One Computer to Rule Them All

An anonymous reader writes "IBM has published a research paper describing an initiative called Project Kittyhawk, aimed at building "a global-scale shared computer capable of hosting the entire Internet as an application." Nicholas Carr describes the paper with the words "Forget Thomas Watson's apocryphal remark that the world may need only five computers. Maybe it needs just one." Here is the original paper."

Reminds me of 11001001

[nharmon]

Having a worldwide master computer really worked for the Bynars [memory-alpha.org]. I'm sure it'll work here on Earth too.

Article Summary

[dachshund]

Basically this is a puff piece for IBM, talking up how their Blue Gene SMP systems can run Apache and Linux, so big clients should all run out and buy those rather than clustering inexpensive hardware. The "one computer, running the Internet as an application" thing is a meaningless hook to draw readers in (and get a little bit of attention on places like Slashdot).

In real life there may be a case to be made for IBM's solution. But making that case has more to do with actually convincing large customers that IBM is substantially cheaper (and runs the software people need). Since that doesn't seem to be happening on a massive scale, I tend to doubt IBM's hype.

And the answer is... (no spoilers. )

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

... Well, I don't have the creativity to write something this nice, and certainly I don't have the right to spoil it. Check out one of the most enjoyable short stories written by Aasimov [archive.org]

A free link to the original paper

[bo-eric]

...TFA gives it as http://weather.ou.edu/~apw/projects/kittyhawk/kittyhawk.pdf [ou.edu]

Re:that isn't the best

[datapharmer]

Kind of. It is registered in the tax roles, it just can't be accounted for once it is dispersed: "The Department of Defense... once again finds itself under intense scrutiny, only this time because it couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions..." according to a Government Accountability office "A study by the Defense Department's inspector general found that the Pentagon couldn't properly account for more than a trillion dollars in monies spent." -sfgate [sfgate.com]

Maybe they are building that giant-mega-super-computer after all, or maybe they are funding covert wars and skimming your money for $640 toilet seats and retirement funds. Either way, they are outright taking money from me with no accountability which makes me even more pissed than if it were secret!

Re: And the answer is... (no spoilers. )

[cbart387]

From the story you posted ...

Multivac was self-adjusting and self-correcting. It had to be, for nothing human could adjust and correct it quickly enough or even adequately enough.

A researcher from IBM came to my university for a presentation. His area of research is in autonomic computer [ibm.com]. It basically boils down to the phrase quoted above. That, coupled with the project mentioned in the summary, I could certainly see a multivac-type machine becoming a reality.

I always enjoyed the multivac stories. Thanks.

Re:Yeah, right... Indeed

[Vectronic]

"Answer" by Fredric Brown, I would assume...

http://www.alteich.com/oldsite/answer.htm [alteich.com]

Re:Actually your wrong.

[Courageous]

I doubt that they are planing replacing the Internet with one machine but a Blue Gene might replace Google's cluster.

Not at anywhere near the cost.

C//

Re:Hello Multivac!

[Stachybotris]

Nah, I think it's more along the lines of what Harlan Ellison was talking about [wikipedia.org]...

The Airplane Rule says otherwise:

[caveat]

"Complexity increases the possibility of failure; a twin-engine airplane has twice as many engine problems as a single-engine airplane." By analogy, in both software and electronics, the rule that simplicity increases robustness. It is correspondingly argued that the right way to build reliable systems is to put all your eggs in one basket, after making sure that you've built a really good basket. See also KISS Principle, elegant.

I'd say that IBM knows how to build a pretty reliable basket..

http://catb.org/jargon/html/A/airplane-rule.html [catb.org]

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

You're funny.

Have you worked as one of the people managing the people managing the mainframes? IBM support goes down all the time. Although complete loss of data is highly unlikely because there is so much back up etc. involved, customers routinely complain about not being able to access this or that because this part of the network is down, etc. IBM employees get calls for a Severity 1 outage routinely, and it's becoming increasingly problematic as IBM continues to implement resource actions.

To say that IBMs services are up 100% of the time is misleading. I wouldn't want them "hosting" the internet.

Also, I think the point being made was that we don't want one group in charge of it, rather than not wanting one bit of machinery involved. By restricting control and maintenance of something this global under one specific hierarchy, we effectively eliminate any system of checks and balances.