Slashdot Mirror
The Scientific Internet
ManicDeity writes "'Forget the Matrix. It's time for the Grid-' From the good people at CERN who brought us the WWW comes a new network designed for scientific use named GriPhyN (Grid Physics Network). Loosely described 'as a Napster for scientist' it is being developed to handle the massive amounts of information created from the highest energy experiment to date. The article can be found at Space.com. " It was my understanding that this was part of what I2 was supposed to do - but this looks cool as well.
I think you are overestimating the effect of the free rider problem. Obviously, just like Napster or Gnutella, people can use more resources than they provide, but as long as each participant has a priority on their own machines, they are likely to overall gain more than they lose. Because you are likely to have access to more computer resources when you need it, and you only give up resources that you don't need.
(Offtopic digression into Middle Ages)
Actually, from what I've learned of the middle ages, the commons where used as a place to go crops for the entire village. They were established after northern farmers developed a heavy plow that could work through the rougher soil of northern Europe. The heavy plow required a huge number of team of oxen and not only could every farmer not afford such a team, but it had an enormous turning radius, and so it was much more difficult to individually plow each farmer's small plot. The commons system began to fail as horses and calvary became more popular. (People were only considered free if they could fight, and few people could have their own horse so they had to pledge to a Lord and become their vassal.) Perhaps herders used the communal system as well, but it was afaik developed out of agrarian interests).
I work on a related project the Particle Physics Data Grid and can correct this a little.
It can be true that the data gets pushed (on PPDG the clients do actually pull quite directly, but that's an unimportant distinction), but only after a definition of the data that would be useful for that system (here we mean system as either a box, or a cluster, or whatever... Some set of resources). So it's a bit like Napster in that you say what you are interested in, but with pretty complex access to meta-data and, of course, vastly larger return sets.
So while the data pushing seems a bit less Napster like, the fact is it's really only confusing because of the timing of events. The idea of data caches and drawing datasets from wherever they might be available is a fair analogy to draw.
It's been around for years. Pete Townshend designed it in 1970-1971.
We won't get fooled again.
-Chris
In any chaotic system (complex system) small changes in one place can effect huge changes elsewhere. Our environment (both microscopially and macroscopially) is such a system. ;)
One would surmise that the good lord would build something a little more tolerant of change
How that proves there is a diety.. I dunno..
A study shows that over 90% of people who died of cancer in the last 20 years ate carrots throughout their lives. So carrots cause cancer?
The article says the web was invented in the late 90's, and also says:
The average household PC has the computing power of a $200,000 machine in the 1950's
Um, isn't an average household PC thousands of times faster than any machine made even in the early 70's?
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
It's been a rough day so far, so bear with me here, but this crap sickens me (yes, I know all about dumbing down for the audience... and I don't agree with it in the slightest in this case).
Third Paragraph: "In late 1990, Tim Berners-Lee, a scientist at CERN, the European Laboratory for Particle Physics near Geneva, Switzerland, invented the World Wide Web."
Uh... pardon me, but... no... he didn't. He invented http, which combined with tcp/ip, hard and software out the wang, and a small pinch of timing, allowed the WWW to come into being over the next several years.
$WWW != 'http';
my $WWW = "A vast number of sites, on a vast number of computers, all strung together over miles of cable, all glued together by http and tcp/ip, and allowing for communication, collaboration, and personal expression on a scale never before seen.";
But that's just me. I could be wrong. If Gore has anything to do with it, I guess I am.
Paragraph Seven: "Petabytes of data means a thousand trillion bytes. This is the amount of data that can be stored by a million personal computer hard drives." Oh really. A million, eh? I guess the size of the drive doesn't matter then? W/o doing the actual math, I suppose I could fit a petabyte on a million of my old 120MB drives, just as easily as on a million of my new 75GB drives...
Audience, schmaudience...
] D
The Slashdot article only mentions networks. This project is distributed computing: having a pool of computers and assigning various data and programs to them. Like Seti@Home, but more general.
Internet 2 is alive and well (and having a conference in Atlanta at the end of October). But they are an organisation really part of UCAID. The physical network used as the national research and education backbone is now called Abilene, and was built by Qwest. This replaces vBNS which was built by MCI/Worldcom under the orginal 1995 grant (expired in 2000) and has since been sold off too the highest bidder. As I said this is alive and well, and peers with the European (10-155) and Asian (APAN) as well as Canadian (CA*Net3) equivalents. There is a world wide interconnected series of research networks (where do you think the grid traffic is running over, the commodity internet). I just got back from NorduNet 2000 in Helsinki (I live in the states) and the EU is already working on upgrading 10-155 and all the sub networks it encompasses. More info at http://www.internet2.edu and
http://www.ucaid.edu/abilene/
wake up and find out that you are the eyes of the world.
s/napster/peer-to-peer/;
--
I am assuming nuclear weapons secrets, etc will NOT be distributed/shared on here?
People seem to be confused about whether this is a Napster clone or a Gnutella clone or a SETI clone, etc. This is rather reasonable, since as near as I can tell it is a combination of Napster and SETI. SETI works on a small amount of data that is stored locally on your computer. This will work on a huge amount of data, which is stored in a distributed fashion as well. So, when a work request is submitted to a central computer, it gets sent to an idle machine, which accesses the relevant data through the network, performs the desired calculations, returns the results to the scientist, and probably also stores the results in the massive distributed database. It is more similar to Napster than Gnutella, I think, due to the centralization neccessary to manage it
On a more personal level, It's simply staggering how well everyone has managed to keep Moore's law chugging along since I got into things back in the early 1980s. I wrote a web page to compute disk prices back in 1991, and I keep having to revise it to be more optimistic every 2-4 years!
--Mike--
The sharing of information has been around for a while. In the automobile industry, open standards, and the absence (to a degree) of secrecy, has made the industry.
I see. So how many petabytes spare capacity have you got? This is serious data here. All we are talking about is a community of people using the Internet to do their job.
So, some Universities have got together and are planning on using it for research, as was originally intended. What's the problem with that? They'll publish when they're ready, else the funding will dry up.
Many villages in the Middle Ages tried an experiment in which the entire village shared a single large green space between dozens of herds. In the end the experiment failed because a few of the herd owners overgrazed the commons, leaving no food for the rest.
This is also called zero sum gaming in which everyone wins a little if they all play fair, but the first one to cheat will win everything and the rest will lose.
If all universities equally share their computers, then they all win a little. But if my university scrimps on their computer budget then I can save a lot of money, and still get all my computing done using other peoples computers. My university wins a lot.
Also people will be lazy in writing their algorithms because they know that their code will still run, it will just need more processors on more machines to execute.
Eventually it is possible that all universities stop paying for a computer budget, every thinking that they can save money by using other peoples computers, but in the end there is not enough computing power to share.
A more fair system would be similar to how your electric meter works. The university reimburses those other computer systems based on how many cycles of processing are used. This would also tend to force people who want to do this work to use efficient code algorithms thus saving even more money overall.
Was it Heinlein that said There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TINSTAAFL)?
-- Never make a general statement.
Looks like the author of the article is confused about the difference between networks and applications. Research and Education networks, such as Internet2, are there to facilitate existence of advanced applications, such as various data grids, teleimmersion, LBE bulk data transfers, etc.
Appearence of new applications reinforces the need for advanced networks, not the other way around. In fact, we (Internet2) work with the U.S. counterparts of the described European project
Perhaps a lot of students don't realize this, but all traffic between Internet2 participating Universities goes over Abilene (Internet2 backbone).
More information about Internet2 and its activities can be found at:
- Internet2 main page
- QBone (web site runs Slash)
- Abilene NOC site
--Stanislav Shalunov (Internet Engineer at Internet2)-- Stanislav Shalunov
I'd have to say this is something other than science. You're appealing to special circumstances, but ignoring one simple fact: if none of these conditions were met, the Universe as a whole would be essentially unchanged, and the only difference would be the abscence of US. In which case we would not be here to argue about it.
But wait, you're ignoring two simple facts: the other explanation for this amazing set of coincidences is that we have evolved within the conditions you describe and are therefore perfectly comfortable.
Who says that life must have liquid water?
Who says that life must have 70% nitrogen?
Who says that planets must have perfectly circular orbits?
Who says that cosmic rays are bad for life? They're bad for us. But that's just us.
What characteristics of water are essential for life?
How is the thickness of the crust designed? How do you know what it would be like if it were thinner, or thicker?
You have no other examples of life, intelligent or otherwise, to display. So none of what you say means much to me. There are billions of other star systems, around which there may be billions of other planets. Your string of amazing coincidences is an appeal to a very small sample. We do not know what conditions are like in most of the rest of the universe. More specifically, YOU do not know. I am certainly not going to listen to your opinion on a matter of which you have displayed such profound ignorance.
