TeraGrid v. Distributed Computing

Nevyan writes "After three years of development and nearly a hundred million dollars the TeraGrid has been running at or above most peoples expectations for such a daunting project. On January 23, 2004 the system came online and provided 4.5 teraflops of computing power to scientists across the country. However, the waiting list for TeraGrid is long, including a bidding process through the National Science Foundations (NSF's) Partnerships for Advanced Computational Infrastructure (PACI) and many scientists with little funding but bright ideas are being left behind. While the list of supercomputer sites and peak power is growing how is the world of Distributed Computing faring? "

Comments

Distributed Computing

[Iesus_Christus]

The problem with using distributed computing for everything is that the number of people willing to let others use processing power on their computer is not infinite. It is a very large number, but eventually everyone who wants to/knows how to help out their favorite cause will have something already installed. In addition, the more useful endeavors that use distributed computing, the less users you will get for each, and only the 'interesting' projects will get many users. Who wants to use their computing power to analyze some boring old physics experiment when you could be finding aliens or curing cancer?

Distributed computing has its uses, but remeber: the public will only be willing to help you as long as they feel like they're contributing to something worthwhile.

Re:Distributed Computing

[samael]

Now the public can chose what problems that it wants solved

Jesus, there's a horrible thought. I've met the public (and seen it's choice in TV). I'd rather have monkeys choose.

Re:Distributed Computing

[hunterx11]

Mathematics and science are neither arbitrary inventions nor entirely self-evident discoveries. They are our attempts to understand and categorize the universe in the most objective manner possible. I would even argue that language is a much more abstract type of categorization. Despite mutually unintelligible differences in languages, all languages are used to describe the same reality.

What I'm trying to say is that the semantics of how we describe the universe may be arbitrary, but the universe is objectively describable.

Why the versus?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why we are asking how a hammer is doing compared to a screwdriver? Both are varied computational models, and are at best architectural descriptions as titles; TeraGrid v. Distributed Computing. They have specific application domains and are used to solve different types of problems. One dealing with non-discrete data and experimental calculations (TeraGrid), the other focused on discrete chunks of data being filtered or rendered and are non-time nor message dependent (Distributed Computing; as defined by the Nevyan's reference). You have two tools in your tool chest. What makes one better than the other? They have completely different jobs that they tackle. They both will be successful. They need not be in competition.