Talk:Grid computing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

NOT parallelism, don't confuse the reader.[edit]

In the first paragraph, the text says : "as well as a form of network-distributed parallel processing"

This later assertion is quite frivolous... Although it is considered as a form of distributed computing (which is ALWAYS networked btw else it doesn't exist - saying "networked-distributed ..." is a pleonasm), Grid computing has nothing to do with parallelism, there's no notion of process scheduling, topology design or whatsoever from a software designer/engineer stand point, and does not require any parallel programming language syntax/compiler... Compare Beckerley's Parallel C compiler with traditional C compilers and you'll see the difference, it's spectacular. The later compilers can map parallelism over rings, grids, hypercubes, n-cubes, or any other forms of topologies, however these topologies must be taken into account by the software designer/developer via specific language syntax/instructions: it relies on the fact that multiple CPUs are physically part of the same machine, hence with a much more deterministic approach towards very high performances and availability, thus the existence of parallel compilers.

Here, "Distributed parallelism" is an oxymoron: either it's distributed, either it's parallel, but not both. Yes, one could "distribute" an application designed for a parallel computer, but this type of integration (which I've never seen) is completely irrelevant in defining grid or cloud networking. One could end up with grids of parallel computers if need be, but both technologies are very distinct.

Even though they target the same goal which is performance, by coupling the power of multiple CPUs, comparing distributed computing with parallel computing is a TRAP, where such a comparison can confuse or mislead the reader. Distributed computing could be considered as a cheaper alternative for parallelism, but at the same level as considering one single pipelined multi-threaded SIMD or multi-core MIMD CPUs as alternatives to parallel computing: in both cases, performance is the goal, but it's not parallelism (which will always outperform Distributed Computing given the same number of CPUs).

To vulgarize: one could consider Parallel Computing like brain cells in the same head (number of cells, synaptic connections and underlying structure), whereas Distributed Computing (thus including Grid Computing) can be compared to managing the work amongst a number of those "heads" like project-human-resource management (however each "head" has at most 1-2 "brain cells" - or CPUs - in average, usually it doesn't involve parallel computers), for targeting an optimal dead line.

--HawkFest (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree, it is a form of parallel computing. While I agree such a distributed system does have fine grain parallelism i.e. the possibility of each instruction been run in parallel it does exhibit something called coarse grain parallelism. This is where parts of the application are sent to different computers in the Grid and executed concurrently i.e. in parallel.

"it's not parallelism (which will always outperform Distributed Computing given the same number of CPUs)." This is a dangerous assumption, large scale computer systems can suffer from scalability issues. It will largely depend upon the overheads of managing such a system. These can vary vastly from system to system. Grids given their largely distributed nature i.e. loose coupling etc. have high degrees of scalability, though I do not argue that HPC (High Performance Computing) systems don't. It must also be considered that algorithms for fine grained parallelism do not always exist and in these cases distributed efforts will work faster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are different interpretations of what means "distributed" and what means "parallel", even the experts diverge in their definitions. In general, everybody seems to agree that "distributed" refers to a system that makes use of more than one processing unit. Different processing units may be distributed within the same rack (like e.g. in cluster computing), or over the network. In the grid case, distribution over the network is the key part of the paradigm, so the word "network" is important. Parallel processing, also in general, refers to solution of a computational task using several procesing units. Parallel processing can be done in a distributed computing environment, or in a mainframe (the latter is often more efficient). Parallel processing can be performed in a grid environment, however, it is not a part of the definition of the grid. That is, grid computing may well be used to process totally independent tasks - and is actually better suited for this, as independent tasks do not depend on network-indiced latency. For latency-tolerant parallel tasks, grid computing is as suitable as any other form of distributed computing. In short, I am not sure how can the article be improved. oxana (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC).

Same as distributed computing?[edit]

Is this the same as distributed computing or is it something else? -- Evercat 10:58 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

It is a specific example of a distributed system in the same way a heart bypass is a specific example of surgery. To borrow from the Perl developers - there is more than one way to do things. Grid computing is a specific example of a distributed system where there are a number of different organisations with different policies working together for a common purpose.[GG]
Then why the article state that "grid computing is a super set of distributed computing"? Does it mean to say it's a superb subset of distributed computing? LX 15:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Right, since nobody chose to chime in for 20 days, I decided to be bold and change "super set" to "subset". If this is wrong, please speak up. --LX 13:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Just my 2 cents to say that you are right, it's a subset: grid computing is like distributed computing mapped over a quadrilateral mesh of networked computers. It could be called "Mesh Computing" if one wishes. The differences lies in the topology: grid computing is Distributed Computing over a matrix of computers, Cloud Computing is another form of distributed computing where nodes are more loosely coupled, you could also have distributed computing involving rings or bus of computer networks, etc, and these topologies can be virtually assigned via some middleware... --HawkFest (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Globus Toolkit[edit]

Do you really think that the Globus Toolkit has something to do with a swiss department store? Maybe you should remove the link from the Grid computing article.

Or the Globus bus company ... even the Globus Project developers have said that it was a rapidly chosen name and that they would change the name if the could. [GG]

Corrected Globus link issues, though it's a shame that Globus Toolkit automatically redirects to Globus Alliance, should really be a separate article, or at least covered more fully on the Globus Alliance page. Corrected external Globus link from 'The Globus (TM) project' to 'The Globus Alliance, in line with external link in Globus Alliance.

Done, Globus Toolkit now has own entry, though needs expansion.

Grid is more than sharing CPU-Cycles for big problems[edit]

The article adresses only one specific use case of grid computing: collection compute power for big problems. Please see e.g. the OGSA-Use-cases, and you will see that this is only one of many, many use cases. You will find the document GFD.29, 'Open Grid Services Architecture Use Cases' on . Beside the OGSA Use-cases, there are many more use cases around which are even much more general, but they rise the question what a grid is.

I absolutely agree: idly cycle harvesting covers only a small part of grid use cases! Condor was originally created for that, in a single administrative domain, and was later 'gridified', and XXX@home like projects also aim at cpy cycle harvesting. However, globus as the main grid middleware, and basically NO work in GGF is aiming at that. The main focus really is the spanning of administrative domains for distributed problems. Everything else just derives from that. For example, basically all data related problems in GGF arise from the fact that name spaces, meta data, and data belong to different admin domains, in terms of schema, ownership, security, etc. Andre

treated as a virtual cluster embedded in a distributed telecommunications infrastructure.

That surely is a candidate for language that makes science and technology articles harder to understand than they need be! call a bilateral trenching tool a spade! -- Tarquin 08:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This article disappears up its own I/O port sometimes and needs clarity. I also agree that the "CPU-cycles sharing" argument is overstated in the modern context. Dizzley (Peter H) 11:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
rubbish - for anything outside the limited confines of the user desktop, cpu cycle sharing / access is a major issue for computational science, HPC, financial services ... ad infinitum. And the sentence does make sense. [GG]

Yes it makes sense.... but I often find myself telling non-geeks about grid computing in the hope they'll try something like SETI@home or a similar project. What should I direct them to for a simple introduction? Certainly not this article as it stands! The opening few paragraphs need to be non-technical. Something that my grandmother could feasibly grasp :) -- Tarquin 15:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What was the first grid?[edit]

SETI@home was one of the first grids, however, it was not general purpose. That is, the SETI software was "hard-wired" to do one thing only -- perform pattern recognition on radio telescope data. One of the first general purpose grids and the first commercial grid was created by Parabon Computation. --Wikiant 21:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Globus predates Parabon, and there is a question of whether or not a proprietary platform can meet the criteria of being a grid. It's kind of like installing a custom networking stack and calling it the internet just because it is semantically similar. Parabon would be better classified as a distributed computing platform than a grid one. --Rw2 21:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

SETI@home is cited in a couple places on this page as being the first, but I don't believe that is accurate. About SETI@home and SETI@home#Figures says that it was launched May 1999.

There were other non-profit, scientific public distributed computing efforts prior to then, such as, which dates back to April 1997 (see top paragraph).

Even if is not the first—it's quite reasonable that other efforts existed, even if they were not non-profit organizations—it seems reasonable to say that SETI@home was not the first. --Bovineone 01:37, 14 June 2005.

SETI@home was the first commonly-known one, at least. -- Tarquin 11:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think SETI@home was the first commonly known project of this type, which i tend to call public computing or public resource computing. According to a lot of definitions given though, this isn't a grid. This is a complex one, as in essence there is no agreed upon definition of grid,a subject i have and am writing about at the moment. Perhaps most interestingly, i spoke with David Anderson (who launched SETI@home) last year, and he was against the use of the term grid for his work, and also for lost of other projects that many people do call grids, saying its not new technology, and doesn't need a new term. -- Ora 8th august
In the case of, it had generated a significant amount of headlines on many large news sources throughout 1997 (the year it started and finished its first project, RC5-56), which was prior to SETI@home's reported 1999 start date. You can see links to many of these articles, which included 1997 news articles from CNN, Wired, CNET, MSNBC, ZDNet, and others. I'm not sure how else one can quantify "common knowledge", but those are pretty significantly viewed news distributors. Although not archived online, there were many published print articles surrounding the project completion. However, I do agree with you in that the use of the term "grid" has become too widespread and ambiguous in some cases. --Bovineone 01:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I would recommend you reading "The Evolution of the Grid" by David De Roure , Mark A. Baker , Nicholas R. Jennings , Nigel R. Shadbolt Grid Computing: Making the Global Infrastructure a Reality if you want to find out about the origins of the Grid. [1]. The earliest notions of the Grid are in project's such as CASA project ,I-WAY and FAFNER and the linking of large super-computing centres together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dustin Katzin[edit]

Was he not the original inventor? --Ryu

You are totally correct. He was the original inventor. Congratulations. --Dustin Katzin

Suggestions for additional info[edit]

  • A couple of other things that could be mentiond in this article is:
    • The type of problems best addressed by this computing paradigm (paradigm = 20 cents??:)) - that being highly parallelizable as opposed to serial computations.
    • How result integrity is preserved (i.e. tampering is prevented)
    • The economics involved, and also individual CPU owners' rights to results.
--Cheese Sandwich 20:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Why would the CPU owner have a right to a result? It's no different than saying that a calculator should have a right to the result of a problem entered. The value lies not in the solution (which exists whether one finds it or not), but in the asking of the appropriate question.

  • The reason I mention it is at one point I did folding@home for a short while, and during signup they made it clear that the CPU owner relinquishes any rights to any discovery made as a result of any calculations done on that CPU (or something along those lines). --Cheese Sandwich 01:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

One of the interesting bits about the Grid is that resources are locally controlled and policy is dictated by that local entity. As we move toward the next generation of protocols (and here I'm specifically thinking of WS-Agreement as a basis for interaction negotiation) a resource may indeed only permit others to use it that agree to share results. If the requester doesn't like that model, then he can continue to look for another resource. --Rw2 20:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't Grid Hosting be mentioned somewhere in this article? PrinzPH (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My 40 cents: grid computing has nothing to do with parallelism, there's no notion of process scheduling or whatsoever from a software designer/engineer stand point, and does not require any parallel programming syntax/compiler/... Compare Beckerley's Parallel C compiler with traditional C compilers and you'll see the difference, it's spectacular... You could even have grids of parallel computers if one wishes: both technologies are very distinct, and comparing them is a TRAP, where such a comparison can confuse or mislead the reader. --HawkFest (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


How reliable is grid computing? What if one of the computers had faulty hardware (memory, CPU etc), would that cause problems?

