I like the dual boot solution too. There are a lot of very hairy issues involved in cycle stealing...especially if the machines crash more frequently with your software than without. Desktop support people notice things like that (as well they should!). The TCO argument seems silly to me when based on hardware costs. Seems to me that you need to buy the disk anyway, it's whether or not you have to buy a computer to go with it. :) The real savings from moving to a dedicated cluster is on the admin / support end. In terms of OS coherency, there are folks on this list with great experience in that area. The short form is that you're going to need to address the issue of pushing out updates to compute nodes whether they're dedicated to a cluster or not. The answer is to do it at boot time, from a boot image server. > > If, on the other hand, it's concern over trying something new, the > > Engine system recently implemented at Novartis is a decent example of > > a corporation gaining a great deal of horsepower this way. > > Can you provide more details on this or point me in the right direction > to get more info please? United Devices (http://www.ud.com) has a commercial implementation of cycle stealing software a la Seti@home. Their page has a number of good links. Included there is a PDF describing a major install at Novartis. Basically, Novartis has already plugged 2,700 workstations into their UD grid, and they plan to include 62,000 more as they finish standardizing every single workstation across all their sites. It's a cool project by any measure, but (of course) the devil is in the details. -Chris Dwan