An Experimental Implementation of a Resilient Graphic Rendering Cluster

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presented a solution that would use existing resources in order to make the modeling method more appropriate for applying complex computer services/jobs under distributed architecture, based on the studies in previous publications. Overall, the topic of this study is interesting. The detailed comments are given as follows.

1. The contribution and innovation of the manuscript should be clarified clearly in abstract and introduction.
2. Related work part was suggested to be rewritten via referring to more latest publications in this area.
3. The proposed method was suggested to be compared with existing one to demonstrate its superiority.
4. There are 13 sections in this manuscript. I suggest the authors restructure the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your time and open mind to make this paper better. I am sending corrections as asked.

1. The contribution and innovation of the manuscript should be clarified clearly in abstract and introduction.
   Done
   
   
2. Related work part was suggested to be rewritten via referring to more latest publications in this area.
   Done
   
   
3. The proposed method was suggested to be compared with existing one to demonstrate its superiority.
   Done
   
   
4. There are 13 sections in this manuscript. I suggest the authors restructure the manuscript.
   Done

Reviewer 2 Report

General Comments:

The paper presents a design for a web-front with interactive and fast results without the overhead of complex grid scheduling, hence low latency. The topic is important for web design and computer graphics industry, and the presented design is interesting and useful. However, the paper lacks quantitative analysis for the performance of the proposed design.

Specific Comments:

1. In the Abstract, please expand POV as “Persistence of Vision”. This comment applies to other abbreviations as well.

2. Section 2: Please provide references for the related works.

3. Sections 3-10:

1. Please explain quantitatively whether the proposed design can increase the rendering speed.
2. It is unclear to what extent the proposed design can decrease the latency. A quantitative comparison with existing schemes is necessary.
3. Please provide a diagram to explain the proposed design as opposed to existing ones. Does Figure 2 provide any modification to the GRC protocol? Please clarify any suggested change.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your comments and good will to make our paper even better.

1. In the Abstract, please expand POV as “Persistence of Vision”. This comment applies to other abbreviations as well.
   Done.

2. Section 2: Please provide references for the related works.
         Done.

3. Sections 3-10:

1. Please explain quantitatively whether the proposed design can increase the rendering speed.
2. It is unclear to what extent the proposed design can decrease the latency. A quantitative comparison with existing schemes is necessary.
3. Please provide a diagram to explain the proposed design as opposed to existing ones. Does Figure 2 provide any modification to the GRC protocol? Please clarify any suggested change.
   Done

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors well addressed the reviewer's comments. I do not have further comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors have revised the manuscript and addressed all of the Reviewer’s comments carefully. The current version is useful and suitable for publication in MDPI Applied Sciences.