Remote Participation

Update from the Remote Participation Group

N. Christensen, B. Berger, K. Blackburn, A. Bozzi, M. Cavaglia, S. Cortese, C. Costa, F. Fidecaro, S. Finn, G. Gonzalez, S. Hild, S.

Koranda, J. Romie, P. Shawhan, D. Shoemaker, L. Wallace, J. Willis

LVC Meeting, Rome, September 2012. DCC XXX

History and Background

● Remote participation working group formed to provide for collaborations' meeting needs.

● LVC selected and started using EVO in 2007 (used VRVS before)

● An NSF grant in 2008 provided 3 years of support for our collaborations' needs with EVO; employ 2 FTEs to work for LIGO/EVO. $1,300,000, so EVO costs currently $433,333 to use per year.

● Renewal NSF grant was declined – March 2012● Probably enough support to last until June of 2013● EVO now transitioning to a commercial enterprise - SeeVogh

More Background

● There are currently 934 registered EVO users in the Virgo-LSC community (676 used EVO in last 6 months, 811 in the last year).

● Recently had ~280 LVC meetings per month.

● Rarely (2 σ) have more than 10 EVO meetings going on at the same time● 2000 hours of LVC user time (at these meetings) per month (as high as 2500)● There are ~105000 “academic” EVO users (other experiments, universities,

etc), with 70000 of them being “active”● 220 different LVC members booked an EVO meeting in the last year. ● Skype use is common● Our Linux use is a big constraint: Recent LVC EVO use:

Windows - 36%, Mac - 50% Linux – 14%● Connection via smart phones and tablets becoming more and more desired.

Plan B

● In response to non renewal of grant the remote participation working group began a search for “Plan B” - what will we use in the future?

● Numerous LVC members in the remote participation working group have been meeting, defining, investigating, and evaluating technologies.

● Wiki page for working group (numerous links, results, price quotes, etc):

https://wiki.ligo.org/Main/RemoteParticipation● Trying to define needs and requirements for LVC meetings● Obtaining price information and quotes.● Communicating with companies about technology developments, different

options, etc● Exploring possible other funding options

https://wiki.ligo.org/Main/RemoteParticipation

Money

● The remote participation committee will leave it to the leadership of LIGO and Virgo to decide issues pertaining to money, collecting money, etc.

● LIGO Lab has paid an average of $94,000 a year, over the last three years, for AccuConference and Intercall.

● EVO NSF Grant: $433,333 per year, and support 2 FTEs.

Investigations and Results

VIABLE OPTIONS (based on audio, video, operating systems, phone bridge access, chat, desktop sharing, hardware requirements, meeting size options, cost, etc). See wiki for full table.

● SeeVogh ● Vidyo ● Visimeet ● Adobe Connect● Bigbluebutton ● WebEx

JUDGED TO BE NON-VIABLE● Many technologies determined to be non-viable due to limitations in

features, platform support, scalability, etc. : AccuConference, GoToMeeting, Skype, and others.

Evaluation table here: https://wiki.ligo.org/foswiki/pub/Main/RemoteParticipation/RemPartTable.html

https://wiki.ligo.org/foswiki/pub/Main/RemoteParticipation/RemPartTable.html

Different Payment Structures

● Pay for overall service (no cost on an individual basis)

SeeVogh (annual), Vidyo (one-time), BBB ("free", but need servers)

● License individuals to host meetings (free participation):

Adobe Connect, WebEx

● License individuals to participate:

Visimeet

You Get What You Pay For

● For our collaboration size, and the number of meetings we have been conducting, cost for entire packages from companies will be (N x $10k), ~ N

SeeVogh

● EVO becomes commercial (and inherent risks with a start-up)● http://seevogh.com/welcome/● Similar to EVO style, slightly simpler and easier, new UI● Audio: the same system – seems better than EVO; Reliability TBD, being

brand new● Two pricing models

1) “hybrid cloud” (LIGO deploys servers)

