Center for Scientific Computing Ltd. Development of Funding Models for FUNET Markus Sadeniemi CSC - Center for Scientific Computing Ltd [email protected]

Center for Scientific Computing Ltd.

Development of Funding Models for FUNET

Markus Sadeniemi

CSC - Center for Scientific Computing Ltd

[email protected]

tel +358 9 4572711

fax +358 9 4572302


FUNET

• Finnish University and Research Network• started in 1984• international connections

– EARN in 1985– Internet (NORDUnet) in December 1988

• serves– universities (20), polytechnics (25)– research organisations (25), other (10)


CSC - Center for Scientific Computing Ltd

• limited company, but– 100% owned by the Ministry of Education– non-profit

• three main services– supercomputer centre– expertise in computational science– FUNET services


FUNET, background

• originally a joint university project

• still not a customer-provider relation– expenses openly shown to FUNET

member organisations– yearly discussion of budget/fees with

connected organisations


History

• universities divided into three categories: big, medium, small

• when research institutes and polytechnics joined, more accuracy was needed– eleven categories– based on organisation size = no. of people– staff+students (non-technical divided by 2)

• Ministry of Education paid for all development


Budget

• FUNET expenses in 1999, MEUR

international connections 3.1FUNET backbone 0.9other 1.2

total 5.2


NORDUnet line capasity Finland-Sweden

0

50

100

150

200

250

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

year

cap

asit

y (M

bp

s)

capacity

planned

150% increase


NORDUnet line capasity Finland-Sweden

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

year

cap

asit

y (M

bp

s)

capacity

planned

150% increase


Problem: exponential growth

• traffic volume grows 150% / year• international line cost decreases 40% / year

=> 2.5 * 0.6 = 1.5=> increase in international connections

50% / year• increase in national costs less• increase in FUNET budget ~ 30% / year


FUNET Expenses 1997-2001

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

year

ME

UR NORDUnet

F-backbone

other


Solution to rising costs

• cut the cost increase– restrict traffic growth

• technically• administratively

• find the money– it still costs < EUR50 / year / computer

• wait for a miracle– collapse of line costs


Restricting traffic

• administratively– only professional usage, not for hobbies

• for privacy reasons enforcing is problematic

• technically– technical restrictions for students

• no international traffic? no voice/video?• restricted bandwidth for students

– restrict bandwidth for all (the easy way!)


Market approach

• volume charging– only effective, if you can change the habits

of the end user– charging universities is relatively easy– charging departments in universities

difficult– charging individual students is impossible

both technically and politically


Working group

• high-level group appointed by Min of Edu• conclusions

– networking is essential– no hard restrictions, money has to be

found– charging based on organisation size,

connection capacity and traffic volume– endorse technical rationalisations (cache)


Centralised funding?

• centralised funding if– networking still in development phase– networking is something to be endorsed

• user funding, if– Internet is a commodity item (like POTS)

• conclusion– networking still to be endorsed– Min of Edu will pay about 50% centrally


Requirements for charging model

• left for CSC to decide together with users• several contradictory requirements for

charging– ”fair” in some sense

• reflect true costs• not in conflict with market prices• same regardless of geographic location

– predictable, easy to budget


Requirements, cont.

• simple– understandable to funding bodies– technically simple now and in the future

• organisation can decide, how much to buy• should endorse good networking practises• must not prevent

– development, new pilot applications– co-operation, free services


Technical possibilities

• size of organisation (people, budget,..)

• traffic volume– national/international, in/out

• number of computers

• connection capacity


New charging model

• keep the old fee based on organisation size• price increase covered with volume charge

– international traffic– direction abroad->university– previous years usage– measured during working hours

• (maximum increase 100%)


Benefits

• predictable, known in advance• volume affects the price, although slowly

– encourages rational usage– discourages the use of the most expensive

resource: inbound international line• doesn’t affect (cheap) national traffic

– OK to have national pilots• doesn’t affect services given to others


Why not...

• connection capacity– (predictable, easy to understand, easy to

change)– would affect national traffic– might end in having two networks

• one for international connections• bilateral national connections between

universities


Why not...

• number of computers– technically DNS count– would discourage registering– machines behind firewalls not seen

• national traffic– not important– nuisance to count, sometimes difficult


The End

Documents

Center for Scientific Computing Ltd. Development of Funding Models for FUNET Markus Sadeniemi CSC - Center for Scientific Computing Ltd [email protected]