  • Faulty hardware would result in results not being returned. Depending on the specific grid, the work would probably be re-sent to another machine. So, you'd get the same effect as if the machine had accepted work, been shut down, and so never returned a result. Some grids periodically "ping" their nodes to verify that they (1) still exist, and (2) are working on the last problem sent them. These grids would quickly detect and compensate for a faulty machine.
  • It actually pretty common that faulty computers (bad RAM or overheating processors) can continue to operate with very few observable operational flaws. Usually this results in subtle computational errors due to bits getting randomly flipped by the hardware. (Of course sometimes a critical bit that affects a memory pointer gets flipped, which will cause the process to segfault/coredump/access-violate or sometimes the entire OS to panic/bluescreen.) For more reliable results, you can run the same workunit on more than one computer and compare the numerical outcomes. If the two results do not match within tolerances, then one of the computers may have been faulty and you need to run the result again until you're confident. -- Bovineone 03:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Grid computing although reliable largely provides a best effort service. If a computer that is part of the Grid fails or if the owner of that computer takes it out of the Grid the rest of the Grid will carry on going. The work that was scheduled to run on that computer will then be rescheduled elsewhere completely transparently. The major issues with Grids though are that they largely offer best effort services. i.e. they do not guarantee when they will finish their computation. There is a lot of effort going into making them more reliable and adding service level agreements in projects such as AssessGrid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Globus claims[edit]

Globus is certainly widely used, but i'm not sure you can claim its the de-facto middleware solution. Rather, its is a _toolkit_ of which many components are used widely. Overall, given the nature of middleware, describing them as single applications as it were, is misleading. Each is made of many components which can be seperately installed. I removed the claim the Globus was the 'core middleware' for European Grids.

Too bad that was removed. Globus is more than just a toolkit. It is also a suite of services that, without any additional programming, provide a complete grid solution for many classes of deployment. --Rw2 20:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

More Globus information about it would probably be best put in its own article at Globus Toolkit. That article could use some significant additions (and maybe splitting into a separate article), since it currently only discusses the Globus Alliance organization. -- Bovineone 06:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be fine, except that Globus Toolkit forwards to Globus Alliance and I don't know how to change that. :-( --Rw2 23:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Done, now Globus toolkit is its own article. ora 08:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Grid Hardware[edit]

I've seen grids running on everything from occassionally-connected laptop 'clusters', through to racks of servers. And, I heard rumours of grid-style applications being developed on configurable CPUs (FPGAs and GPUs, ?) with tremendous performance gains possible. Does anyone know more about the later? 09:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


So nurg just did a good copyedit, but he changed all instances of Grid to grid. Personally I use a capitalised version (i work on a Grid project) as i find it distinguished it from a geometric grid. I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions. In the Grid field i find both used depending on the organisation, and don't consider grid inherently more accurate than Grid. ora 12:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it a proper noun? It doesn't appear so to me. Nurg 03:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Unaware of this note in discussion I went in and changed all references to Grid a few days ago. While working "Grid Computing: The Savvy Manager's Guide" we leaned on a linguist to help us verify the correct spelling. --Rw2 13:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel in reference to this that in Grid computing it should be capitalized. It is possible to have the notion of "The Grid" as in "The Internet". To explain the idea further you can get several internets i.e. inter-networks but the large scale computer network we enjoy today is called "The Internet". Grids should be treated in the same fashion.


So i think this article is due a bit of an overhaul. It has good information but in a pretty strange order as it has grown fairly organically, and 'state of the art 2005' is a bit out of date now we are well into 2006. I'd be happy to have a go but i wanted to see if there were any objections first as i think the article will look pretty difefrent afterwards. I will come up with a revised order first and post it here before i go ahead though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ora (talkcontribs)

At minimum, I think the current sections "The Global Grid Forum", "The Globus Alliance", and "Commercial grid computing offerings" could be put together as subsections in a new section entitled "Organizations and corporate supporters" or something. Additionally, the entire "Conceptual framework" section needs to be moved to be earlier in the article (before the organizations). Maybe something like the below... (free free to edit it) -- Bovineone 00:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Origins
  • Common features
  • Definitions of grid computing
  • Conceptual framework
    • Virtual organization
    • Resource utilization
  • State-of-the-art, 2006
  • Organizations and corporate supporters
    • The Global Grid Forum
    • The Globus Alliance
    • Commercial grid computing offerings
  • See also
  • References
  • External links

Oh, please do a complete rewrite. The current state is much of a mess. Smoe

Agree. Go for it. I can't understand how this got to be designated a "good article". The opening sentence is awful. Just mind the capitalisation ;-) see my earlier comment. Nurg 03:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I'll start on a revision on a subpage at Talk:Grid computing/Draft Revision. It will take me a while, and I'll post again here when I have reached a reasonable point. Others please do contribute but discuss it here as well. I won't implement any of it without discussion here first though. ora 08:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've begun playing with a new ToC based on Bovineone's list above, its on the subpage. ora 17:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks like a good start, with a much greater emphasis on sections with content. I'm also confused as to how this page could have been nominated as "good", especially with the last 50% of the current page pretty much just being links and not actually useful text. -- Bovineone 14:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure this should not be a "good article" and we can do something about that. I would not waste too much time rewriting the whole article on a sub-page, once a new structure has emerged I think you can apply it, then fix each section on a section by section basis. I'm not sure that the first section should be "origins" - starting with "what is grid computing" then going on to origins makes more sense to me. And a good quote for the lack of a clear definition of "grid" can be found in Ian Foster's "What is the Grid? A Three Point Checklist". Just after the first heading he says "We read about Compute Grids, Data Grids, Science Grids, Access Grids... is there more to a Grid than, as one wag put it, a 'funding concept'". Moving from this onto Foster's three point list would make sense, and we could follow that up with other peoples definitions. Andreww 17:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

external links[edit]

That's a lot of external links... Surely some of them should be removed. See WP:EL for the policy. I would try to remove some, but I'm not too familiar with Grid computing. Gflores Talk 05:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Diffrence between grids and clusters[edit]

Though this article page says clusters should not be confused with grids. Sun Grid documentation no. 817-6117 does not seem to agree.