Your argument is that of a four-year-old child who cannot see past the end of his own nose. Because I have a four-year-old I am familiar with the condition and imagine that someday you'll mature enough to realize that there is more to the universe than you are prepared to understand. I don't particularly care if you do, of course. Evolution will take care of those who cannot adapt to reality.
It's a joke. Fifty percent of all americans would fall below the line, and fifty percent would fall above it. I believe that some President was presented with this statistic (Johnson? Maybe Nixon) and professed shock. Not understanding that in any statistic of that nature, it would always be so.
Loosely described 'as a Napster for scientist'
psssss... No one tell Larz...pass it on....
Dirty Pirate Hooker
Distributed hampster testing maybe?
Dirty Pirate Hooker
From the way the article describes this it won't be much like Napster at all. With napster you share data with people all over the internet. This however sends data to computers for processing and storing during their idle time. They don't ask for the data it just gets sent to them. Definately not napster like
"Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me"
You can read the project summary for the Grid Physics Network.
Here's what they're proposing to use the GriPhyN for: The four physics experiments are about to enter a new era of exploration of the fundamental forces of nature and the structure of the universe. The CMS and ATLAS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider will search for the origins of mass and probe matter at the smallest length scales; LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory) will detect the gravitational waves of pulsars, supernovae and in-spiraling binary stars; and SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey) will carry out an automated sky survey enabling systematic studies of stars, galaxies, nebulae, and large-scale structure.
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
The real race is now how will you find a way to make money of this new medium- It will probably involve p0rn, and create several millionaires...... Of course, the scientist will not see a dime....
And more like SETI@Home -- using the net to do distributed computing, but the article seems to indicate that storage will be distributed as well. And I think that all the computers that are part of the network will be dedicated to this task; you won't be able to hook up your home machine to GriPhyN. If you're going to spread out your storage, you will need to be able to rely on it being there (i.e., Joe Homeuser shut off his PC and now we can't get access to the secrets of the atom),
-------------
-------------
The truth is out th- oh, wait, here it is...
"Remember, corporate greed comes before ethics!" -TBWA/Chiat/Day board meeting
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
1. In a couple of billion years, the sun will be too cold to support the existing life here on earth. A couple of billion years ago, it was warm enough to allow liquid water on Mars.
2. If the rotation of the earth took 4 more hours, I could get 10 hours of sleep each night and still spend 18 hours working/partying.
3. Um... nearly circular orbits are the norm for any forming solar system. Take any cloud of gas, start to condense it in free space, and bingo!
4. These same gases cause Venus to be a raging cauldron of heat.
5. And if it were only 60 feet away, it would plow over all tall buildings, making construction of anything more than mud huts very dangerous.
6. Damn. I just dug a hole in my back yard. Guess we're all gonna die now.
7. The tropics experience no appreciable change in climate due to the tilt of the axis. They always recieve direct sunlight. Stuff still grows there.
8. Venus also has an atmosphere. So does Jupiter, so does Saturn...
9. Well, who put those meteors out there in the first place, eh?
10. What is to say that a different sized planet would not simply give rise to a different form of life?
11. Again, see previous comment. Essential to all forms of life that we know. Seeing as we have a very limited experience, this isn't really fair.
12. Sorry, I'm running out of snarky comments.
13. Again, life as we know it.
You're probably bored of reading this by now, but if you are not, consider this: In an infinite universe of infinite possibilities, assume there is a finite chance that the conditions necessary for life will arise. This leads to an infinite number of worlds which will support and contain life, and of course, at least one person who will insist that HIS world is special, that it was manually created by some greater being specifically for HIM.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
What an interesting phrase. Note how scientists are encouraged/enabled to share ideas/data/information. Note how the hoi polloi are not. What's the diff? Not money--we all know how much money a good scientific discovery can make.
The difference is that when scientists starting publicizing their ideas for the purposes of testing and priority, they also unwittingly tapped into the REAL benefit (to society): knowledge is power. Sure, you can make money off of things that you know that I don't. But that's chump change compared to what we can do if we share what we know. Non-scientific fields have yet to figure this out.
The first society to allow (mandate?) free sharing of ideas to everyone (while still giving scientific-priority-style credit to the originator) is going to look back at us and laugh: "They thought they could advance by keeping secrets! What fools!"
--
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
what we really need is to clear all the pornographers/sex sites of the web completely, then we don't need a 'new' I2.
I'll be happy with the 'old' one.
what do you think ?