Organizational options

Organizational options

The volunteer computing projects using BOINC vary in terms of their organizational structure and the set of scientists they serve. Examples include:

• Research group. The project is operated by a single research group, and serves the members of that group. Examples include SETI@home, Rosetta@home, and Einstein@home.
• Application-centered research community. The project is operated by a single research group, but serves a broader community in that science area. Example: Climateprediction.net, which is based at Oxford but provides computing to researchers at other institutions.
• Science Gateway. The project is operated by a science gateway, i.e. a web site that serves a particular scientific community, and that provides HTC as well as other functions. An example is nanoHUB.
• Institutional umbrella project. The project is operated by an organization (university or research lab), and serves the researchers in that organization. For example, LHC@home servers multiple groups at CERN. An academic example (no longer operating) is the University of Westminster in London. This idea is elaborated on here.
• HPC provider. The project is operated by an HPC provider such as a supercomputing center. It processes the provider's HTC jobs (i.e. the jobs that don't actually need a supercomputer), and serves the provider's clients that have HTC workloads. An example is Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC).

There are advantages in having BOINC projects that are high in the organizational hierarchy, and that serve many scientists:

• The cost of maintaining a BOINC project is roughly constant, regardless of its size. For large projects, the cost per scientist is lower.
• Publicity options: high-level organizational entities typically have existing publicity mechanisms (e.g. alumni magazines, newsletters, etc.) that can be leveraged to recruit volunteers.
• Longevity: the duration of one scientist's need for HTC is generally shorter than that of a group of scientists. There are benefits in having a project last a long time (e.g. amortizing the startup cost).
• Continuity: similarly, one scientist's computing workload may be sporadic, while that of a group of scientists is more continuous. Some volunteers prefer projects with continuous workloads.