As per Sun, Grid is a collection of computers, that are capable of performing a task in a collaboration, appearing to the user as a single entity. There are three classes of grids: Cluster grid, Campus grid, Global grid. Though topologically they are same, the geographical proximity between the members of the grid differentiate their classes. In the Cluster grid the member computers are located in the same rack (or a room) and are connected by a high speed LAN, usually a gigabit LAN. The Campus grid's computers are scattered within a building. And, Global grid, as the name suggests, is distributed across the planet, connected by Internet.

Ashish Banerjee

The canonical definition is from Foster and SGE/N1 don't match it. --Rw2 13:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sun (as with a number of vendors) confuse Grid computing with cluster computing. In reality, cluster computing is really a degenerate case of Grid computing where the complex issues (e.g., distributed ownership, local autonomy, heterogeneity) have been trivially resolved by defining them to be fixed values. For comparison, the higher-end Grids (alas, often still at the "research platform" stage) use clusters as basic components.

--Donal Fellows 3 July 2006

The article currently contradicts itself in this area. In the opening paragraph, we see:
"What distinguishes grid computing from conventional high performance computing systems such as cluster computing is that grids tend to be more loosely coupled, heterogeneous, and geographically dispersed."
but in the overview:
"A grid computer is multiple number of same class of computers clustered together."
The latter contradicts the former, both in its use of the term "cluster" and in its implication of homogeneity ("same class"). The overview also exhibits some less-than-exemplary wordcraft, but that's another issue.
So... once and for all, what class relationship between "grid" and "cluster" should this article affirm? MrRK (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


Sorry about the use of the text from the page; didn't realize that went against policy. I've re-added the text I wrote (and left out the text from the page as well as the banner, of course.) FlyByPC 19:37, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Should we add info on this 'best discovery yet? [2]/[3]? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:23, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just did, see SHGb02 14a and expand. Whether or not this is little green men talking to us, or a computer bug, it is likely to be newsworthy. It will probably be at least as significant as the Wow! signal historically, even if it doesn't pan out. pstudier 21:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SETI@home Wikipedia Team[edit]

If you want to join a team for SETI@home, have a look at the Wikipedia team! -- 16:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow, what about this team too? Greudin (discuss.) 09:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Or if your interested in the World Community Grid, join this team Students for a Cure Caleb rosenberg 18:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


Should there be a history section? Who was involved in setting it up? (Is David Anderson notable?) When was it conceived? How long did it take to get set up?

David P. Anderson has been created now. Anyone for a history section? crandles 16:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Definitely. Cheers -- Svest 17:57, August 27, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™

What makes SETI@home's SETI different?[edit]

The current text indicates that SETI@home is unique in that it uses coherent integration, but all modern microwave and some optical SETI searches, use both coherent and non-coherent integration.

Coherent here really just means the use of discrete Fourier transforms, rather than simply averaging the power. The link on coherent integration is also misleading as the connection between optical coherence and coherent integration is rather tenuous, although optical coherence is a prerequisite for signals to be detected by coherent integration.

In SETI@home, the gaussian search is effectively non-coherent integration and the pulse search certainly uses non-coherent integration.

What's really unique is the number of chirp rates tried, and, in later versions, the search for repeating pulses.

David Woolley 13:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Threats to the project[edit]

It is clear that the main threats to the project are funding (though there was a debate about this issue in 2002 [4]) and the appearence of other alternative projects (BOINC - though I consider it as a solution instead of a threat). However, I don't agree about the following:

  • Participants are not prepared for the future: In 2003, the Planetary Society said that "SETI@home is moving forward with plans for a more sensitive and comprehensive sky survey. Within the next two years the SETI@home team hopes to phase out the aging receiver at the base of the line feed...Working together, ALFA researchers hope to be granted as many as 10,000 observing hours on the radio telescope, spread over 5 years...Once the observations get under way, perhaps early in 2005, the SETI@homne sky survey will become more sensitive and comprehensive than ever before. It will be a new chapter in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence." [5]. On the other hand, Rapid Prototype Array solving a variety of scientific and technical challenges as they move toward the final design and construction of the full One Hectare Telescope (1hT).
Part of what I deleted was the statement that nothing had been found in six years, with the implication that it should have been. In fact, even before the project started, people were warning that it might have a negative impact on SETI because of unreasonable expectations. So the first part of this is the idea that people thought that the project would find an ETI within a short amount of time and therefore consider it to have failed because it hasn't. The other half of this is that maybe most participants aren't doing it for the science at all, so will drop out when fashions change.
--David Woolley 20:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • More restrictive computer use policies in businesses: What is the percentage of the project being executed on machines belonging to businesses Vs personal and academic ones? Logically, it should be a tiny one. Even if it was true, computers are and will have more processing powers plus the fact that phone lines are gradually changing to cable and fibre-optic. As Professor Werthimer puts it "20 years ago we listened to 100 channels - now we listen to 100 million." [6]. -- Cheers Svest 15:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
Originally most of the work was probably been done on business machines. A lot of the early SETI farms were servers under test. It ought to be possible to find out from the dynamic statistics on the SETI site, if they are still there. Many of the systems doing a lot of work were under the control of IT deparment people, so more immune from policies. It's certainly true more home computers are always on, but it is also true that home users are actually being lost because BOINC is more difficult to use with an intermittent connection.
--David Woolley 20:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Good arguments. I agree. --Cheers Svest 20:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

The entire "threats to the project" section sounds slightly short of NPOV, as it subtly takes the view of a project member. "What threatens us?" In particular, calling other grid computing projects a threat is at least questionable terminology. --Mr. Billion 06:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

L33t hax0r alienz are set to take over the Earth via SETI![edit]

Be afraid, be very afraid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

For a counter argument see
Also note that a resistor connected to the antenna input will, given long enough cover all possible input patterns (I think it will cover 90% within about an order of magnitude of the time to enumerate them systematically). --David Woolley 08:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Honestly that has to be one of the most farfetched things I've ever heard. —Aiden 04:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Propose change to Harvard referencing[edit]

I propose to change the referencing style from inline URLs, plus full citation in References, to using Harvard style references inline (with the same full citations). The advantage of this is that it is easier to see which facts come from which sources, which helps in maintaining the sources and means that it is easier for a reader to judge the reliability of statements against their perception of the reliabilty of particular sources.

