Slashdot Mirror


Xgrid Clustering Software and Demo

no_demons writes "Along with a selection of other goodies, Apple also unveiled their Xgrid clustering technology from their advanced computation group today. Xgrid can turn a number of networked Macs into a supercomputer, detects nodes automagically via Rendezvous, and can run in or out of a screensaver mode. You can download a technology demo (including a BLAST test app) here."

47 of 290 comments (clear)

  1. small scale? by SHEENmaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does this work on the small scale as well, like OpenMOSIX? We have a few G4's at school that could benifit from clustering.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:small scale? by dave+at+hostwerks · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's running on my home network of 2 desktop G4s and one PowerBook G4. Looks and works great.

      --
      d a v e

      --
      d a v e
      "Hmmm...upgrades."
  2. Will it work on legacy machines? by ActionPlant · · Score: 5, Funny

    It'll be interesting to see if I can make this work with the stacks of old LC520s in my garage. I've been wanting to cluster them for a while. If Xgrid will work on those, Mac just saved me a ton of work. Not that I wasn't going to have fun with it....

    Damon,

    --
    http://actionPlant.com
    1. Re:Will it work on legacy machines? by xactoguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nope, it won't work on those. XGrid is based off of Apple's Rendezvous, which is OS X ( well, at least until someone ports it, seeing as it is open source. So, unless you plan to port it yourself, and to port XGrid as well ( if it is ever open sourced ), then you're out of luck. If this was a serious post that is. If it was a troll, then I bit, but you don't care ;)

      --


      And so we go, on with our lives
      We know the truth, but prefer lies
      Lies are simple, simple is bliss
    2. Re:Will it work on legacy machines? by Squid · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course Apple probably won't make this available for anything other than OS X. But even if they did... how many LC520-vintage Macs does it take, clustered, to equal the raw computing power found in, say, an iPod? (A modern Apple MOUSE probably has a more powerful CPU than some of the older Macs.)

      If there is a law of diminishing returns trying to cluster old hardware to keep it useful, I think an LC520 is well past it.

      Besides, if you want to do it, see if Linux will run on those 520s and... yes, you guessed it... build a Beowulf cluster out of 'em.

    3. Re:Will it work on legacy machines? by Squid · · Score: 5, Informative

      OSX requires:
      - PCI
      - Open Firmware
      - a PPC 603 or 604 or later
      - oodles of RAM (64 minimum).

      Running it on a legacy Mac - that is, anything older than a Power Mac 9500 - would involve somehow getting around these. You'd have to:
      - write an Open Firmware bios for the machine and trick it into booting via it
      - write drivers for the machine's onboard video so that it LOOKS to the OS like a PCI card behind a bridge chip (repeat for sound, network, etc)
      - get a 603 or later (OS X 10.2 needs a G3 or later), some of the upgrades for 68K machines could only go to a 601
      - provide for 64 or 128MB RAM on a machine whose motherboard is limited to 36. Oh, and endure the sluggishness of 72-pin RAM.

      OS X is not OS 9 and it is not Red Hat.

    4. Re:Will it work on legacy machines? by TCM · · Score: 5, Funny

      What has Slashdot come to? Suggesting throwing cash at a problem that can be solved over "many weekends of hard labor"?

      Next you suggest to pay for an operating system instead of writing your own?

      Tss..

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    5. Re:Will it work on legacy machines? by shaitand · · Score: 3, Informative

      64mb of RAM is oodles? wouldn't oodles be somewhere more in the ballpark of 1gb+? 64mb of ram is barely sufficient to run win98, let alone MacOS which prior to OSX lacked any reasonable form of swap without third party software.

      The result was constantly running out of memory. And since pretty much everyone running on a mac requires lots of ram you'd run out of memory fairly quickly, often with no more than two or three applications running.

      As for the sluggishness of 72pin RAM, I can only assume your joking, EDO ram was static memory and smoked compared to dynamic memories. Dynamic memory technology was cheaper, has bigger numbers (amusing that the faster it is, the more it needs rewritten and therefore the more it bogs down the processor and the more wait states while it refreshes). Static technology gets expensive when you talk anything much more than 128mb, while dynamic is cheap to 1-2gb.

