphasized the need for human ability as much as for machinery. Hardware, software, computing services, and expertise should be “considered in an integrated manner,” it said.

China, as with many other areas involving science and economics, has drawn particular attention in supercomputing. It now has 160 of the world’s 500 top-ranked machines, only eight fewer than the United States. Some of China’s initial effort may have been about prestige, but such numbers now show a strategic move, says Mr. Stanzione, of the Texas Advanced Computing Center. The availability of advanced computing is widely understood to be “the rate-limiter on innovation,” he says.

ADVERTISEMENT

By academic field, major users of supercomputers include genomics, robotics, neuroscience, chemistry, civil engineering, physics, evolutionary biology, advanced materials, drug discovery, and artificial intelligence, and machine learning. Beyond the National Science Foundation, another big federal spender on advanced computing is the Department of Energy, in both its science and weapons divisions. And as Mr. el-Dahdah’s project at Rice shows, the humanities and social sciences are showing increased interest.

That’s forcing service providers to adjust. For the Clemson study compiling journal abstracts, Ms. Apon developed software manipulations to improve the efficiency of lower-priority computations that generally await lulls in supercomputer activity. For many users, says Rice’s Mr. Odegard, such programming techniques are whittling away the relative advantages of elite-level computer hardware.

The Human Factor

At the same time, he says, human factors can hinder such efficiencies. Researchers in many fields are accustomed to having on-demand computing capabilities — their personal laptops or desktop systems — and don’t grasp the necessity of waiting a day or two for results when they begin using supercomputers. “Some folks have zero tolerance for any delay,” even if it benefits the larger community, Mr. Odegard says. “It’s almost more of a social problem right now. But it’s social on both sides of the island — we, as operators of the infrastructure, also have to learn and listen to them.”

It’s one of many ways that universities are seeking the right balance with supercomputers. Those bidding for such systems are typically state institutions, says one supercomputer analyst, Thomas R. Furlani, of the University at Buffalo. That’s because the main sources of support for ancillary costs, like infrastructure and power, are allocations of tens of millions of dollars by state lawmakers who accept assertions about the job-creating potential of such machines. “The university cannot do it on their own — it’s a losing-sum game for them,” says Mr. Furlani, director of Buffalo’s Center for Computational Research.

ADVERTISEMENT

The University of Texas decided to become a major player in hardware in the early 2000s. Cornell University and Princeton University were part of the NSF supercomputer program at its founding, in the early 1980s, but both later got out. (Neither has any comment on the decision, with one of their computing directors calling it a sensitive topic.) Both remain members of the Coalition for Academic Scientific Computation, which comprises 84 U.S. institutions pursuing advanced computing technology.

From that group, a new $120-million grant that the NSF offered in July for its next supercomputer project is likely to have only a handful of applicants when the bids are opened in late November.

Even the University of Illinois, patriarch of academic supercomputing, has heard doubts about its ability to persist in the face of its state’s extensive budget problems. “I won’t say it hasn’t been a challenge,” says William D. Gropp, a professor of computer science and director of the university’s National Center for Supercomputing Applications. “But we will be putting in a strong proposal.”

“It’s a high-stakes game,” says Mr. Stanzione of Texas. “A certain number decide to play.”


Supercomputing: The Big 20
Here are the 20 most powerful campus-based supercomputers in the U.S., according to the TOP500 project, which ranks systems based on their performance in solving a set of linear equations.

Worldwide rankComputer nameInstitution
12 Stampede2 U. of Texas at Austin
20 Stampede - U. of Texas U. of Texas at Austin
120 QB-2 Louisiana Optical Network Initiative
125 TX-Green MIT/Lincoln Laboratory
129 Lonestar 5 U. of Texas at Austin
145 Conte Purdue U.
166 BlueGene/Q Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
172 Palmetto2 Clemson U.
181 Stampede-KNL U. of Texas at Austin
214 Xstream Stanford Research Computing Center
245 HiperGator 2.0 U. of Florida
271 Owens Ohio Supercomputer Center
310 HPCC U. of Southern California
324 Caliburn Rutgers Discovery Informatics Institute
326 Big Red II Indiana U. at Bloomington
360 SuperMIC Louisiana State U.
379 Laconia Michigan State U.
410 Bluecrab Maryland Advanced Research Computing Center
447 Mesabi U. of Minnesota/Supercomputing Institute
457 Shadow Mississippi State U.

Source: TOP500 project (https://www.top500.org/statistics/sublist/)

ADVERTISEMENT

Paul Basken covers university research and its intersection with government policy. He can be found on Twitter @pbasken, or reached by email at paul.basken@chronicle.com.

Clarification (11/1/2017, 10:48 p.m.): This article has been updated to clarify an explanation of the speed of Amazon Web Services relative to Clemson University’s Palmetto2 supercomputer.

A version of this article appeared in the November 10, 2017, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Technology
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
Paul Basken Bio
About the Author
Paul Basken
Paul Basken was a government policy and science reporter with The Chronicle of Higher Education, where he won an annual National Press Club award for exclusives.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

To Win Funds, Scientists Pursue Sweeping Solutions to Social Ills
Still Hunting Medical Triumphs, Genomics Experts Turn to the IT Department

More News

Photo-based illustration of a mirror on a green, patterned wallpaper wall reflecting Campanile in Berkeley, California.
A Look in the Mirror
At UC Berkeley, the Faculty Asks Itself, Do Our Critics Have a Point?
illustration of an arrow in a bullseye, surrounded by college buildings
Accreditation
A Major College Accreditor Pauses Its DEI Requirements Amid Pressure From Trump
Photo-based illustration of the Rotunda at the University of Virginia obscured by red and white horizontal stripes
'Demanding Obedience'
How Alums Put DEI at UVa in the Justice Dept.’s Crosshairs
Colin Holbrook
Q&A
‘I Didn’t Want to Make a Scene’: A Professor Recounts the Conversation That Got Him Ejected From Commencement

From The Review

American artist Andy Warhol, posing in front of The Last Supper, a personal interpretation the American artist gave of Leonardo da Vinci's Il Cenacolo, realized 1986, belonging to a series dedicated to Leonardo's masterpiece set up in palazzo delle Stelline; the work holds the spirit of Warhol's artistic Weltanschauung, demystifying the artwork in order to deprive it of its uniqueness and no repeatibility. Milan (Italy), 1987.
The Review | Essay
Were the 1980s a Golden Age of Religious Art?
By Phil Christman
Glenn Loury in Providence, R.I. on May 7, 2024.
The Review | Conversation
Glenn Loury on the ‘Barbarians at the Gates’
By Evan Goldstein, Len Gutkin
Illustration showing a valedictorian speaker who's tassel is a vintage microphone
The Review | Opinion
A Graduation Speaker Gets Canceled
By Corey Robin

Upcoming Events

Ascendium_06-10-25_Plain.png
Views on College and Alternative Pathways
Coursera_06-17-25_Plain.png
AI and Microcredentials
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin