University of Minnesota
Institute of Technology
Minutes of the ITICC Meeting,
March 25, 2004
3:35 p.m., 133 Physics
Present: Graham Allen (Phys), William Arnold (CE), John Baxter (Math), Bryan Carlson (ADCS), Tom Chase (ME), Peter Hudleston (IT Dean’s Office), Phil Kachelmyer (ADCS), Kent Kirkby (Geol), Jerry Larson (ADCS), Larry LeMay (ADCS), James Maatman (ITSB), Jim MacDonald (CSci/IT Labs), Kent Mann (Chem), Dan MacEwan (Chem), David Nordsletten (BME), Roger Rusack (Phys), Hitoshi Sakamoto (ME), Greg Sherar (CE), Karen Swanberg (Geol),
Lucas Veverka (ITSB),
1) Status reports from CSciE and ADCS
MacDonald reported that the printer in ME 3908 could not be repaired and had to been replaced (this would be using contingency funds, PJH). He noted that this was not an old printer, but it had been damaged beyond repair by people opening it to try to fix jams by themselves. He also said that there was a problem with students helping themselves to paper from the printing trays, even sometimes under the noses of operating staff. Signs placed on the machines do not seem to help. This is not large scale theft problem however, but rather the taking a sheet or two at a time. The plan to place locks on the print trays should solve this problem, but not the problem of people attempting their own fixes of jammed machines. Hudleston said he was surprised students took paper from the trays when there was typically plenty of clean waste paper from printing in the labs that could be used as scrap by students. LeMay confirmed this, saying that there was plenty of usable paper in the “Office Paper Only” recycle bins.
Larson said that ADCS labs did not have problems with students opening printers or taking paper because the printers are behind the consultants’ desks.
Baxter argued for a stronger “law and order” position on breaking the rules, with the imposition of sanctions on offenders. Could we identity offenders using the security cameras? Hudleston said that the present system of operation seems adequate – a warning after a first significant offence, and account suspension after a second one.
2) Upper Division Computing – First Review of Proposals for 2004-05
MacDonald distributed a sheet listing the initial suggestions of the ITIC Technical Committee for lab improvements to be made in the first round of proposals for 2004-05. He went down the list describing the rationale behind each recommendation.
The first item is the replacement of the card-reader lab door locks, which are unreliable and have bad software. The proposed replacement Locknetics locks offer several advantages, being both more flexible and more reliable.
The second item is the planned replacement of 41 computers which will have reached their 4-year retirement age. The actual unit replacement cost is likely to be less than the $2,500 budgeted.
The next three items are the completion of the security system in rooms ME 308, Lind 24 and CE 230 – cables, recorders, cameras, and installation – planned some time ago. This completes the recommendation of the Chase subcommittee of a year ago (and discussed in minutes of several prior meetings).
The next item concerns replacement of the 3 servers for the IT labs. Three alternatives may be considered, and the relative merits of these were discussed. The first is to replace one of three (phb.itlabs.umn.edu) this year and purchase maintenance contracts for the other two for one more year. The second is to wait one more year on all three, and the third to replace two of the servers this year (phb.itlabs.umn.edu and www.itlabs.umn.edu). In all options service on the older machines has to be maintained at 24x7x4 hrs given their importance.
The final item is the conversion of part of the ME public lab (ME 314) into a dual purpose lab/classroom. This would add to the classroom inventory of IT labs, and provide a first-come, first-served reservable room for individual classes. There is demand for such a facility in Industrial Engineering and such a facility is likely to be used by many others also. It was emphasized that, unlike Lind 24 and EE/Cs 2-170 and 2-172, this room could not be reserved as a regular classroom for a whole semester, but could be used for individual class periods for demonstration of software, etc.
