Is SETI an example of grid computing or is it a beowulf cluster?
- Thread starter erwin1978
- Start date
- Status
Vigilante
Posts: 1,634 +0
I've never heard of "beowulf" cluster. But I thought SETI was considered "distributed computing". Basically they mean the same thing. Take multiple independant systems and have them work together for a common good.
However I don't think SETI falls exactly under this category. SETI just gives a client some numbers to crunch and when they are "crunched", it sends the data back. A true cluster is more tightly integrated into a system, such as the beowulf. Or even a Server 2003 cluster.
Whatever "work" needs to be done, is split between multiple systems. So the data get's calculated much faster.
Another type of cluster would be like a file cluster. Where more then one box has identical files. And requests for those files get shared between the computers. This is kind of like Windows Server 2003s NLB (Network Load Balancing), to split traffic to many servers.
But anyways, I'm not expert. But I've played around with it before. There is nothing inherently special about a cluster. There is software for Windows or MAC or Unix or Linux that can create a cluster. I created a Linux cluster between my desktop and laptop using a shareware app. And then I went and opened like a hundred copies of a program that was number crunching, you can see that the processing is being split between the two systems. It's really cool stuff.
Anyways, I don't use SETI. Cause there are no aliens and it's a waste of my system resources
However I don't think SETI falls exactly under this category. SETI just gives a client some numbers to crunch and when they are "crunched", it sends the data back. A true cluster is more tightly integrated into a system, such as the beowulf. Or even a Server 2003 cluster.
Whatever "work" needs to be done, is split between multiple systems. So the data get's calculated much faster.
Another type of cluster would be like a file cluster. Where more then one box has identical files. And requests for those files get shared between the computers. This is kind of like Windows Server 2003s NLB (Network Load Balancing), to split traffic to many servers.
But anyways, I'm not expert. But I've played around with it before. There is nothing inherently special about a cluster. There is software for Windows or MAC or Unix or Linux that can create a cluster. I created a Linux cluster between my desktop and laptop using a shareware app. And then I went and opened like a hundred copies of a program that was number crunching, you can see that the processing is being split between the two systems. It's really cool stuff.
Anyways, I don't use SETI. Cause there are no aliens and it's a waste of my system resources
howard_hopkinso
Posts: 21,238 +17
Vigilante said:Anyways, I don't use SETI. Cause there are no aliens and it's a waste of my system resources
Slightly off topic I know.
I think it`s highly unlikely that in the vastness of our universe, we are the only inhabited planet there is.
If this is the case, then it also follows that there must be civillisations that are more advanced than ourselves.
If you read any astronomical publication this is almost beyond exception the currently held view, and one that I personally subscribe to.
Whether or not the S.E.T.I programme is a waste of time is another matter.
Regards Howard :grinthumb
Tedster
Posts: 5,746 +14
Gee, now we're getting philosophical!
I'm a member of the El Paso Astronomy club. In fact we had a star party last night.
But as far as seti goes.... bound to be life out there. Everywhere that life is given a smidgen of a chance it seems to pop up in the most unsual places. :giddy:
I'm a member of the El Paso Astronomy club. In fact we had a star party last night.
But as far as seti goes.... bound to be life out there. Everywhere that life is given a smidgen of a chance it seems to pop up in the most unsual places. :giddy:
howard_hopkinso
Posts: 21,238 +17
Ah a fellow amateur astronomer eh?
Clear skies to you sir.
Regards Howard :grinthumb
Clear skies to you sir.
Regards Howard :grinthumb
howard_hopkinso
Posts: 21,238 +17
erwin1978 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf_(computing)
The above link explains what a beowulf cluster is.
S.E.T.I. is grid computing.
Regards Howard :grinthumb
Vigilante
Posts: 1,634 +0
Here is a fundamental problem with such a statement as "more advanced then ourselves". Is this: If they have better technology, how come they haven't found US yet? Or maybe they don't care?
