Talk:Parallel computing/Archive 1

message: UHHH!!!! This page is really gross and out of date :(
Very very slightly better now. The first section still needs further breakup and generalisation and there should be more in the pre-toc sumary part. Also, the software part needs expansion and something should be done with the 'general topics' part.
: I managed to refine it. It is better now. :)--Leo 03:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of date 

message: These two are under programming languages but they aren't, they are library for C/C++ and FORTRAN High level programming languages.
:Strictly, OpenMP is a language extension API while MPI is a libary API. But informally, they are called programming languages by many users. --Leo 22:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OpenMP and MPI 

message: If there's anybody who actively maintains this article, I think it ought to be rephrased a bit to at least acknowledge that TLP and multiprocessing aren't the only forms of parallel computing; ILP just as significant. -- uberpenguin 07:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject matter 

message: I'm proposing that Parallel programming be merged into Parallel computing, since the bulk of the content (what little there is) in Parallel programming is already contained in the Parallel computing article (which also provides more context). Is there significant additional content that can be added to Parallel programming to justify keeping it a separate article? --Allan McInnes 20:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.. That article can easily be included as a subheading of this one.  Go ahead and merge them. -- uberpenguin 21:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: I have put up a proposal for a concurrency wikiproject at User:Allan McInnes/Concurrency project. Input from all interested parties (especially those who will actually contribute) is most welcome. --Allan McInnes 21:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: the concurrency wikiproject has been subsumed by the larger (and more active) WikiProject Computer science. --Allan McInnes (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concurrency wikiproject 

message: What is the status of the merge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamstevenson (talk • contribs) 
:The merge was completed on January 20, 2006. Parallel programming is now a redirect to Parallel computing. --Allan McInnes (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge status 

message: OpenMP is great, but if you go to the official website, you realize the last posting of "In the Media" is 1998. You then realize this is for Fortran and C++.
My point is the world has moved on to multicore chips in $900 laptops, Java and C#.  Parallel computing has moved _much_ farther than OpenMP has. We need more content here for the masses, not the PhD's on supercomputers.
I tried to post _recent_ information about new parallel frameworks like DataRush, but was 'smacked down' by Eagle_101 (or some close facsimile) and all my content was obliterated.
QUESTION: Why is it okay for Informatica, Tibco and other large corporations to post massive marketing datasheets in wikipedia, but not allow subject matter experts to post useful information in appropriate topic areas?
I concede DataRush is free but not open source, nor a global standard. But indeed it is recent, topical and factual. The programming framework exists, is useful to mankind etc...etc...  So why does wikipedia not want to inform the world of its existence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilioB (talk • contribs) 
:Well, you might start by contributin actual content, instead of just a link. The fact that the link looks a lot like an attempt to advertise (which is generally discouraged on Wikipedia) probably didn't help matters. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need some hints on how to NOT get my content obliterated :-) 

message: There are two key frameworks in the Java community -- DataRush and Javolution.
Both provide "hyper-parallel" execution of code when you use the frameworks.
http://www.pervasivedatarush.com
http://www.javolution.org
Emilio 16:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone may want to add Java-specific parallel computing frameworks 

message: AFAIK, a modern processor's power is linear with clock speed, not "super linear". This section could also probably do with some references to back up any claims.
===Gettin' a date?===
I frankly can't believe nobody mentioned the first computer to use parallell processing, & the year. What was it?  Trekphiler 17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Off the top of my head, ILLIAC II? Raul654 01:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good guess. ILLIAC IV. Thanks. (So howcum it isn't in the article...?)  Chief O'Brien 04:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peformance vs. Cost Section 

message: I frankly can't believe nobody mentioned the first computer to use parallell processing, & the year. What was it?  Trekphiler 17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Off the top of my head, ILLIAC II? Raul654 01:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good guess. ILLIAC IV. Thanks. (So howcum it isn't in the article...?)  Chief O'Brien 04:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gettin' a date?