Some time was devoted to a discussion of changes in the way the labs are being used and the implications of this for future planning. MacDonald had provided Hudleston with data on the numbers of machines of various types in the labs and peak usage (see summary below). The data show that the peak number of users currently is little more than half the numbers of machines (although a somewhat bigger percentage if you exclude the rooms that are mainly classrooms). This reflects a significant drop over the past few years, although the number of accounts opened per year has not changed much. (In the past year it has dropped by about 5%, which Hudleston attributes largely to the drop in the number of Computer Science majors and premajors.) MacDonald said he believed that one reason for the drop in machine usage is the fact that more and more students have access to high speed internet access and DSL/cable modem broadband connections from residence halls or home. In the past students did more of their non-coursework computing in the labs – email and web surfing – and they now do this on their own computers. He also thought more students were using UNIX machines remotely this way.
What should the response of the IT Labs be to this change in usage pattern, if it is sustained? One option to consider is not replacing the 63 Suns which are about to be retired, but rather to shrink operations in one of two ways: either by closing one of the labs or by reducing the density of seats in the labs. MacDonald and LeMay noted that in the past we have been concerned to maximize lab usage by filling in all possible spots with stations, which has helped increase the total number of machines to the current 440. It might make sense to open up the labs somewhat and provide tables for work away from the computer desks. The labs are currently all rather crowded. MacDonald said that as we have added machines in the last year or so, the number in active use has not increased but, in the case of Windows, remained the same and in the case of the Suns, decreased. Peak Sun usage in the recent past has shrunk from 120 to around 70.
It was pointed out that there remains significant usage of and need for specialized software packages that can only be used on IT labs machines for licensing reasons. These include ProEngineer, ANSYS, Hspice, and Oracle. This important need will remain and must be addressed.
Hudleston said that we need to monitor lab usage patterns closely so that any changes ITICC might make in response to reduced seat occupancy would be well informed.
3) Lower Division Funding
Hudleston informed the committee that the proposed revisions of the guidelines for allocating lower division funds presented at the last ITICC meeting had been approved by email vote and that we would proceed using the new guidelines. According to these guidelines, there are two categories of support for instructional computing in lower division. The first is maintenance and operation for facilities previously developed using ITICC funds, and the second is for new initiatives.
Hudleston said that it did not make much sense to utilize a two-stage process of developing the proposal for supporting existing facilities. He proposed that a subcommittee, with appropriate consultation with the departments, prepare a joint proposal to bring to ITICC for discussion. John Baxter agreed to chair this subcommittee. Given the shortness of time (three weeks) before the next ITICC meeting, it was agreed that an additional meeting be convened on April 29 at which the proposal would be discussed. The proposal should be delivered to Hudleston by April 14, so that it can placed on the web two weeks ahead of the meeting.
Regarding new initiatives, Hudleston thought that departments might like more time to develop these than would be available this semester, and suggested that this may be should be delayed until the fall. The consensus of those present, however, was that they would like to develop and consider these proposals this semester rather than have to be concerned with this over the summer, when other priorities intervened. It was agreed that these proposals would also be discussed on April 29.
Proposals in both categories will be due in Hudleston’s office by April 14.
*******************
Current Inventory
Lind
24 has 40 dual-boot PCs EE/CS
4250 has 138 Suns
EE/CS
2-170 has 22 dual-boot PCs ME
308 has 31 Suns
EE/CS
2-172 has 22 dual-boot PCs Walter
Library 103 has 15 Suns
Total 84 dual-boot PCs 184
Sun Computers
CivE
230 has 48 Windows PCs ME
308 has 10 Linux PCs
ME308
has 45 Windows PCs
EE/CS
3-170 has 69 Windows PCs
Total 162 Windows PCs Total
10 Linux PCs
Usage Peak Times c.
50%
|
|
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
|
Spring |
2802 |
3665 |
3341 |
3495 |
3177 |
|
Summer
I |
814 |
591 |
629 |
576 |
441 |
|
Summer
II |
641 |
|
|
|
|
|
Fall |
3655 |
3291 |
3672 |
3441 |
3408 |
|
Total |
9911 |
9547 |
9643 |
9514 |
9029 |