Secondly, for what possible good can it do anyway? In our short short lifetimes, so what if we get static noise from planet Gilagamook 41 billion light years away? If some other planet makes contact, let are decendants 10,000 years from now deal with it.
Somehow I see such technologies and fields as this to be billions and billions of dollars wasted.
Anways, who cares, not trying to "start" something. But it's nice to say something NOT related to PC problems for a change
Secondly, for what possible good can it do anyway? In our short short lifetimes, so what if we get static noise from planet Gilagamook 41 billion light years away? If some other planet makes contact, let are decendants 10,000 years from now deal with it.
Somehow I see such technologies and fields as this to be billions and billions of dollars wasted.
Anways, who cares, not trying to "start" something. But it's nice to say something NOT related to PC problems for a change
howard_hopkinso
Posts: 21,238 +17
I would say that the only reason they haven`t found us yet, is the same reason we haven`t found them either. The vast distances involved.
For example the nearest star to us besides our own, is proxima centauri, which is 4.2 light years away, the rest are much further away than that.
And that`s just within our own galaxy, which has an appox diameter of 100,000 light years, and contains between 200 and 400 billion stars.
As soon as you start looking at the subject of astronomy, you can`t escape the enormous numbers and distances involved, it`s mind blowing if you think about it.
That`s why I can`t logically believe that we are all alone in all this vastness of space and time.
P.s yes it does make a change from talking about pc`s lol
Regards Howard
For example the nearest star to us besides our own, is proxima centauri, which is 4.2 light years away, the rest are much further away than that.
And that`s just within our own galaxy, which has an appox diameter of 100,000 light years, and contains between 200 and 400 billion stars.
As soon as you start looking at the subject of astronomy, you can`t escape the enormous numbers and distances involved, it`s mind blowing if you think about it.
That`s why I can`t logically believe that we are all alone in all this vastness of space and time.
P.s yes it does make a change from talking about pc`s lol
Regards Howard
Vigilante
Posts: 1,634 +0
I think astronomy is extrememly fascinating. But it all comes down to which way you think; creation or evolution. 2 sides of a very different coin. I mean, people don't believe this earth had a biblical global flood right? Well when you see a picture of earth from outer space, what do you see? 80% water or so?
Now recently some space pod landed on mars and "saw" something in the dirt or whatever, and scientists say there are signs of a global flood on mars? But look at earth, and it's not screaming at you that as some point the earth could have been covered with water?
Or take, say, National Geographic, who is always "finding" the "new proof" for this or that. And inevitably, months later they will apologize, it was a hoax by someone.
To see earth and mars next to eachother, mars all red and dry, earth all blue and moist. And say there are signs of a flood on mars, and deny there ever could have been a flood on earth? It's like they can't see the glasses on the end of their nose!
Sorry guys, it's late and I'm bored and feel like yacking about nothing.
So anyways, I don't care how smart you think a scientist is; why, if we can transplant a heart, fly to other planets, rebuild faces, restructure skeletons, can't we find a cure for male pattern baldness? I mean, let's put our billions of dollars, burning our pockets, into THAT project okay?
Now recently some space pod landed on mars and "saw" something in the dirt or whatever, and scientists say there are signs of a global flood on mars? But look at earth, and it's not screaming at you that as some point the earth could have been covered with water?
Or take, say, National Geographic, who is always "finding" the "new proof" for this or that. And inevitably, months later they will apologize, it was a hoax by someone.
To see earth and mars next to eachother, mars all red and dry, earth all blue and moist. And say there are signs of a flood on mars, and deny there ever could have been a flood on earth? It's like they can't see the glasses on the end of their nose!
Sorry guys, it's late and I'm bored and feel like yacking about nothing.
