Thanks yes... A good point!
===
Dr Simon Kerridge
Director of Research Services
University of Kent
and Chair of the Association of Research Managers and Administrators
> On 16 Oct 2014, at 11:42, "John Milner" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Chris has a point. The commissioners of the report were content but that doesn't mean everybody agreed then any more than they do now!
>
> We should also remember that Kevin has had a flying start building on the earlier work that Chris led, which I would have mentioned had I realised he was still taking an interest from well earned retirement!
>
> John
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 16 Oct 2014, at 16:35, Chris Rusbridge <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Simon, from what I remember, the reasons the recommendations of the report were not accepted and acted on were complex and various; the economic climate of the time was not necessarily as great an issue as we might think from todays perspective. There was strong opposition to parts of the report from some quarters.
>>
>> The unfortunate image of attack helicopters swooping down to capture research data sticks in my mind, even though the person responsible was trying to say this was not the approach intended!
>>
>> I think it is best to regard the report as a significant and useful part of the research data management learning process, rather than assuming that it was accepted.
>>
>> --
>> Chris Rusbridge
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> Adopt the email charter! http://emailcharter.org/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 16 Oct 2014, at 13:09, Simon Kerridge <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> John,
>>> I am sure that you will know better than me (!), but I thought that the UKRDS feasibility study reported that such a national service would be practicable and that a 5 year (I think it was) pilot should be set up to demonstrate this. I thought the reason that it didn't happen was due to the funding cuts then (2009 ish?) rather than practicalities?
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> ===
>>> Dr Simon Kerridge
>>> Director of Research Services
>>> University of Kent
>>> and Chair of the Association of Research Managers and Administrators
>>>
>>>> On 15 Oct 2014, at 14:42, "John Milner" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We investigated this national service idea a few years ago and decided it
>>>> wasn't really practical. There are a number of well established discipline
>>>> based services and national units to develop good practice, most notably
>>>> DCC. From there we concluded that most practical way forward was
>>>> institutional repositories using standard tools and common good practice.
>>>> Since then products like Dspace Arkivum and Preservica have all matured and
>>>> can offer an effective hybrid cloud model for active use, sharing and
>>>> preservation. There are many other products around now too that can be used
>>>> if the DCC tools are used to establish policy and planning.
>>>>
>>>> Janet (Jisc) has been working to get national frameworks for many of these
>>>> products and will respond to demand, so if you want a product why not use
>>>> Janet to help with the procurement and then one deal becomes a deal for the
>>>> whole sector.
>>>>
>>>> Hope that helps
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> John K. Milner
>>>> Meadow House
>>>> Baunton
>>>> Cirencester
>>>> GL7 7BB
>>>>
>>>> Tel 00 44 1285 643731
>>>> Mob +44 7836 341550
>>>> Mail to: [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Research Data Management discussion list
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Anna Clements
>>>> Sent: 15 October 2014 21:17
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: Research data quota takeup
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>> Couldn't agree more on your plea for national infrastructure RaaS for the
>>>> long tail stuff which doesn't fit into existing subject specific
>>>> repositories... although think we need more of the latter too. StaaS ...
>>>> absolutely .. presumably what Arkivum and others are offering ... assuming
>>>> we cab get the integration with our existing systems ..dSpace, Pure, etc to
>>>> work ok,
>>>>
>>>> Anna
>>>> ______________________________________________________
>>>> Anna Clements | Head of Research Data and Information Services
>>>>
>>>> University of St Andrews Library | North Street | St Andrews | KY16 9TR|
>>>> T:01334 462761 | @AnnaKClements
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Research Data Management discussion list
>>>> [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Worthington, William
>>>> [[log in to unmask]]
>>>> Sent: 15 October 2014 13:32
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: Research data quota takeup
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> at University of Hertfordshire (UH) we have been kicking around the RDM
>>>> problem since JISRCMRD 2011-2013 so I have been watching this discussion
>>>> with interest as newer heads have come to the table.
>>>>
>>>> UH is following the same strategy and approach as put by Aslam at
>>>> Birmingham. It seems entirely pragmatic when you can not put your arms
>>>> around the problem.
>>>>
>>>> We have acquired ~ 100TB of tier 2 storage which will be backed up to tape
>>>> for device level recovery only (that is: we won't offer file level recovery
>>>> to individual users). This doesn't sound like a lot but given the size of
>>>> our research endeavours it is a good start from which to build a demand
>>>> driven case for investment. As Tim alluded to, we also have a couple of
>>>> research groups who could fill this overnight but these are relatively well
>>>> self served already, and not the target market. I see the big wins in terms
>>>> of mitigated risk as being with Kevin's 90-95%.