message: One statement of conditions necessary for valid parallel computing is:
    * I_j \cap O_i = \varnothing, \,
    * I_i \cap O_j = \varnothing, \,
    * O_i \cap O_j = \varnothing. \,
Violation of the first condition introduces a flow dependency, corresponding to the first statement producing a result used by the second statement. The second condition represents an anti-dependency, when the first statement overwrites a variable needed by the second expression. The third and final condition, q, is an output dependency.
The variable q is referenced but not defined. The third condition is a copy of the second.
MichaelWattam (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right, the text for the third condition made no sense. That error was mine, I'm a bit embarrassed I haven't seen it earlier. q was a typo I introduced when I first wrote that part back in 2007. No, the third condition is separate from the second: hopefully it makes more sense now.  henrik•talk 19:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dependencies 

message: Things left from the old FAC nom that need to be addressed before renominating: 
# Expand the history section. Links: http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/Parallel.html, http://ctbp.ucsd.edu/pc/html/intro4.html, http://www.gridbus.org/~raj/microkernel/chap1.pdf
# Discuss more about the software side (languages) 
# Make references consistent 
After those are done, renominate on FAC. Raul654 (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things to do 

message: This section is very odd.  How is fine-grained and coarse-grained parallelism related to communication between subtasks at all?  The granularity is strictly related to computation length, not communication frequency.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshphillips (talk • contribs) 22:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: False. Granularity is the amount of time/computation between communication events (or, more strictly speaking, the ratio of time between computation and communication) Raul654 (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 1.4 

message: I'm tempted to delete a few occurrances of this word and just write "computers" as in:
*Some parallel computers architectures use smaller.....
*While computers architectures to deal with this were devised... GrahamColmTalk 13:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  architectures 

message: # Program runtime can not decrease in linear with increasing the number of processors even in ideal case (as it is shown in "Parallelization diagram"). 
# Does the article make any distinction between words "serial" and "sequential" in the context of computing paradigm?
# Do you consider important to mention any theoretical model for parallel computing (PRAM for example)? 
# Article lacks at least to mention some impossibility results in the context of P-Completness theory and the notion of inherently sequential problems, do you agree?, kuszi (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer your questions: (1) You're wrong. In the ideal case, a program has no sequential bottleneck and parallelizes with 100% efficiency. (2) There is no difference between "sequential" and "serial" processing. The article uses both terms interchangeably. (3) No, mathematical models of parallel computing are a dime a dozen. (4) I don't understand this question. Raul654 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (1) Are you sure? Even when efficiency is 100% it is difficult to have runtime below 0. (2)Thank you. (3,4) Possibly the mathematical models for parallel computing are easy to find, however it would be nice to at least mention to the reader that such models exists and that we can, for example, distinguish between NC and P-complete problems. 85.128.91.247 (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideal program runtime and others 

message: This article uses the terms speed-up and speedup. I think they're both ugly, but whichever is to be preferred, then the article ought to be consistent. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent terminology 

message: Seeing as this is a featured article, it should be as perfect as possible:
* I think it would be beneficial to expand the lead so that it fully summarizes the article, to comply with WP:LEAD.
**The lead is appropriate for an article of this length, per Wikipedia:Lead ("> 30,000 characters ... three or four paragraphs"). It hits on all the important points without getting bogged down in details that are better handeled later in the article.  Raul654 (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some problems with this article 

message: Article says: "With the end of frequency scaling, these additional transistors (which are no longer used for frequency scaling) can be used to add extra hardware for parallel computing." - it suggests that additional transistors where (before 2004) needed for frequency scaling - rather nonsense. kuszi (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequency scaling 

message: Article says: "In 1967, Amdahl and Slotnick published a debate about the feasibility of parallel processing at American Federation of Information Processing Societies Conference" - probably you mean Amdahl's article: "Gene Amdahl,Validity of the single processor approach to achieving large-scale computing capabilities. In: Proceedings of the American Federation Information Processing Society, vol. 30, 1967, 483–485."? kuszi (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFIPS article 

message: Michael R. D'Amour was never CEO of DRC. He was not around when we worked with AMD on the socket stealer proposal. I came up with the idea of going into the socket in 1996 (US Patent 6178494, Issued Jan 2001). 16 days after the Opteron was announced I had figured out how to replace the Opteron with an FPGA. I personally did the work to architect the board, fix the Xilinx non-working Hypertransport verilog code and get the (then) linux BIOS to boot the FPGA in the Opteron socket. I was also responsible for figuring out if current FPGA's could work in the high performance last generation of the FSB. This lead to the Quick path program. We opted out of the FSB program as it is a dead bus. Beercandyman (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, from this and this it looks like he's the COO, not CEO. Raul654 (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconfigurable Computing 