      Between processor bog and additional wait states and the fact these problems scale to the speed of the memory, it's highly debatable whether dynamic is overall superior to static. However saying that static memory is sluggish is insane.

    6. Re:Will it work on legacy machines? by ActionPlant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Considering the kernel for which Xgrid was written, though, is it unreasonable to consider that a person might be able to work with a custom, stripped down compile of BSD? Granted, there would have to be a few necessary X modules, but what I'm wondering is if a person would have to go your route (writing the trick bios, etc.) or if it would be easier just to start with BSD and build from scratch?

      Damon,

      --
      http://actionPlant.com
    7. Re:Will it work on legacy machines? by Ffakr · · Score: 4, Informative

      "XGrid is based off of Apple's Rendezvous, which is OS X "

      No, Xgrid is based off of the Zilla project that ran on NeXT.
      Zilla was acquired by Apple when NeXT was purchased.
      Zilla was rechristened Xilla during development in honor of OS X.
      It's now called XGrid.. and yes it is cool.

      Now, XGrid includes support for Rendzvous.
      Rendzvous is Apple's release of ZeroConf, an OPEN SOURCE ad hoc IP based protocol.

      Someone else asked about running on other BSD's.
      XGrid runs in user space. It isn't a kext (kernel extension). It probably could run on other BSDs without too much work, but it is a carbon app so you'd have to totally port the interface to some other GUI API.. and you'd have to port it from Obj C to something more common I'd guess.
      Apple hasn't provided source (yet) though so I don't see anyone porting it soon. Maybe reverse engineering it...

      other stuff... it apparently makes use of XML too but I haven't gone through all the docs yet.

      --

      I'm not feeling witty so bite me

  3. Sounds good, but... by moehoward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's the cost? I can't find any info on pricing, etc. Sounds like a great product if it works as advertised.

    But for me, the model I want is a broker model. I want to sell my processor time to a broker who will resell it on a day to day basis to whoever is the highest bidder. E-bay of grid computing, ya know. I don't want to pick projects, download clients, etc. I just want to pariticipate (i.e. make money) from whoever is willing to pay the most at any given moment.

    And when I feel like it, I'll volunteer x% to non-commericial stuff like SETI@home.

    --
    "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    1. Re:Sounds good, but... by rampant+mac · · Score: 5, Funny
      "But for me, the model I want is a broker model. I want to sell my processor time to a broker who will resell it on a day to day basis to whoever is the highest bidder. E-bay of grid computing, ya know. I don't want to pick projects, download clients, etc. I just want to pariticipate (i.e. make money) from whoever is willing to pay the most at any given moment.

      And when I feel like it, I'll volunteer x% to non-commericial stuff like SETI@home."

      Ladies and Gentlemen, please welcome the 21st century pimp.

      "What do we get for 10 teraflops?"

      "Anyting you want!"

      "Anything?"

      "Anyting!"

      --
      I like big butts and I cannot lie.
    2. Re:Sounds good, but... by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 4, Informative

      I want to sell my processor time to a broker who will resell it on a day to day basis to whoever is the highest bidder.

      Several companies tried this back in 2001 and discovered that the processor time on your computer is worth less than the overhead cost of using it. Sorry.

    3. Re:Sounds good, but... by andcarne · · Score: 4, Informative
      Its free software.
      "Anyone can download the technology preview today, which includes a kit that lets programmers add functionality to Xgrid for more advanced job control."
      The download can be found at: http://developer.apple.com/hardware/ve/acgresearch .html
  4. Why limit this.. by jaxdahl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why limit this to Macs only? Wouldn't this work even better if it were cross-platform -- like many other distributed computing solutions such as SETI, distributed.net, and the UD Cancer projects.

    1. Re:Why limit this.. by sydney094 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It isn't inherently limited to Macs... however, the only computers that they have written the client for is Mac 10.2.8 or better.

      (From the FAQ)

      Q: Can I use Xgrid with other UNIX-based computers?

      A: The short answer is no.