>>>>
>>>> We also did a DCC DAF audit,
>>>> http://research-data-toolkit.herts.ac.uk/2012/08/data-asset-survey-results/
>>>> and although it was a fairly low turnout it was consistent with Tom's
>>>> account from Nottingham and several other JISCMRD projects, so we were
>>>> inclined to believe it. Thus, our default offer will be 50GB. However we
>>>> have established an RDM triage with the PI for each new funded award and if
>>>> that reveals a greater demand we will accommodate =< 5TB on the basis of
>>>> need. (I know - we may find the horse has bolted).
>>>>
>>>> For archival storage have acquired a smidgeon (10TB) of Arkivum A-stor for
>>>> 10 years and are bolting it onto our institutional repository (dSpace) in
>>>> order to support long term preservation of datasets. (Again, if we get
>>>> crushed in the rush - I see this as a good thing). For reasons too arcane
>>>> for this discussion this has taken longer than I had hoped, but we are
>>>> nearly there. But this brings us to an important point - very roughly
>>>> speaking we will spend 30k on datasets@UHRA including twice on development
>>>> what we spent with Arkivum. And this before we get into really significant
>>>> sized data. So to take up Anna's point - can the sector afford this? Even if
>>>> it can, our experience scales to several million pounds to develop a
>>>> plethora of different solutions. Seems a little inefficient to me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also on the point of the sustainability of us all doing our own thing -
>>>> there are two factors here: economy of scale vs. sustainability of the data
>>>> host. I have heard it expressed that funding bodies regard HEI's as far more
>>>> stable and likely to be more long lived that any national or domain specific
>>>> service. Counter this with the benefits of community of a domain specific
>>>> service and the economies of scale offered by a national storage service.
>>>> (To this RDM geek, it would be great to imagine a storage/archive service
>>>> equivalent to the JANET network which we could take for granted, like water
>>>> or air. Sadly, even-toed ungulates donıt fly).
>>>>
>>>> The JANET framework agreements are trying to bring some the economies of
>>>> scale and HEI friendly T & Cs directly to individual HEIs and I think these
>>>> are a good thing. But they are only part way to storage (StaaS) or
>>>> repository as a service (RaaS) from which smaller institutions in particular
>>>> could really take benefit. I made this point at a JANET workshop on storage
>>>> in 2013 and again recently in a meeting about JISC's upcoming 'Research at
>>>> Risk' work, which as I understand it, will be service rather than project
>>>> focused. Just as some of us are taking a punt (a pragmatic approach, in
>>>> making a tentative offer, to satisfy a nebulous demand, that policy suggests
>>>> should exist) - so wouldn't it be fantastic to see a (StaaS) or (RaaS) offer
>>>> at a national level? It might just be wildly successful enough to
>>>> demonstrate demand, cost benefit, and, a sustainable model.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yours, with not enough bytes, Bill
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Dr. W J Worthington
>>>> University of Hertfordshire
>>>> T: +44 (0)1707 284000 ext. 77883
>>>> E: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15/10/2014 09:30, "Aslam Ghumra (IT Services, Facilities Management)"
>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Antony,
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently we have 300Tb of replicated and backed up (part of it)
>>>>> storage as we have two data centres on campus. However this is just our
>>>>> toe in the water and we will need a lot more storage. We need to be
>>>>> seen to provide the storage, to create the demand, therefore
>>>>> oversubscription is the key. We would like to offer all our active
>>>>> researchers the minimum of 5Tb of free work in progress storage (RDS).
>>>>> Thatıs a lot of storage, approx. 14Pb ( if my sums are correct),
>>>>> however this will be phased in, but not to this amount. There will be
>>>>> have to be a PR exercise in bringing in those projects deemed very
>>>>> import, which will then be used to leverage further funding from the
>>>>> University and to try and bring in monies from grant proposals ( however
>>>> thatıs another issue ).
>>>>> For Tier1 we won't be using 'cloud' storage, however we may do for Tier2.
>>>>> We have 210Tb of Tier2 which is co-located at the University of
>>>>> Nottingham, part of the MidPlus consortium.
>>>>>
>>>>> On costs, not sure but we are making the case for a sustained opex
>>>>> every year to grow the solution. We are also putting the research data
>>>>> storage on a dedicated research data network, where we can attach
>>>>> equipment that can dump large quantities of data, to the extent that
>>>>> large data transfers can be taken off the University 'user' network.
>>>>>
>>>>> Aslam Ghumra
>>>>> Research Data Management
>>>>> T: 0121 414 5877
>>>>> Skype : JanitorX
>>>>>
>>>>> ***********************************************************************
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:07:27 +0000
>>>>> From: "Antony Corfield [awc]" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Research data quota take up
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Aslam, that's quite impressive, so if you have say 100 concurrent
>>>>> research projects you're able to provide 0.5 Petabytes of (RDS) storage
>>>>> for free. Does Tier 1 storage include mirroring and nightly backups or
>>>>> is this 'Cloud' storage and what do you estimate this cost is to the
>>>>> institution?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Antony
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ***********************************************************************
>>>> =
|
