Talk:Distributed computing
|
|
| Contents |
P2P
The current second paragraph here seems extremely weak.
With the recent work in JINI, it seems to me that much more could be said about P2P. I don't feel awake enough at present to say it!
Bernfarr, 04:47, 19 Oct 2002
openmosix
is openmosix cluster or distributed?--dgd
Too specific
I think this a narrow view of the subject. I feel that "Distributed" means that processing for a task takes place on more than one machine. This view incorporates classical interpretations of the term as used in Distributed COM (DCOM), for example. It also is friendlier to interpreting client-server and 3-tier architectures as distributed, which I think they are. --168.98.178.80, 17:46, 23 Feb 2004
Effects on component life, energy consumption, etc
Does anyone have any data about the effect running distributed computing programs has on component life, energy consumption, etc? --203.26.206.129 03:37, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
rm: Project Dolphin
- Project Dolphin takes a count of the number of keys you press on your keyboard. This is mostly an event made of teams.
Removing this non-information from the article. There is no description of at least a goal of the project, nor links to Wikipedia or elsewhere. The one link I found, http://dolphin.twistification.net, seems to be dead. And what is an "event made of teams"?
—Herbee 18:42, 2004 May 24 (UTC)
Distributing Operating System - separate article?
Distributed operating systems are quite different than distributed computing and they deserve an article on their own, IMHO. I will wait for answer for some time and then start such article if nobody will oppose it.Szopen 11:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Distributed computing - a category on its own?
Also, here we use "distributed computing" as a name for whole class of problems, of which recent fashionable terms like grids etc are just another one incarnation. I think the topic deserve a category on its own, and articles on problem such as FLP impossibility result, failure detectors, software distributed shared memory, prediction, etc etc Szopen 12:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
DISTRIBUTED Computing
Why Are Y'all steering folks AWAY from DISTRIBUTED Computing??Folding@Home ?!?!?!? I will join either organization that get's my 'LINDOWZ' linux machine to work on Work-Units... Even 'Koppix' LOL I've done 25 F@H WU's while folding [Console mode] along with GooGle-Labs-F@H [Client mode]on my WinTel CPU and I'm dieing to try a install with a FLASH Drive - I think it would be a 'GAS' ! [$25/128megger-stick ] adding the most successful 'Folding At Home' [Protiens] to the catagories [ I hope ! ] re: http://folding.stanford.edu/faq.html , http://folding.stanford.edu/FAH3.html --144.160.5.25, 00:54, 2 Dec 2004
- Nope not steering away, just biding our time. -- Dbroadwell
shallow
Gah this article SUCKS! Distributed Computing is such a vast and interesting field of study, Wikipedia should not approach it so shallowly. I hope you guys dont mind if I massively revamp this entry... User:Eggstasy, 13:11, 23 Dec 2004
Definition
There is no definition what is 'distributed computing' in this article. In my opinion distributed computing means programs located on physically separated computers which must communicate in some way in order to complete a given computing task. saer
And what would be the difference between Distributed systems then? Szopen 11:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
BTW, i see no sense in Distributing Operating SYstem pointing to Distributed computing. It's absurd. DOS is part of DC, but it deserves and article on its own! Szopen 11:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Distributed computing environment
Distributed computing environment is probably 'See also' page. --Michal Jurosz 13:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Big Merge!!
I saw merge tags on Distributed programming and Distributed system and wihtout a blink I merged them here as sections. I'll revisit to cleanup later as I need this article in better shape. This article needs a structure, anyone have ideas? -- Dbroadwell 02:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, cleaned it up a litte in that i shuffled the paragraphs together is a somwhat logical order, the ones that were less technical first. Tagged for cleanup too. -- Dbroadwell 03:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, I will revert that, ok? I believe, as I stated before, that Distributed Systems and DIstributed programming need article on their own. They are both DC of course, but that does not justify merging. E.g. History of Poland is of course part of History of Europe, as well as history of say... Belarus but that does not mean that History of Poland should be merged with History of Belarus as sections in History of Europe!
- Well, people have ignored my statement, but I will not behave like others. I will wait few days before revert. Maybe Distributed system is somewhat redundant, but definetely not distribued programming. -- User:Szopen 07:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) (signarure pulled from history by Dbroadwell)
- Please sign your comments. Raul, whom is working on his distributed computing PhD, is making a outline for this article. If distributed programming has enough for an article itself it will get it, I think it will ... for now I was trying to centralize the mess to cleanup and copyedit it. In short please wait till after this weekend before going on a wholesale reversion spree. -- Dbroadwell 20:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ok, bit outline applied. To be honest the information that was in 'Distributed programming' was jsut a nice list of distributed computing archetectures and so, really does belong here. Not that 'Distributed programming' doesn't deserve an article of it's own, just not with the information that was there. -- Dbroadwell 06:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
does this go to supercomputers?
Just a bit of stuff from the outline that User:raul654 gave. I'm thinking it should go into supercomputers untill i fill it in a bot mroe ... -- Dbroadwell 06:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
History of supercomputing
mention Illiac
Types
SISD
single instruction, single data
MISD
multiple instruction, single data
SIMD
single instruction, multiple data
MIMD
multiple instruction, multiple data
Tanembaum
As stated by Andrew S. Tanenbaum, "Distributed systems need radically different software than centralized systems do."
- Heh, this quote made me register only to talk about it. Wouldn't that "radically different" thing be because of the way the software is made? If Tanenbaum meant all the kinds of software need to be developed in radically different way than in centralized systems, I'd say he's plain wrong. Take a multilayered model of developing softwares. Higher layers communicate with lower layers with a common language or objects. In that way distributing tasks between computers would be just a matter of distributing more objects. You just need to develop good layers. Well, this is also a model that solves a whole lot more problems that that, but it's just an example. --Renrutal 08:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
definition mixup
The article parallel computing defines distributed computing as one of its methods. The far-reaching analogies in this article about the world wide web and whatnot sound really off-key. It looks like a bunch of duplicated, less than coherent, mess. --Joy [shallot] 00:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)