2) SeeVogh Research Network (evolution of current EVO/panda network)

http://seevogh.com/welcome/

SeeVogh (hybrid cloud)

● LIGO purchase and deploy server(s)● Once started meeting bound to particular server● All participants in that meeting must connect to that server● Multiple meetings per server—scales as hardware scales● Geographic separation of servers allowed (e.g. Caltech and Hannover)

● Purchase license for number of connections or “ports” in aggregate● “Bumper” service allows temporary overflow

● Phone bridge, H.323, SIP in beta, doubles cost when available● Integrated with @LIGO.ORG (via InCommon Federation)● $4750/yr for 100 ports, cost scales as ports● Admin server tech support, no support for users

SeeVogh (Research Network)

● Evolution of current EVO/Panda network● Uses new client/UI● LIGO need not purchase hardware (but might contribute to help community)

● Only open to research and higher education● Not yet able to integrate with @LIGO.ORG (2013)● Price scales as # of meetings, max subscribers, max total hours/month● $40K/year based on current LIGO usage patterns● See public statement: http://research.seevogh.com/

Vidyo

● Vidyo is the company that is pushing EVO out of CERN● http://www.vidyo.com/● Talk to your LHC friends about whether they like it or not.● Look and feel of use is similar to EVO.● Audio -- built-in echo/volume controls; lower bandwidth requirements● Supports Linux, and they are working to eliminate Linux problems.● Full LVC one-time cost for 5 years: $310,028.30 (licenses, servers, software,

service).● Are there hidden personnel costs here too? Managing servers and software?● Atlas users having trouble broadcasting from large rooms (like an LVC

meeting) without having to buy additional hardware from Vidyo.

Visimeet

● Visimeet is similar to Vidyo● Turn key (pay big bucks and turn it on)● No hidden costs.● You buy licenses and rooms.● License for LVC = $29 per person/month; 500 licenses = $174000/year● 50 ‘location’ licenses (allowing anyone at institution X to participate in a

teleconference, but only one) - $41,400● They promise us lots of support: training, tutorials, enhancement requests.● Linux just released for Visimeet.

Adobe Connect

● Presently Flash based meeting technology● Adobe will not offer Linux version of Flash in future. Flash on a users' system

now to be handled on the server → Flash dependency is ending.● We had some voice latency problems during our test.● Big company and a stable product.● Limits of 100 for audio/video participation in a meeting.● “host” can hold a meeting with 100 attending; $540/year/host (but edu 50% off!)

Could we get away with 20 “hosts” ($5400 per year???)● Phone bridge is $0.06/minute. ● Buy through a university, and hosts need not be at that university● Collaboration wide presentations could be problematic.● Turn key; no hidden costs if we pay for enough hosts (~200).

WebEx

● Another big stable company with a decent product.● http://www.webex.com/● Sound quality was a problem in our test; headphones or Phoenix fix this .● Some, but not all, Linux supported. Mobile devices supported.● Pricing structure similar to Adobe - “Named Host” must be present at meeting● Two levels of host licenses, one allowing up to 25 users and the other allowing

up to 200 users. We could buy some of each.● Attending a meeting is free. Hosting meetings requires a monthly fee of order

$50 per month.● Costs would depends on number of Named Hosts we would need.● Turn key; no hidden costs if we pay for enough hosts (~200).● Phone bridge – there are costs.

http://www.webex.com/

BigBlueButton

● Free! But no guarantee of future support, and no help desk – but there is a community blog.

