Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 12:52:42 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: hasty@rah.star-gate.com (Amancio Hasty Jr.) Cc: terry@lambert.org, rcarter@geli.com, jkh@time.cdrom.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New lmbench available (fwd) Message-ID: <199510281952.MAA00217@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199510280705.AAA01197@rah.star-gate.com> from "Amancio Hasty Jr." at Oct 28, 95 00:05:58 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > #ifdef TERRY_IN_FUTURIST_MODE > > > > You connect to services instead of machines, of course, and the > > underlying transport is permitted to load balance you off onto > > another server. > > Boy isn't this very similar to Novell's service schemes except that > I don't think that Novell provides for load balancing but then > again that is probably not to hard to implement if you can > agree on the metrics... It isn't even remotely similar. Novell's scheme involves NDS, which is a push model for replication. Push models are inherently broken. Also in NDS, you must still get to the server, though you do authenticate to the network. Not "any server", "THE server". Novell's servers have no means of anonymity. Novell's servers must also go to a particular location to look up a resource identity. That leaves the location as a bottleneck. Novell's servers are broken. The closest thing to this is the SGI video servers; but of course, they must be a cluster located in close proximity, not distributed all over the landscape. SGI's servers are broken. Any "soloution" that supposedly "solves" the problem by assuming a larger pipe is broken, IMO. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199510281952.MAA00217>