Next Article in Journal
Performance Model for Video Service in 5G Networks
Next Article in Special Issue
Understanding the Determinants and Future Challenges of Cloud Computing Adoption for High Performance Computing
Previous Article in Journal
Input Selection Methods for Soft Sensor Design: A Survey
Perspective
Peer-Review Record

Volunteer Down: How COVID-19 Created the Largest Idling Supercomputer on Earth

Future Internet 2020, 12(6), 98; https://doi.org/10.3390/fi12060098
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Future Internet 2020, 12(6), 98; https://doi.org/10.3390/fi12060098
Received: 25 May 2020 / Revised: 2 June 2020 / Accepted: 3 June 2020 / Published: 6 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cloud-Native Applications and Services)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript provides a recent perspective on how current research has been helped by volunteers sharing computing resources. A fresh perspective on how the covid-19 pandemic completely changed this domain and how it could be improved in the future since many resources have been unused. 

The manuscript is well written and all topics are carefully explained. 

Minor comments:

1) The text font on Figure 7 may be increased. 

2) Section 5 (Related Work) can be extended. The author's motivation for writing this manuscript can be emphasized in this section. Also, similar works that address some challenges mentioned by the authors can be referenced in this section.  

 

Author Response

Reviewer Point 1:

The manuscript provides a recent perspective on how current research has been helped by volunteers sharing computing resources. A fresh perspective on how the covid-19 pandemic completely changed this domain and how it could be improved in the future since many resources have been unused. 

The manuscript is well written and all topics are carefully explained. 

Answer 1:

Thank you very much for your kind words.

Reviewer Point 2:

The text font on Figure 7 may be increased. 

Answer 2:

Done.

Reviewer Point 3:

Section 5 (Related Work) can be extended. The author's motivation for writing this manuscript can be emphasized in this section. Also, similar works that address some challenges mentioned by the authors can be referenced in this section.

Answer 3:

We extended Section 5 with a critical discussion on limitations focussing, explained the motivation and provided additional references of related work. Please have a look.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a perceptive paper. It discusses shortcomings identified in the concept of volunteer computing and how they could be addressed by considering solutions proposed for cloud computing. It also proposes an architecture model to address such shortcomings.
I like this paper. It is interesting.

Questions (answers can/should be used to improve the paper):
1. What about adding/using a publish-subscribe communication between client and master in the proposed architecture model?
2. I could not get one point. What is the linking between Table 2 and Figure 10? Can those technologies be used to implement the proposed model (Figure 10)? This is not clear.
3. How could the proposed architecture model be implemented? What technologies? Does it require a new middleware or framework?
4. Is there a limitation identified by the author in the proposed model? If so, this could/must be discussed acknowledged in the paper.

Specific points:
- line 2: can not → cannot (please identify other occurrences in the text)
- line 68: I could not understand the sentence “They were forced to because it turned out that cloud computing can be costly if used inefficiently.”. Forced to what?
- line 139/173/251 (and more occurrences): E.g. → For example/instance
- The text font in Figure 7 should be increased.
- line 325: this were possible → was

Author Response

Reviewer Point 1:

This is a perceptive paper. It discusses shortcomings identified in the concept of volunteer computing and how they could be addressed by considering solutions proposed for cloud computing. It also proposes an architecture model to address such shortcomings.
I like this paper. It is interesting.

Answer 1:

Thank you very much.

Reviewer Point 2:

What about adding/using a publish-subscribe communication between client and master in the proposed architecture model?

Answer 2:

Yes, a publish-subscribe communication model between the client and master is nearby. However, the publish-subscriber model assumes to some degree that both components are always-on components which is not perfectly the case in volunteer computing. So, the proposed approach follows the publish-subscriber philosophy but implements it in a pure and straight-forward client-side triggered approach (because the clients form the ephemeral parts of the complete system).

An explaining paragraph has been added to the beginning of Section 4.2.

Reviewer Point 3:

I could not get one point. What is the linking between Table 2 and Figure 10? Can those technologies be used to implement the proposed model (Figure 10)? This is not clear. How could the proposed architecture model be implemented? What technologies? Does it require a new middleware or framework?

Answer 3:

An extended and explaining paragraph has been added to the end of Section 4.1. This explains the relationship between Table 2 and Figure 10 more explicitly. The necessity of a middleware/framework is addressed explicitly to provide a clearer picture of the relationships.

Reviewer Point 4:

Is there a limitation identified by the author in the proposed model? If so, this could/must be discussed acknowledged in the paper.

Answer 4:

We extended Section 5 with a critical discussion on limitations focussing on aspects like general limitations of VC grids, middleware approaches like BOINC, gatekeeping roles in the context of ethical considerations. Please have a look.

Reviewer Point 5:

Specific points:
- line 2: can not → cannot (please identify other occurrences in the text)
- line 68: I could not understand the sentence “They were forced to because it turned out that cloud computing can be costly if used inefficiently.”. Forced to what?
- line 139/173/251 (and more occurrences): E.g. → For example/instance
- The text font in Figure 7 should be increased.
- line 325: this were possible → was

Answer 5:

These points all have been addressed in the revision. Thank you very much for your careful proof-reading. Please check the marked changes (blue) in the revised document.

Back to TopTop