      The long answer is that Xgrid uses an XML property list protocol built on top of BEEP for all of its inter-computer communication and coordination, and because these protocols are open, it is possible a client, agent, or controller could be written to run on other UNIX-based computers and interoperate with Xgrid. However, no such programs have been written.

      --
      "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research." - Einstein
    2. Re:Why limit this.. by laird · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "However when you can pick up Dell or Sun machines cheaper and more powerful than Xserve cluster nodes, it's more tempting to me to put a little effort into getting each one up & running as a node and enjoy the benefit of more power and a little effort, than simplicity and less power."

      This might make sense except that Dell and Sun servers are slower and more expensive than Apple's. Unless you're talking about buying used servers on eBay or something, I suppose. But if you want scientific supercomputing floating point number crunching, the G5 is amazingly good...

    3. Re:Why limit this.. by andcarne · · Score: 4, Informative

      XGrid does NOT need to run on Xserves. People seem to be drawing that conclusion from somewhere. You can use it on any machines capable of running OS X (10.2 though, I believe). The reason it gets quite interesting is because the average person can set up something somewhat powerful with the desktops laying around their house. I for one, have 5 Mac machines in my house that have lots of idle time. I could install XGrid and use that idle time efficiently to perform distributed tasks. (of course, I would have to figure out what to do first)

  5. Great, this sucks.. by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now every single story posted on slashdot for the next 6 months is going to have a comment of "Imagine an XGrid of these!" The old incarnation was slowly dying too...

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    1. Re:Great, this sucks.. by tbmaddux · · Score: 4, Funny
      "Imagine an XGrid of these!" The old incarnation was slowly dying too...
      With XGrid now out, Apple will die much more fastly.
      --
      Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
  6. Re:super computing by mbadolato · · Score: 3, Funny

    1 = super computer
    1100 = supercomputer

    See, with that many more computers you DO run out of space

    *rim shot*

    Thanks folks, we're here all week. Try the veal; it's delicious. And please, don't forget to tip your waitress.

  7. Re:super computing by falcon5768 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    (rolls eyes, knew this was going to be said)

    when the G4 was out the concept of a supercomputer was still the old how many gigaflops it ran, at that point the G4 was considered a supercomputer because it had just broken the old gigaflop barrier.

    but with that Apple while advertising it was a supercomputer secretly wanted that concept to change cause it ment they couldnt sell the computer to a LOT of different countries due to export laws and supercomputers (the same thing happpened with Japan and the PS2 I think, or it might have been a urban legend in that case) Intel and AMD where also in on it since their chips ALSO where breaking the gigaflop barrier and where technically classified as "supercomputers" based on old 70's classifications.

    Since then the rulling was changed and it will be a long time before any of the makers will reach the current mark with a one or two prosessor machine.

    Now in Virginias case, it really IS a supercomputer, actually the third fastest at this point and THE fastest educational supercomputer

    before I think the G4 was like 6 or 7 gigaherz slower than the closest "true" supercomputer

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  8. Been there, done that, Apple bought me lunch. by antarctican · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Oh good, you mean I can actually talk about XGrid now after signing an NDA over 6 months ago? :)

    We had the second installation of XGrid, the only other group using it at the time was NASA. I haven't had much time to play with it personally but we had our coop do some genetic sequence analysis using it and he was quite impressed. Plus the speedometer-like gauge measuring performance just looks soooo cool. ;)

    1. Re:Been there, done that, Apple bought me lunch. by buckhead_buddy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Back when Spindler ruled as Steward of Apple (well before the return of Jobs), I signed an NDA for an evaluation period with a piece of Apple hardware that was supposedly about 10-12 months from release.

      The specs of the machine have been outclassed by modern standards, and the neat software features not made irrelevant by Mac OS X have surfaced in Mac OS X Server. But there were two very cool things about the case though that I thought were of the "Geez, that seems so obviously handy!" variety.

      The gotcha was that it has never been released. I keep expecting new Mac hardware to one day come out with these two features but until that time I guess I'm still under NDA. Arrggghhhh!!!!!

