What we advocated was a centre of excellence which was to be a development
of the DCC and the DCC has fulfilled that vision admirably IMHO. We also
proposed that this organisation might have a repository of last resort in
due course. Overall we felt that a distributed model would be the best bet,
since big science was already well served and operations like UKDA and ADS
existed and were expected to develop (as they have). We considered that the
closure of AHDS was perverse and was a move against a sensible trend. As we
hoped a number of institutions have developed RDM services (as opposed to
mere institutional repositories) and others are moving in that direction.
It's an immensely complex task, but we owe a great debt of gratitude to
Kevin Ashley and his colleagues and to Simon Hodson and many others who
worked on the Jisc RDM programme, as well as some of the more enlightened
funders, that progress continues to be made in a less than comfortable
economic climate.
John K. Milner
Mail to: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Research Data Management discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Simon Kerridge
Sent: 16 October 2014 13:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Research data quota takeup
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-res
> ults/ 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
>>
>>
>>
>> *********************************************************************
>> **
>=
|