Note that the article is generally under sourced at the moment (a common problem on Wikipedia).

Up to yesterday, I believe that I was the only person to have contributed inline references, so I could have made the change unilaterally. A couple of references have now been added inline in the direct URL style, but have not yet been properly cited in the References section. See, for example, WP:V and WP:CITE for why full citations are desirable, although it is also worth noting that Berkeley has a real problem with link rot and renaming URLs. --David Woolley 09:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

s-23 wiki[edit]

On February 11, JarlaxleArtemis added a section about "s-23 wiki",

a MediaWiki-based wiki created by the Seti23 cabal. It is described as a "non-hierarchical geek contents dis-organization by uncensored, decentralized, transglobal multi-user hypertext editing without restrictions." It is both an English- and German-language wiki.
The Seti23 is a team dedicated to Karl Koch and is participating in the SETI@home project.

I removed the section. There are thousands of SETI@home teams; this team does not appear to be any more notable than any other team. Note that s-23 wiki used to have its own article, but it was deleted. dbenbenn | talk 10:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

SETI@home "not a grid project"[edit]

The article states that "Grid purists point out that Seti@home is really a distributed computing application as it does not make use of almost any Grid concepts." (Note that SETI is capitalised in the SETI@home article, whereas this article is inconsistent in its usage.)

About the only attempts to distinguish the concepts of grid computing and distributed computing that I have found in this article or in distributed computing are two separate and inconspicuous sentences in this one. Firstly: "Grid computing's focus on the ability to support computation across administrative domains sets it apart from ... traditional distributed computing." Secondly: "One characteristic that currently distinguishes grid computing from distributed computing is the abstraction of a 'distributed resource' into a grid resource." (Currently? Has this changed? Is it expected to?) It is not immediately apparent to me, even after reading this article and the SETI@home article how the project fails to meet these criteria, as these unnamed "purists" claim.

As a general comment, there appears to be a great deal of confusion with respect to the relationship between grid and distributed computing (and, to a lesser extent, clustered computing). It would appear that a definition by delimitation and relation is called for in the introductory definitions in this article and in distributed computing.

LX 16:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite Wrong About SETI@home[edit]

Having said that "SETI@home is not a grid project", the article then goes on to say, In a Grid, only the code required for retrieving work and returning results persists on the nodes. Code required to perform the distributed work is sent to the nodes separately. In this way, the nodes of a Grid can be easily reprogrammed.

This is an absolutely perfect description of (my understanding of) the BOINC framework, upon which SETI@home is built!

Consequently, the preceding assertion, "SETI@home's screensaver contains both code to process radio telescope data and code to handle retrieving work and returning results. The two bodies of code are intertwined into a single program.", is just plain wrong.

Indeed, the arrant nonsense of this assertion can clearly be seen in the fact that SETI@home can be run on Linux/UNIX without any graphics capability at all (I run the clients like this myself). Not alone is the infrastructure/management/network client (BOINC) separate from the project client (SETI@home, Predictor@home,, ...), but the screensaver, if any, is a separate component again.

-- EmmetCaulfield 07:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Kind of. I work in Grids, and I see endless disgreement about what Grids are. I have also met the guy who wrote seti@home, and according to him it is not a grid (either the 'classic' or BOINC versions. A friend of mine is studying the emergence of Grid technology froma social/community standpoint, and sugegsts that the definition is currently as fluid as the technology, making blanket statements for any single project as beig a Grid or not fairly hard to justify. ora 14:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC) (PS- still trying to carve out time from work to rewrite this article)
I'm not arguing about what grids are or whether SETI@home meets a particular definition: I don't know enough about either to do that. What I am saying is that even a superficial understanding of BOINC (at the level of installing optimized clients, and writing app_info files, say) makes it obvious that the article's assertion that SETI@home is monolithic is flat-out wrong. Secondly, the definition of a grid which the article proffers seems to me to admit BOINC (maybe even to the extent of BOINC being an exemplar of the definition used), but the article proceeds to explicitly exclude SETI@home, which can't be right -- EmmetCaulfield 19:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Emperor Has No Clothes?[edit]

I have this vague feeling that no one is using grid computing to get any actual science done. If I were to play the devil's advocate, I would say that grid computing just does not make sense in the current computer world, and it may never make sense. It will always be more advantageous to tightly integrate a supercomputer at a single location, than to attempt high levels of computation via widely distributed computers. The overhead and difficulty of maintaining the broad distribution of computing resources will always work in favor of the large computing resource located at a single site. I feel like the article could have a "Criticisms" section mentioning this issue. Westwind273 23:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who worked in support of several very large science projects over the last ten years when I worked for US national labs and in my new life in the commercial world where I see increasing use of grid technology and idea in pharmaceuticals I can categorically state that grid computing is being used to get science done. Every day. Rw2 15:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing pharma research projects on a grid computer for the past five years. Of course, the centrally located supercomputer beats a grid for power on a node-by-node basis. But, considering power devoid of cost is meaningless. A grid computer operates at fractions of a percent of the cost of a traditional supercomputer. There are two instances in which the traditional supercomputer beats the grid: (1) when the problem is not highly parallelizable (e.g., fluid dynamics problems versus traveling salesman problems), and (2) when the usage of the machine approaches 24/7 over the life of the machine. Wikiant 19:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I might agree with the "widely distributed" part, I think the security layers will always add too much latency for true supercomputing on a grid, but I disagree with the "tightly integrate a supercomputer" statement. Ultimately all supercomputers will be based on the loosely coupled cluster model, it's a speed of light issue. The traditional backplane spanning the full length of a cabinet is long gone. As microprocessor core speeds continue to increase, traditional parallel backplanes are forced to become physically smaller. How much stuff can you cram into one cubic foot? Ok, now how much can you cram into one cubic inch? Not much, unless you do it at the chip level, which pretty much eliminates the backplane as we know it today. We've had multi-core chips for some time and in the last year or so these have entered the commodity realm. The next logical step is to pull increasing amounts of RAM onto the chip. As 10gb Ethernet moves into the commodity realm I suspect we will see that move to the CPU chip as well, and the tightly-coupled parallel backplane supercomputer of today will disappear.
There seems to be a common thread here that supercomputing and grid are at odds with each other, or solve different classes of problems. In truth, the grid is about getting users (or workflows) access to all kinds of resources whether those resources are clusters or supercomputers. If a job requires a supercomputer to work effectively then a properly deployed grid would incur a security overhead one time upon submission to the supercomputer, but from there the grid would impose no additional overhead to the execution of that job. Rw2 03:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with making statements like the above is that you have to find someone who is thinking the same way and has published their thoughts so you can site them. No original research on Wikipedia. Maybe we need a wiki magazine where anyone can publish, unfortunately '' is already taken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74s181 (talkcontribs) 12:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

I completely agree with the initial statement. I also have the less than vague impression that grid computing is not being used for real science, except, of course, paper and thesis production on the subject itself. As a matter of fact, I would even say that grid computing can be seen as a subtle form of intellectual fraud. I cannot figure out how can it be a good idea to pay such a tremendous price in security, reliability (sensible data is spread out through possibly unreliable nodes, my computer can be used by loosely authenticated users that I do not know quite well), complexity, to share resources that are cheap and getting cheaper: CPU cycles, memory, storage. Just to mention one of them: disk space. Terabytes disks are about to be available. If your application needs hundreds of terabytes, or millions of terabytes, will it help to spread it throughout the world? Ok, the networks provide huge amounts of bandwidth, but unfortunately no fiber can make the light travel faster, so geographic delays is something one have to live with, doesn’t matter how many bandwidth the network provides. SETI@Home is frequently cited as a case of success. In my opinion SETI@Home, or FightAids@HOME , are extremely well succeeded marketing campaigns’, but could hardly be described as scientific achievements. Any way, if they can, these are very particular cases, that cannot be alleged as rule. If Wikipedia cannot host a discussion on this, the article should point to articles with criticism to the concept of grid computing. --Skandor 23:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is justified criticism of the concept of grid computing, and that this should be included in the article. Your tirade does not provide a good template, however.
  • Strong encryption can protect your data no matter who gets hold of it.
  • Public Key Cryptography and Virtual Organizations can provide very flexible and reliable control over authentication.
  • You can never have too many resources.
  • If my input data is petabytes and my output is gigabytes, then I get a welcome gain in efficiency by sending my program to the data rather than tranferring the data to and storing it at my site.
Maybe it would help to expand on two or three use cases for grid computing, to more easily see where a benefit is hoped for - or where the advantages over comventional technologies are exaggerated.
And another thing, having a section titled "State-of-the-art, 2005" is a bit embarassing in 2007.
--Art Carlson 09:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
"Just to mention one of them: disk space. Terabytes disks are about to be available. If your application needs hundreds of terabytes, or millions of terabytes, will it help to spread it throughout the world?" Yes. Most large organizations (whether they be eBusiness or eScience is irrelevant) have a huge amount of data that doesn't change much, while the actions they take against the data change regularly. It's quite tractable to push deltas to a bunch of locations and then run jobs anywhere horsepower exists, instead of having all the data in one place and being forced to run any job dependent on it in that same place. Rw2 15:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


As far as I can see the following added nothing to the article and, I think, constituted spam. I have removed it to here as it may be possible to turn this list into a sensible paragraph. Andreww 17:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Key vendors in Grid computing, in alphabetical order:

Vendors of related technology (e.g. schedulers and cluster file systems):

mass text removal[edit]

While I support removing the commercial links, or maybe moving them to a sub-page, the last revision that wiped out the seti@hoem section, two of the definitions, and the LCG>EGEE section was too much. Maybe consider writing them but don't just blank them without explanation. SETI@home may or may not be a grid by some definitions but it is worth a mention, the definitions were useful on some level (i might have cut down Buyya for self promotion but not removed his work), and the removal of discussion of two major working production grids was silly. If you dislike the delivery, try rewriting the sections, don't just remove info without explanation. ora 13:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Second this response. The basic idea of cleaning up and spam reduction is sound. I'd even agree that each of the targeted sections could use some work. But, unlike the eyeOS sections previously redacted, the targeted sections do also contain some legit commentary worth saving with modification. --Rw2 16:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Also I have started on a reorganization of this article on a subpage, after some expressed support and no disagreement. See section "Reorganization" above. I _hope_ this will address some of the issues in the text as is. The article has lots of good info but the presentation is dodgy. ora 17:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Legit comments do not require the publicizing of company names and company/organizations in the general purpose definition section. Putting such attributes in the lists -- away from the definitions is enough. The text must be removed when the naming of projects and companies is used to publicize that company, or a project that points to some company/organization deliberately. That is a type of a SPAM. A general purpose defintion must avoid referncing company names and companies' project names in order to offer them publicity. It makes no difference if SETI@home was first (although it clearly was NOT -- its simply a client/server architecture in a WAN environment -- aka: distributed computing). Why insert ANY company name or company project names into the general purpose definition section? Putting the deserving companies in the "external links" and other related lists (below the definition) is quite sufficient. --IlonDalon 22:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing the spam ORIGIN paragraphs and replacing them with the following general verbiage works for me: Some companies and organizations claim to be the first ones out of the starting gate. There has never been a clear front runner in the grid computing arena. Grid computing evolved inside several companies and organizations (in parallel) simply out of the need for a more effective computing model; one that solves for those specific companies/organizations a particular set of problems and utilizes the "idle cycle stealing" concept in an region wider than a single computing element. --IlonDalon 11:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There certainly has been a front runner. The folks at the Globus project brought a bunch of technology ideas together (cycle scavenging, cluster management, virtual organizations, data optimization, storage management, open standards, monitoring and half a dozen others) under one banner, coined the term Grid and remain the de facto standard for doing Grid computing. --Rw2 21:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's certainly a matter of perspective. Although Globus publishes many "standards", in practice I've not found that very many organizations or corporations are using Globus-based products for their grid or cluster management needs. (LSF, PBS, LoadLeveler tend to dominate.) Sometimes a product may implement a couple of Globus standards as an add-on for interaction compatibility, but I think GT is the only native Globus product that I'm aware of.-- Bovineone 05:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
First, LSF, PBS and LoadLeveler aren't Grid tools, they are cluster tools, so comparing them to Globus is comparing apples to oranges. LSF Multicluster might be closer, as might torque with MOAB. However, they still fail to pass the sniff test by being built on closed standards.
Second, the largest grids in the world (e.g. egee, doe science grid, teragrid, CMSGrid, SAMGrid, griphyn and others) are built on globus components and standards. I can also say that while doing research for our book (Grid Computing: The Savvy Managers Guide) we interviewed around 50 people from various industries and Globus is being used in house more than any other tool we ran across.
IBM has offered Globus for a few years and recently renewed their participation. Heck, even Platform (maker of LSF) participates in Globus through their rather passive attempt to market it and their more active contribution of the Community Scheduler Framework. --Rw2 14:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

unknown subject[edit]

I know nothing of the space, I am the confused as to the relevance of SLA's Surely Grid Computing can cache and hache making the use of SLA's irrelevant?

SLA's are not just for networking. One can have an SLA for the machines themselves, for example.--Rw2 18:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article disappears up its own I/O port sometimes and needs clarity. I also agree that the "CPU-cycles sharing" argument is overstated in the modern context. 11:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Currently, the major resources that people are thinking about on the Grid are datasets (some of which are huge) and applications. Compute cycles are incredibly cheap by comparison; Moore's Law has put paid to charging for them. Another thing you might get away with charging for is a particular level of service (e.g. peak transactions per second) though I'm not sure about that any more.--Donal Fellows, 3 June 2006

Computational, Data and Equipment Grids[edit]

The links in the section Common features are a bit confusing: "Computational Grids" is just a forward to the top page, the "Data Grids" link leads to an empty page (although there is a page named Data Grid), and the Equipment Grids link is dead, too. As a sidenote, I would be very interested in the source of this taxonomy: Are there any papers I can reference?

-- 08:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Globus Alliance Section is outdated/Spammed[edit]

I just looked over the Globus Alliance page and discovered that it has been rewritten and includes now projects that are actually not part of the Globus Alliance. It may also be worthwhile to point out globdev as a way for the community to contribute.

Gregor von Laszewski, Argonne National Laboratory,

Delisted GA[edit]

Much of this article is dedicated to lauding how amazing this grid thing is, and there's a whole section advertising various organizations, that's just ridiculous, there is no way this is a Good Article, delete the ads and change the language to neutral as per WP:NPOV. Homestarmy 13:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Newbee suggestion[edit]

I was reading through the article and thought that

This technology was mostly abandoned in the 1980s as the administrative and security issues involved in having machines you did not control do your computation were (and are still by some) seen as insurmountable.

was badly worded and could be replaced with

This technology was mostly abandoned in the 1980s, mainly because of the administrative and security issues that arise from distributing data to foreign machines. Data procured in this way could be seen as being potentially erronous. (data consitency cannot be verified from an uncertified source).

and possibly (sorry im just editing as i read, and i may remove this after ive read the article) could include (I've just made this up, but if somebody verify it) something about the theoretical expodential reliability of data as relative to the number of sources... (i guess thats the old 'good vs evil' debate)

Im no expert, if somebody can ratify/expand then commit it.

Also, 'The grid has more potential than the general public believes' stands to be inacurate as the public at large don't know what the grid is, and the ones that do probably heard about it because of its potential.

Someone seems to have squelched all that text anyway. Just as well, since it saved me a job; as I understand it, things were abandoned in the '80s because it was found hard to tackle the policy issues (still hard now!) and security really wasn't there at the time. It's probably the various efforts that lead to (and pushed forward) the Web that allowed these things to start again. No citable proof of that though. Donal Fellows 14:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkf11 (talkcontribs)


This article fails to mention Metacomputing, which is (in its modern incarnation) basically the same thing as Grid. The biggest initial competitor to Globus, Legion, isn't mentioned at all. FYI, the way I remember it, NASA's Information Power Grid pre-dated Globus' use of the term Grid. Greg 06:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Superscript text

Sounds fuzzy to me, but I added a "see also" link. -- Beland 04:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please help on Utility computing Article.[edit]

This article is good. Can someone please offer their services to make the Utility computing good as well, even if that means merging with this one? --GreatTurtle 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I just did a major cleanup of that article, but I'm not an expert, and it could really use some references and broader historical perspective. I think the two concepts are probably different enough to merit two different articles, but the utility computing one needs to go into a lot more detail. There are several angles which I've only hinted at in my rewrite. -- Beland 03:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent rewrite also a merge[edit]

I forgot to note in my edit summary that I merged CPU scavenging when I did the partial rewrite. -- Beland 02:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


By way of cleaning up the Definitions sections, I think these are appropriate as references for the intro (which presents a summary of common definitions), but too verbose to present in detail to readers. -- Beland 05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The article should be consistent about whether it is "Grid" or "grid". I think it should probably use "Grid" throughout. Also I'm not sure if it is strictly true to speak of Grid computing as being a specialization of distributed computing; a large part of Grid computing is the idea of viewing computing resources as a service - the user should not care how "distributed" the resources are.