      Be glad your NDA expired with the release of the product. Otherwise you'd be burning with the image of that cool speedometer in your mind and unable to tell anyone about it. :-)

    2. Re:Been there, done that, Apple bought me lunch. by laird · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wow, usually NDA's are released either when the info becomes public knowledge OR after three years (or whatever). Lawyers never let me sign any contract that doesn't have an expiration date, because it means that they'll have to worry about it forever...

  9. db solutions? by tobes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know much about clustering, but maybe someone can fill me in. Would it be possible to run something like Postgres on a cluster of XServes? Would the clustering be transparent at the application level, so that any program could take advantage of the clustered resources or would specific distributed algorithm apps need to be written?

    I'm hoping that I could just get a stack of XServes and run an OSS db on it for free (as in no extra effort required), but I'm guessing that's not the way it works.

  10. My TiVo has Rendezvous... by wembley · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wonder if I could offload some of my compiles to TiVo...

    :-)

    --

    Share and Enjoy!

  11. Apple vs Microsoft by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here is another wonderful example of Apple beating Microsoft on more than one level.

    1. Over all Coolness AND Geek Factors.
    2. Usefulness of coolness factor.
    3. Ease of use of Geek factor.

    Microsoft hasn't done anything remotely like this in thier existance, rarely do they push the tech envelope beyond the what has become ordinary and benign. And when they do, they end up with over analized and engineered products nobody want (Bob?).

    Apple of the otherhand is OFTEN making stuff WAY before the curve. Newton/PDA, USB/Firewire, CDROMs, Floppylessness (is that a word), standard networking .......... and now Beowolf clustering out of the BOX!!!

    If Apple is smart with this, they could play against the new model of "ON DEMAND" services from companies like IBM.

    Imagine a corporation that could automatically timeshare, timeshift computing resources based on such technology using the workstations they currently own/purchase. Peak periods of processing could be syphoned from little or unused desktops "On Demand", back filling any need left over from the DP center.

    If this is NOT revolutionary it will be at least evolutionary.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:Apple vs Microsoft by KrispyKringle · · Score: 3, Interesting
      While you are probably right, what is truly interesting about this is that it's Apple who are doing it.

      Microsoft, for all their research, always seem to have a ``me, too'' attitude. Their entire business approach (which is certainly highly successful in many ways) is essentially to jump into every possible market (gaming consoles, consumer electronics, embedded devices, low-end servers, enterprise computing, web application infrastructure, clustering, etc) with the hope of, if not succeeding, at least driving out potential competitors from succeeding instead.

      Apple, on the other hand, has seemingly ignored anything but their established market of home users and graphic artists, video editors, and the like for a long, long time. I have never even seen an Xserve in use, neat as they seem to be. They've made no real headway in commercial environments (other than ad agencies and the like), either as workstations or as PCs.

      And yet, here we have a product (for which a market may or may not really exist) which falls far outside Apple's traditional domain, but which seems to be clearly innovative. Where Microsoft only seems to promote technologies that it sees other companies already engaged in, Apple pioneers something somewhat more risky. Microsoft's model is probably more successful. But that may not be the point.

  12. Re:what ever happened to the exageration of the "i by cosmo7 · · Score: 4, Funny

    From my own inexhaustive observations, Apple gives consumer stuff "i" and geeky stuff "X", hence iPod, iApps, iMac, iLife etc against XServe, XCode, XGrid, etc.

    To be frank I've always wondered about Apple's name syntaxes. When the Mac IIx and the SE/30 came out - improvements of the Mac II and the SE with then top-of-the-line 68030 processors - it seems they really should have gone with Mac II/30 or SEx. Mac II/30 sounds like a third grade joke about chinese dentists but the Macintosh SEx would have probably made them billions.

  13. Hardly a Supercomputer: Cluster computing 101 by deadline · · Score: 5, Informative
    There are only certain problems that work well on LAN clusters. Those that have a lot of independent jobs (like BLAST) and those that require a small amount of communication like rendering.

    Read ClusterWorld and you can figure this out yourself.

