This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
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)
I came to the page to read the article and was also confused as to why checkpointing was there. It seems very out of place, and while fault tolerance may be important to parallelism, this isn't an article about fault tolerance mechanisms. It would be more logical to mention that parallelism has a strong need for fault tolerance and then link to other pages on the topic. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Atempting new article: Distributed operating system
Please be calm and civil when you make comments or when you present evidence, and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.
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???)
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.
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)