message: What does the "embarassingly" mean in: "grid computing typically deals only with embarrassingly parallel problems". 
Does it just mean "highly"? There must be a better word for it. Embarassingly sounds POV, as it makes me wonder who is embarassed - presumably the people trying to cure cancer don't think it is an embarassing problem? Maybe Seti@home users should be embarassed, but i doubt they are.
I didn't change it as i havn't read the source, and i'm not certian of what it should mean.YobMod 08:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Parallel computing#Fine-grained, coarse-grained, and embarrassing parallelism and Embarrassingly parallel. "embarrassingly parallel" is a standard term in the parallel-computing community. But perhaps the phrase should also be wikilinked in the grid computing section if it's causing confusion. --Allan McInnes (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embarassing? 

message: That's quite irresponsible to be on the front page; it's not power consumption the main reason of success of multi-core processors but simply the inability to produce faster processors in the pace (comparable to the 80s and 90s) needed to sell to the public "shiny new super faster computers compared your last one that you must buy now or you're behind the times". Shortening the transistor size is slower and parallel computing offers another route to "shiny new faster personal computers". The combination of smaller transistors and multicore processors is the new deal. --AaThinker (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The inability to produce faster processors (by increasing clock frequency) was to a large extent due to power consumption. henrik•talk 10:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  no, it was due to electronic leaks. --AaThinker (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  ..which caused unacceptable power consumption and cooling problems. This is not primarily an electronics oriented article, "power consumption" has been judged to be an acceptable compromise between accuracy and overwhelming the readers with details. henrik•talk 10:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: but the point is, energy aside, they could not make computers as we're used to if they had to make a cooler as big as a fridge. --AaThinker (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Parasitic capacitance and inductance (which are inversely related to size -- smaller, more closely transistors suffer from these effects worse) were one cause of the heat problem, but the linear relationship between frequency and power consumption also played a substantial, if not dominant, role in ending frequency scaling as the major driving force in processor speedup. Raul654 (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "As power consumption.." -> we got parallel computing? 

message: Is the Cray-2 image the right one for this article?  It is a vector processor, while a MPP like the Intel Paragon, CM-2, ASCI Red or Blue Gene/P might be better illustrations of parallel computing. -- Autopilot (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cray 2 image 

message: :Modern processor instruction sets do include some vector processing instructions, such as with AltiVec and Streaming SIMD Extensions (SSE).
This is conflating vector math with vector processing, isn't it?  Can someone knowledgeable remove the above line if it's not talking about Cray-1 style vector computers?  Tempshill (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Vector math can be implemented using a vectorized ISA (like happens in a GPU), so they are related, but not the same thing. This is conflating vector math with vector processing, isn't it? - no, it's not. See the example listed in the SSE article. Raul654 (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vector instructions 

message: Surprised there was no mention of Thinking Machines' Connection Machine, not even in the history section. --IanOsgood (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What, no [[Connection Machine]]? 

message: :Category:Parallel computing is itself a category within :Category:Concurrent computing — Robert Greer (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Concurrent computing]] ''vs.'' [[:Category:Parallel computing]] 

message: The most common type of cluster is the Beowulf cluster
I think there should be a reference cited for this, otherwise this is just an opinion of an editor. --66.69.248.6 (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevalence of Beowulf Clusters 

message: Please see Talk:Distributed computing#What is parallel computing? JonH (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is parallel computing? 

message: Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.--Oneiros (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automate archiving? 

message: I am green as a freshly minted Franklin, never posted before (so be nice)
 Graduate student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
 Semester project; regardless, always wanted to do something like this...
 All initial work should be (majority) my effort
 As a word to the wise is sufficient; please advise, rather than take first-hand action.
 The article should (and will) be of substantial size; but is currently no more that scaffolding
 The "bullet-points" are intended to outline the potential discussion, and will NOT be in the finished product
 The snippet of text under each reference is from the reference itself, to display applicability
 Direct copying of reference information WILL NOT be part of any section of this article
 Again, this information is here to give an idea of the paper, without having to go and read it...
 Article sections that are drafted so far are quite "wordy".... (yawn...)
 Most of the prose at this point has about a 1.5X - 2.0X inflated over the anticipated final product
 This is my writing style, which has a natural evolution, through iteration
 Complex -> confused -> constrained -> coherent -> concise  (now, if it only took 5 iterations???)
 Again, thank you in advance for you patience and understanding
 I look forward to working with you guys...
 Project Location: Distributed operating system
 Project Discussion: Talk: Distributed operating system
 JLSjr (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atempting new article: Distributed operating system 