There is obviously a large overlap with distributed computing, I'm just not convinced Grid computing can accurately be described as only a subset of distributed computing. 08:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This article requires a massive refresh[edit]

This article is out of date. It represents grid computing as it was circa 2002 or so, when grids were still used predominantly for academic and high-performance computing (HPC) applications such as digital animation and special effects, oil and gas exploration, etc.

In the last 5 years, however, grids have moved into the mainstream of computing. Companies like Oracle, IBM and BEA have introduced grid-enabled versions of major mainstream products, including Oracle 10g (relational database) and IBM WebSphere (J2EE middleware). Numerous startups, including DataSynapse, Appistry, Digipede and ActiveGrid have developed new application middleware for grids. Others, like ExaGrid and Amazon, have built grid -based architectures for scaling storage.

Perhaps more important is the fact that utility computing is rapidly moving mainstream, and all serious projects in this area are based in one way or another on grid architectures. Amazon Web Services has been on the market for a year with their S3/EC2 offering. Microsoft recently released the first details of their upcoming Cloud OS. Ebay has announced "Project eBox". Finally, 3Tera has been shipping for a year a grid operating system called AppLogic, which runs and scales mainstream web applications on grids.

All of this is great news, since it shows that grids are finally moving mainstream. Indeed, the opinion that grids are the next major computing architecture, with utility computing being it's killer app, is rapidly gaining momentum in the industry. Naturally, the fact that dozens of teams at different companies are working in parallel to advance the technology also means that there is a great deal of confusion on terminology and concepts, as every team introduces their own by necessity.

Nevertheless, one thing is clear: grid computing is out of the academia, and in the mainstream of computing. We need a comprehensive rewrite of this article to reflect today's state of the technology, architectures, applications and challenges.

As a professional working in this area (I am one of the founders of 3Tera, mentioned above), I have the obvious motivation to invest significant effort in this work. I am also a former physicist who have spent a few years in academia, so I know the difference between original research, review articles and marketing :-). This is a significant undertaking, so I will need help with editing, checking sources, etc., and, of course, with keeping me honest :-)

I would like to hear thoughts from the community here before I embark on this refresh. Maverick61 21:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a physicist, mostly from academia but with some commercial experience. I have been working on AstroGrid-D for a year and a half now. I still find grid concepts and the grid landscape confusing and would welcome an opportunity and excuse to get my head straight. I will support you in any way I can. --Art Carlson 08:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Relationship to Cluster Computing[edit]

I propose changing the first bullet point in the article to:

"a collection of independent computers and local clusters combined into a unified computing infrastructure" Jwozniak 20:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorting of lists[edit]

I recently sorted the "See also" lists according to blue links, red links, and external links. Donal Fellows pointed out to me that the sorting before was (nearly) alphabetic, which is arguably better. I was confused partly because the alphabetical order had deteriorated somewhat, but I was actually motivated by the recent addition of a commercial link. I was bothered that that might be spam, but I could not easily what the other links were about, especially since the wiki links were indistinguishable from the external links. In the end I removed the three links, but I also question whether it is useful to have so many red links, or indeed any at all under "See also". I still maintain that a cleanup of the lists is in order, but I certainly don't insist that my way is best. Other opinions? --Art Carlson 15:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

While you're at it, consider further improving the organization of these lists by introducing a new, separate subheading under External links for "Commercial grid offerings". These references are currently scattered between See also, Software implementations and middleware and External links, Portals and Grid Projects, two overly large headings neither of which seems particularly coherent or appropriate. - JCLately 16:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I completely overlooked the "External links" section because I expected the "References" to be the last section. We need some large scale reorganization here. If you ask me, the number of links in this article is way out of proportion to the actual content. --Art Carlson 16:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, though it's a difficult problem to remedy. I've been toying with the idea of doing some work on this article, but haven't yet had the time to take a crack at it. My suggested reorganization would be a small step in the right direction, I think. Unfortunately, that's just the easy part. - JCLately 16:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to contribute by reformatting tables using Help:Sorting for Table feel free to revert Seanwong (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Definition of "Grid"[edit]

Rereading this page, I see that most of the text in it seems to be defining a Grid as doing things like cycle scavenging and stuff like that. That's not what a Grid is about! More traditional supercomputers and Beowulf clusters also fit into the general Grid model, and the interesting use-cases involve coördination of these different resources to solve a problem. For example, using a cycle-scavenging system to check a large set of molecules for whether they look likely to bind to some target protein, and then using HPC to examine in detail the cases that look at least not impossible after the initial scan. (Doing such things often requires resources spread across more than one organization — requiring non-trivial security — and very careful control over QoS so that the coördination works at all...) To my mind, cycle scavenging is just how you build a particular class of (cheap, low interconnect capability, variable availability) cluster. But then I think my view of this is pretty much what Foster and Kesselman's original vision involved. (Grid computing is probably the same as Cloud Computing, and is closely related to SOA.) Donal Fellows (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed CORBA[edit]

CORBA is important for distributed computing in general, but, AFAIK, no Grid middleware is using CORBA at the moment. I thus removed it from the list of Grid APIs. IMHO, Corba is lakking the scalability (mostly in terms of administration/coordination) to be useful for Grid systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andremerzky (talkcontribs) 10:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Should previously fast virtual supercomputers be added?[edit]

ABC@home used to be fast, should it be added with "as of May 2012"? The numbers I found (might find even higher for this project or another) than the just updated BIONIC and Folding@home I just updated. This would be kind of misleading since the numbers are way lower now (and have been for a while?). Also It's not clear to me if this (or comments like these on talk pages) should go at the top (seems to be almost in that order here). Comp.arch (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Grid computing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grid computing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Grid computing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)