So anyways, I don't care how smart you think a scientist is; why, if we can transplant a heart, fly to other planets, rebuild faces, restructure skeletons, can't we find a cure for male pattern baldness? I mean, let's put our billions of dollars, burning our pockets, into THAT project okay?
howard_hopkinso
Posts: 21,238 +17
That`s one way to look at it Didou lol
They might`ve already looked and thought yuk what a bunch of neandertals, not going there again lol
Regards Howard :haha: :haha:
They might`ve already looked and thought yuk what a bunch of neandertals, not going there again lol
Regards Howard :haha: :haha:
Tedster
Posts: 5,746 +14
If you ever come to El Paso, Texas -our club meets the 3rd friday of every month at the El Paso planetarium right next door to the airport. Our star parties are held twice a month about 65 miles east of the city at the Williams Ranch. It is VERY dark there, VERY far, and VERY desolate!
I'm saving up for decent 8-10" scope.
I'm saving up for decent 8-10" scope.
howard_hopkinso
Posts: 21,238 +17
It`d be a very long way for me Tedster lol
But if I do ever get over there I`ll be sure to look you up.
Regards Howard :grinthumb
But if I do ever get over there I`ll be sure to look you up.
Regards Howard :grinthumb
Tedster
Posts: 5,746 +14
You're always welcome and our website is: www.elpasoastronomy.org
We had John Dobson speak about 2 months ago at our meeting.
He was refuting Stephen Hawkings based on observational evidence.
We had John Dobson speak about 2 months ago at our meeting.
He was refuting Stephen Hawkings based on observational evidence.
howard_hopkinso
Posts: 21,238 +17
Cheers for the link Tedster.
As erwin1978 says it might be best to go back to the original subject lol
Regards Howard :grinthumb
As erwin1978 says it might be best to go back to the original subject lol
Regards Howard :grinthumb
dgower2
Posts: 232 +0
May I Add One Quote...
...Before we get back to PCs
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/versions/1118446667-9761.html#16
...And yes, there was a flood
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/f/1118446754-2964.html
...Before we get back to PCs
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/versions/1118446667-9761.html#16
...And yes, there was a flood
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/f/1118446754-2964.html
dgower2
Posts: 232 +0
AH, but Science is full of Theories...
...and science supports the events in the bible. Also, geologists/archeologists will use the bible for it's accurate records of past civilizations and events.
I'm not preaching, I'm presenting a different, more scientifically supported viewpoint.
Consider this: Nothing in the entire bible has been proven false or inaccurate in the more than 2000 years it's been here.
...and science supports the events in the bible. Also, geologists/archeologists will use the bible for it's accurate records of past civilizations and events.
I'm not preaching, I'm presenting a different, more scientifically supported viewpoint.
Consider this: Nothing in the entire bible has been proven false or inaccurate in the more than 2000 years it's been here.
well, it's not particularly about philosophy or religion, but there's nothing stopping us discussing it. That's what The Meeting Spot is for.
I don't know how many would be interested though. Personally, I have my own views on Science and religion, but I suspect most people wouldn't like them. lmao.
I rather do suspect that the original question here has been well answered though.
I don't know how many would be interested though. Personally, I have my own views on Science and religion, but I suspect most people wouldn't like them. lmao.
I rather do suspect that the original question here has been well answered though.
Tedster
Posts: 5,746 +14
Well we were talking about a scientific experiment that is ongoing. The problem when you mix religion is that most people have different views on it and it is a matter a faith, not fact. Now it's great when one can gather some emperical evidence to support your faith, the fact of the matter remains, it is faith and religion cannot be "proven", one has to believe it.
And yes, both can be very compatibable at times, at other times they are not. I don't think religion is a good sbject to discuss on a website that promotes computer science. First, there's the old addage: Politics and religion a friend does not make. :dead:
second, this isn't really a site for it, and offending people for whatever reason would turn them away from the computer hobby we all enjoy here.
And yes, both can be very compatibable at times, at other times they are not. I don't think religion is a good sbject to discuss on a website that promotes computer science. First, there's the old addage: Politics and religion a friend does not make. :dead:
second, this isn't really a site for it, and offending people for whatever reason would turn them away from the computer hobby we all enjoy here.
- Status
Similar threads