● http://www.bigbluebutton.org/overview/● Flash based; feels kind of like current Flash-based version of Adobe Connect● Adobe Flash issues too – what is the future for Linux?● Presentations need Java (for presenter only, not viewers).● Open source – developers welcome.● There is a way to phone in.● Smart phone and tablet use not there yet, but likely to come in.● FAQ says 25 people per server, but reflectors could let N-> Infinity. More

CPU more users too.● Need to plan on either paid or contributed LVC programmer support, 1-2 FTEs

http://www.bigbluebutton.org/overview/

Real Costs (Guesstimates)

● SeeVogh -1 : $40000/year. 0.25 FTE* working with company, and providing instruction to the collaboration. $77500/year

● SeeVogh -2: $12000/year for basic cost and 2 servers. 0.5 FTE maintaining servers and software, working with company, and providing instruction to the collaboration. $87000/year

● Vidyo: $60000/year. 0.5 FTE overseeing servers and software, working with company, and providing instruction to the collaboration. $135000/year

● Visimeet: $215000/year.● Adobe Connect: $54000: with 200 hosts there would be no hidden costs.● WebEx: $51000: 85 hosts; is that enough to avoid scheduling work?● BigBlueButton: $0: $15000 for servers, and 1 FTEs for software

development, server maintenance, and providing instruction to collaboration. $165000/year

* 1 FTE > $150000

Other Collaborations

● CERN has traditionally used EVO, but is now transitioning to Vidyo.● National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS):

http://help.nceas.ucsb.edu/video_conferencing_software_comparison

(EVO, BBB, Adobe Connect, WebEx)● Daya Bay Neutrino: EVO, ReadyTalk (pay), Skype, phone bridge .● IceCube: Formerly EVO, now WebEx. “We have 3 accounts total right now

2 that allow up to 25 connections at one time for $78 per month and then one that allows up to 200 connections for $99 per month.”

● NEES: "NEES is using WebEx. The community seems to be happy with that system. It is expensive, but works well and gets good user support. One limitation is that, when connecting remote participants into a large meeting room, the audio is insufficient (essentially the same problem as using a speaker phone in a large meeting room)." They spend > $200000/year and are not happy with the cost.

http://help.nceas.ucsb.edu/video_conferencing_software_comparison

How to Pay

● There is no free lunch!● Another committee will need to take up the issue of how to solicit money

from collaboration members or groups. ● Remote participation is just one possible tax – other taxes have been

discussed for the LSC.● Order of magnitude estimate: Base fee on author list. ~1000 authors,

$100000 per year for remote participation => $100 per author per year.● This fee would be much smaller than typical travel cost to a meeting, such as

this.● Based on 2000 hours per month of present use, $100000 per year =>

$4/hour/person at a meeting.● Costs should be equitable – cost of “hosts” spread across collaborations

What Next?

● Now that we have identified ~6 viable technologies, we need larger collaboration tests.

● Could a large working group (CW, det char ???) have 6 consecutive meetings using each one of these technologies each week? Otherwise large test meetings.

● Comparisons with more people under regular meeting conditions will be important.

● Use 2 or 3 technologies for 6 months in a probationary period.● Tests of the different technologies are also going on this week.● Acquire feedback and recommend a technology to the collaborations.● LSC Council and VSC approval?

Conclusions

● We may require multiple technologies for small N< 10, medium 10

More Conclusions

● Tests involving more collaboration members are now needed. ● LVC members have travel budgets; consider a few percent of those costs

going to remote participation.● While not insignificant, these funds for meeting transmission allow for wider

LVC participation: isolated groups, inadequately funded groups, undergraduates, etc. Teaching schedules can also be difficult, and this allows participation without travel.

Other Options

● Avaya Live● ReadyTalk ($470/room/year for 25 people; $950/year for 100 people)● Ventrilo (popular with gamers, free within some limits, then pay)● Double (Ipad on robot – very cool but quickly “1984”)● GVO Conference (4 person limit)

Slide 1Slide 2Slide 3Slide 4Slide 5Slide 6Slide 7Slide 8Slide 9Slide 10Slide 11Slide 12Slide 13Slide 14Slide 15Slide 16Slide 17Slide 18Slide 19Slide 20Slide 21Slide 22Slide 23