message: I've uploaded an audio recording of this article for the Spoken Wikipedia project.  Please let me know if I've made any mistakes.  Thanks. --Mangst (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken Wikipedia recording 

message: Should the paragraph about Application Checkpointing be in this article about parallel computing?
I think it's not a core part of parallel computing but a part of the way applications work and store their state. Jan Hoeve (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fault tolerance is a major (though often overlooked) part of parallel computing, and checkpointing is a major part of fault tolerance. So yes, it definitely belongs here. Raul654 (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Application Checkpointing 

message: What a pleasant surprise. A Wikipedia article on advanced computing that is actually in good shape. The article structure is (surprise) logical, and I see no major errors in it. But the sub-articles it points to are often low quality, e.g. Automatic parallelization, Application checkpointing, etc. 
The hardware aspects are handled better here than the software issues, however.  The Algorithmic methods section can do with a serious rework.
Yet a few logical errors still remain even in the hardware aspects, e.g. computer clusters are viewed as not massively parallel, a case invalidated by the K computer, of course.
The template used here called programming paradigms, is however, in hopeless shape and I will remove that given that it is a sad spot on an otherwise nice article. History2007 (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article quality 

message: Can we agree that parallel computing isn't the same as concurrent computing? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_computing#Introduction  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Mormon (talk • contribs) 16:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects from Concurrent language 

message: I'm concerned that asynchronous programming redirects to this page. Asynchronous programming/computing is not the same as parallel computing. For example, JavaScript engines are asynchronous, but single-threaded (less web workers), meaning that tasks do not actually run in parallel, though they are still asynchronous. To my knowledge, that is how it works, and that is how NodeJS works, browsers, and Nginx. They are all single-threaded, yet asynchronous, and so not parallel.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:64C:9B01:7083:DDD:19AF:B6B7 (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but properly written asynchronous single thread code should still run in parallel if the system has that ability. There is the problem of properly debugging asynchronous code on single thread systems. Some bugs might not be found, or take longer to find. Gah4 (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

text: There is an article about Asynchrony (computer programming), but asynchronous programming redirects to parallel computing instead. Jarble (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem strange, but Asynchrony (computer programming) is pretty short, and doesn't say all that much. I was actually looking for an article describing asynchronous I/O, which is a little different than general asynchronous programming. There is enough overlap between parallel computing and asynchronous computing that it probably isn't so bad to redirect here. Gah4 (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parallel computing is not the same as asynchronous programming 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Parallel 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081209154000/http://www.upcrc.illinois.edu/documents/UPCRC_Whitepaper.pdf to http://www.upcrc.illinois.edu/documents/UPCRC_Whitepaper.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414141000/http://users.ece.utexas.edu/~patt/Videos/talk_videos/cmu_04-29-04.wmv to http://users.ece.utexas.edu/~patt/Videos/talk_videos/cmu_04-29-04.wmv
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114212716/http://www.top500.org/stats/list/29/archtype to http://www.top500.org/stats/list/29/archtype
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080131221732/http://www.future-fab.com/documents.asp?grID=353&d_ID=2596 to http://www.future-fab.com/documents.asp?grID=353&d_ID=2596
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021012122919/http://wotug.ukc.ac.uk/parallel/ to http://wotug.ukc.ac.uk/parallel/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100122110043/http://ppppcourse.ning.com/ to http://ppppcourse.ning.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Parallel 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218224945/http://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Articles-Press_Releases/Gordon_Moore_1965_Article.pdf to ftp://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Articles-Press_Releases/Gordon_Moore_1965_Article.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927040654/http://www.scl.ameslab.gov/Publications/Gus/AmdahlsLaw/Amdahls.html to http://www.scl.ameslab.gov/Publications/Gus/AmdahlsLaw/Amdahls.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080131205427/http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=65878 to http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=65878
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081020052247/http://www.upcrc.illinois.edu/ to http://www.upcrc.illinois.edu/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Parallel 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705232106/http://view.eecs.berkeley.edu/ to http://view.eecs.berkeley.edu/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified