Is distributed computing dying, or just fading into the background?
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
“Volunteer computing” is probably a better way to refer to this phenomenon.
Normal desktop PCs (in particular the ones that one builds by oneself for gaming) have sufficient cooling capacity that it is causes no serious issue to let them run to help some interesting science projects while you are at work. If you use a laptop, this is much more inconvenient since the cooling design of laptops is nearly always a compromise, and they are typically rather not built to run many hours of "numbercrunching" on most days for months.
EDIT: the article also at least as a sideline mentions this fact: "Making matters worse, fewer people have this hardware due to the general shift from desktop computers to laptops."
The EFF DES cracker was also pretty cool in a hybrid distributed computing/custom ASIC fashion [2] [3] (which partnered with distributed.net to chew through key space for RSA Security's DES Challenge III after having accomplished a brute force challenge exclusively).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed.net
What was moved to cloud infrastructure are rather servers that were on-premise in the company's data center in the past. These on-premise servers did never really have any "spare capacity" that would have been allowed to be used for such scientific distrubuted computing projects.
https://www.distributed.net/Policy ("distributed.net does not condone the unauthorized use of its software on any computer system. You may not run any distributed.net software on a system unless you own the system or have received permission from the owner to run distributed.net software. Running the client on a machine without authorization will result in your removal from the project and will disqualify you from winning.") [My note: This exists because of the above mentioned naughty behavior]
I should go digging for those EFnet IRC logs.
It's also inherently inefficient, iirc every work package is dispatched to several clients and the majority result is used.
Also, in the heyday of Seti@home, computers were usually left on and didn't use a whole lot less power when idle because power management was far less advanced than it is now. Intel power states and gating were only just in their infancy. CPUs ran at fixed clock rates. And energy was cheap. So people didn't care.
These days it costs real money because idle time is much cheaper than heavy loaded time, and it's better spent financially donated to the organisations needing the compute and spent on cloud computing where they can manage the workload directly.
Cloud computing is different: I cannot provide computation time of my idling computers to cloud computing (like I can for, say, SETI@home).
And your idling computers won't be idling anymore when they're running SETI@home. These days there a huge energy difference between idle and load. It just doesn't make sense anymore for people to contribute that way. And for institutions that need compute to set up the whole infrastructure, software toolchain, enduser support etc around making it possible. Better to just pay Amazon.
At one point, people would throw their personal and employer's computers at one of the volunteer projects (SETI, Folding, various hash/key cracking) because that was a cool thing to do.
Some early Bitcoin mining was done for similar reasons.
Then cryptocurrency started to be worth money, and mining pools attracted a whole lot of other people to this 'distributed computing', and also attracted at least some of the people previously contributing to altruistic volunteer compute projects.
Somewhere in there, maybe because of mining awareness, it became less acceptable to run non-business things on employer's idle computers, so that's a lot more computers removed from the pool.
Negative results are still results. What SETI@Home showed was that after analysing all available data exhaustively that there was in fact no clear sign of alien intelligence to be found. That's a different state of knowledge than simply assuming the same result without examination of data.
It's a result that's disappointing to some, no doubt. It is still, however, a net increment in the amount of human knowledge.
Distributed computing erupted onto the scene in the early 80s when microprocessors became mainstream.
Before seti, there was distributed.net who launched in 1997
SETI@Home may not have been the first of its type, but it certainly seemed to have been the first that became broadly known (and together with Folding@HOME, arguably only one of two that ever did this).
The problem with distributed computing is that there's no specialization. My compute is the same as your compute. There's no way where I can trade compute where we both benefit.
So in the end, even crypto won't really work either. You basically have to print tokens for crypto to work and that's essentially the same as giving you a piece of paper and calling it a dollar as payment.
A very specific old model of distributed computing isn't as popular as it once was because the world of technology has changed beyond all recognition since the likes of SETI@Home etc.
Think of it as peer to peer compute. Like bit torrent but instead of data transfer, you compute things.
Crypto is the latest iteration of this. Certainly isn't main stream
However this kind of crowd-sourced computing is a tiny subset of distributed computing. Unless you think (for example) that the author has got it right, and me and Leslie Lamport have got the definition wrong[1].
If only the article could help you out in finding its name.
That being said, I know the article mentions Folding@Home and the It Project. I know I ran a distributed protein folding thing back in about 2002. I'm not sure it was "Folding@Home" though. That's not something the article can help me with.
author and some people here (including me) correctly recognise the intended meaning of "compute gifted by casual people" - like SETI or RSA projects
Are they ignoring the hype around AI?
Yes, but you must either have 1) not read even the first sentence of the article, or 2) be intentionally obtuse and obnoxious to not recognize that this article is only about "donate your spare computer time" type of distributed computing. Headline is somewhat unfortunate, but to pretend that you somehow didn't understand what the article is about is considerably more unfortunate.
>Even a single machine can be distributed computing the computation is distributed between multiple processes.
No.