|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveNovember 7, 1990
MINUTES Computer Committee Fourth Floor Burruss Hall Board Room November 7, 1990 3 PM PRESENT: Don Allison, John Burton, Joseph Cochran, John Cosgriff, David Goodyear, Bob Heterick, Bea Mahan (for Kathye Johnston), Gerry McLaughlin, Harlan Miller, Teresa Hypes (for Mary Miller), Lance Matheson (for Terry Rakes), K. B. Rojiani, Richard Sorensen, Jay Stoeckel, J. R. Webster, Mike Williams ABSENT: Darrell Bosch, Joan McClain-Kark, Fred Medley, Ernest Stout, Jeff Wilcke VISITOR(S): Barbara Robinson and Bill Sanders (Computing Center) AGENDA ITEM 1: MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 3, 1990 MEETING Motion made, seconded and passed to approve the minutes of the October meeting. AGENDA ITEM 2: COMPUTING CENTER ANNOUNCEMENTS (WILLIAMS) Access to the inbound modem pool has been improved by Communi- cations Resources' actions to eliminate some trunk-line re- strictions. A new number (232-9100) is now in use and the old numbers are being phased out. Mainframe usage for the first four months of the current fiscal year compares to the same period last year as follows: o CPU usage is up, as always, VM by 25% and MVS by 12%. o Disk space consumption is up 15%. o IMS usage is up 15% o Central printing has not followed its historic growth of 10-20% per year, but has dropped by 15%. o Connect time has dropped a few percentage points. o Total billable charges are down 7%, which can be accounted for primarily by the shifting of usage to less expensive time periods, and also to decreased printing. While the University has been steadily moving toward distributed computing, demands on the central facility are also at an all- time high. This is not unexpected, as software has not reached a point where distributed computing can be handled in a coherent way. The Center has promoted distributed computing by not competing for the SCHEV funds that departments have spent on computers, by providing training for workstation network managers, and by ini- tiating projects that facilitate the delivery of services to workstations. While a mainframe upgrade is necessary to deal with the capacity crisis, aging equipment, and large data applications, some compo- nents of computing that the Center has traditionally served may no longer be best served in the traditional manner. Although the segment of users with the most demanding needs, doing high-end numerically intensive work, probably need a facility in the class of a 3090, the next segment might be served more effectively by a high-end workstation. Until recently the economics of that kind of solution were not favorable, but today there are "desk-top" machines with performance that can begin to compete with the 3090, at lower cost. Thus, as we identify the path of the upgrade, it may be appropri- ate to include a component to support small high-end machines. Funds continue to be unavailable for an upgrade, and a distrib- uted component in an upgrade budget initiative is unlikely to be viewed favorably by the state. However, the Center feels the is- sue should be addressed, and solicits the Committee's input. Difficulties with a distributed approach should be kept in mind. If 20-40 workstations were purchased, how would recipients be chosen? When the Computing Center purchases equipment, it plans for replacement. How could the Center deal with the fact that departments have historically not done such planning, and could probably be expected to look to the Center for continuing up- grades? How could functions that are handled centrally in the mainframe environment, such as User Services consulting, mainte- nance and systems programming support, be handled in a more dis- tributed model? Should the Computing Center be mandating acquisition of computers when some recipients of workstations might feel the funds would be better spent in other areas? The user of the mainframe has many activities, such as backup and systems programming support, handled for him by the central fa- cility. When he moves to a workstation, he must assume the re- sponsibility for understanding and maintaining his own environment, which can can take a significant portion of his time. Is this desirable? The committee might also want to consider ways to educate those administrators who are not convinced of the value of decentrali- zation. The chairman of the Computer Committee will meet with the chairs of the Library and Communications Resources committees. He ex- pects to include input from those areas in the draft proposal he is preparing for medium range plans for computing at VPI&SU. Distributed computing is expected to play an important part in the statement. AGENDA ITEM 3: SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS No subcommittee has met, but all expect to do so in the near fu- ture. AGENDA ITEM 4: ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA none The next meeting will be held on December 5 at 3 p.m. in Burruss 400. Meeting adjourned at 3:48 p.m.
VT History | Digital Library and Archives | Special Collections | University Archives
Send questions or comments to:
Tamara Kennelly, University Archivist
University Libraries
Virginia Tech
P.O. Box 90001
Blacksburg, VA, 24062-9001URL: http://spec.lib.vt.edu/minutes/cmc/1990/November+7++1990.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:21 EDT