    --
    HPC for Primates. Read Cluster Monkey
  14. 90nm G5s by sergeantmudd · · Score: 5, Informative

    What's more important is what it's clustering, 90 nanometer G5s. Apple and IBM are the first company to bring 90 nm processors to the market. Xserve White Paper

  15. Re:super computing by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The whole point of the ban on export of supercomputers was that they could be used to simulate nuclear explosions

    Not exactly, it was also their usage in brute-force decryption. The former point was indeed emphasized in the days of the old Cray supercomputer, but the latter was stressed as the most important factor in mid 1990's, when the aging cold war COCOM was replaced by the Wassenaar Agreement.

  16. Re:mini me super cluster... by antarctican · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder how long it will take someone at MIT or some other tech university to figure out if I put all the Macs located on or around a college campus I could or University could make it's self a mini-Super Computer for very few dollars.

    We did this 6 months ago when we were first beta testing XGrid. I never had the opportunity to personally play with it, but a grid of a hundred EMacs was a pretty good start to a mini-supercomputer I was told. :)

  17. batch queueing by tolldog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Isn't this just a batch queueing system, much like Sun's Grid computing, Platform's LSF and the like.

    If it is, it is different in nature than the often joked about beowulf clusters and the mosix systems.

    I think its great that Apple has one too, the more ideas thrown into the pot, the better all of them become.

    -Tim

    --
    -I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
  18. Re:Competitive with Linux clustering? by repetty · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Macs aren't cheap."

    Oh, yes they are.

  19. Won't Work, Use These Alternatives by cmholm · · Score: 3, Informative
    *strike!*
    Ok, original post shoulda been modded funny or troll, but there are cluster solutions for old Macs, so here goes:

    NetBSD/68k, supports 68k cpus and various free cluster architectures.

    Appleseed, supports OS 8.6 - 9.x on PPC.

    Quite a few older PCI Powermacs can be coaxed to run OS X 10.1.x using XPostFacto and some patience. Won't support XGrid for now, but the other free suspects will work.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  20. Hey Colleges: Computer Labs = SuperComputers by mkbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    what a phenomenal idea. to take advantage of the idle processing power of machines that sit unused at least 50% of their time. virginia tech is just the beginning.

    any college with a several ~25-machine labs can use this app to do supercomputer stuff, AND get the return on investment from normal users being able to utilize these machines during the day.

  21. Re:So what happens... by PCM2 · · Score: 3, Funny
    To the rest of the bunch when one of the apples goes bad? *rimshot*
    Sounds like they'd be seriously ... cluster fucked!

    Try the veal.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  22. ifdef Win32 at Apple? by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A code snippet from here(!) reads:

    #ifdef _WIN32
    #pragma warning( disable : 4127 4706 ) /* disable conditional is constant warning */
    #endif


    Why would developers at Apple ifdef for Win32?!

    1. Re:ifdef Win32 at Apple? by derubergeek · · Score: 4, Informative
      From the header:

      AltiVec-based factoring program. Created as extension of original factor.c project at Next Software, Inc.

      Not originally PPC specific...

      --
      Trust me. This is an inactive account. Regardless of what the /. bean counters might report.
  23. Nah, not really. by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Clustering databases has different issues/concerns than clustering computational problems. I wrote an article about database clustering a while back, available here, if you're interested.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  24. What it's not by harywilke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From Apples Website: http://www.apple.com/acg/ Xgrid Xgrid clustering software is intended primarily for scientific researchers who have a set of networked computers that are not yet being used to full collective CPU potential. The software provides a remote execution environment and file staging abilities that coordinate the running of tasks on distributed computing resources and ensure that each computer has access to all of the files necessary to execute the tasks, thus freeing both user and developer of such resources from this tedious work. Xgrid does not solve all clustering problems. It does not replace clustering software such as MPI or clustering hardware such as InfiniBand. Xgrid does not accelerate or "grid-enable" existing applications on your computer. For an application to take advantage of the Xgrid technology, you must update it to use the Xgrid APIs. However, if you currently run long computations in your Terminal windows using, say, an already-compiled executable, you should be able to use Xgrid out of the box to run batch jobs for this executable on your clusters. In this way Xgrid offers high-throughput computing with minimal development work on your part.

  25. Re:Cluster computing 102? by Maserati · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The guys at Genentech must be having heart spasms today. They do a lot of Altivec-optimised calculations, and between XGrid and the G5 XServes they're in hog heaven right now. Any Mac-equipped research facility is now sitting on an extra supercomputer they don't have to pay for.

    Imagine that, an extra supercomputer.

    Lockheed and Boeing are excited. Everyone in biotech is going nuts. Everybody's IT department should be thinking: what could we do with a crapload of extra CPU ?

    --
    Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
  26. Re:Sigh by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The company that doesn't seem to have the slightest clue what 64-bit computing is is delivering automated distributed computing? On machines with 8GB of expensive RAM?

    I think that Virginia Tech would disagree with you on that last point there. There are not many applications that you could or would want to use 64-bit computing anyway so I don't understand your point. These days it's either DBs or number crunching. For the latter, having distributed system helps it even more.

    But if you're not happy with your G5, you could send it to me. I'm sure I could use it to play Pong or something.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  27. Re:Competitive with Linux clustering? by larkost · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, a G5 starts out at $1799. You are thinking of the Cluster Server XServe, at $2999. If you actually were to do even a little bit of research you will start to notice that in order to match the performance of these machines you will have to spend a lot more than the $1000 you quoted.

    Remember you have to have:
    Gigabit Ethernet (the XServe has 2 ports built in).. I think this will probably account for $300-$500 of that thousand right there
    SATA
    Very high performance memory systems (with ECC on the XServe)
    FireWire800 (drives and networking)
    PCI-X (can you say Infiniband?)

    And if we are focusing on the XServe:
    Hardware fault notification (very well implemented)
    1U rack space (slide out drawer, including cable management)
    MacOS X Server (so nice to admin)

    I don't think you know what you are talking about. After all, Virginia Tech just hit #3 on the supercomputing list with a cluster of G5's, and everyone is talking about how cheap they did it. The guy behind the project did a lot of research and discovered that this was the best price, Dell didn't even come close (they gave them 3 tries to do so).

  28. First impressions by h3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Coincidentally, I was working on setting up Sun Grid Engine on a couple of G5s here at work yesterday when I heard the news about XGrid. I dropped my work on SGE immediately.

    It was a little confusing at first to set up, but I eventually got 3 machines total configured as part of my grid - 2x2GHz G5s + 1x867MHz G4. Perhaps if I read the instructions, I would've better understood some of the terminology (agent v. controller v. client, etc.).

    The tachometer is sort of flaky. Sometimes it's stuck at zero on one machine while it it is actively moving around on others. Other times it's stuck at some non-zero position. Opening up 2 tachs on the same machine (XGridBlast has its own tach) will show different speeds. Though I should have in theory 8.867 GHz total speed, I could never get it to go over the default 8 "red line"- I was curious if it would rescale once it exceeded 8.

    The XGrid client (where you submit jobs) has some default demo type things (I've mostly been testing the Mandelbrot one as it runs in a continuous loop), but it also has a way to build "custom plug-ins" which allow you to submit arbitrary jobs. In other words, executables don't have to be modified per se. Of course for any kind of parallel execution, they do, but if you need to to run 1000 iterations of the same command with slightly different arguments, then it should be able to distribute that "run" pretty well. The GUI for building up such a run is pretty easy to use.

    One potentially big issue I've noticed is that once you submit a job, you have to keep the XGrid app open until it is done. For a run that may take days or weeks, I think this could be a problem. I'd like for you to be able to submit the job, quit, and log out (or shutdown the client even) then come back later to check your results.

    Also, there doesn't seem to be a queue manager where you can see a list of jobs and their states.

    I think that for any file-dependent commands, you need local copies of the files on each Agent node. At least that's how it appeared from perusing the documents for XGrid Blast - each node needs a copy of the database.

    FWIW, we're using SGE successfully on a bunch of RedHat based servers, but though OSX maybe *nix, the installation and config was turning to be a pain.

    Anyway, those are my initial impressions. I'm sure some of these things will change in the "release" version. In the meantime, I'll have to get working on getting some real work stuff to try out (I work in a university bio department).

    -h3