🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct5.190119.21270@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, jona@iscp.bellcore.com (Jon Alperin) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct5.173444.24966@meaddata.com>, srivasm@meaddata.com (M. C. Srivas) writes:
|> |> In article <DWF.92Oct5092154@hope.acl.lanl.gov>, dwf@acl.lanl.gov (David W. Forslund) writes:
|> 
|> |> millions of machines and many millions of users. What do you have in
|> |> mind when you say:
|> |> 
|> |> 	"I believe the workstation world now is moving more to
|> |> 	peer-peer computing in a truly distributed manner."
|> |> 
|> |> I find that very hard to believe.
|> |> 
|> |> -Srivas.
|> |> 
|> 
|>  Whoa....It all points to the paradigm you are using.
|>
|>  [ some examples of distr processing deleted ]

Agree with all what you say above. However, David W. Forslund's post
seemed to imply that somehow peer-peer was more scalable than c/s, and
that c/s was being abandoned for that reason. I simply questioned
why he felt so.

|> 
|> I agree with the sentiment stated above. We are moving to distributed computing
|> in a peer-to-peer paradigm for the traditional UNIX workstation. As far as souped
|> up PC's go, they are evolving towards this, but are still stuck in the more
|> traditional C/S paradigms.
|> 
|> jon

I dont agree w/ that. If I look at all the distr services I get in my
env, eg,
	- ui (x or open-windows),
	- files (nfs or afs),
	- time (rdate or dtp),
	- directory (x.500 or dns),
	- security (kerberos),
	- print (palladium as well as lpr),
	- news,
	- mail,
I find that all of them are based on the c/s paradigm. Some of these
may not use rpc's, but are client-server nevertheless.

I guess peer-to-peer makes sense in the lower layers (<= 4) of the
iso-osi stack, but above that, a c/s paradigm makes life easier for
the programmer and for system management.

There is a (false) tendency to view the c/s paradigm as all requests
going to giant, very powerful, server in the sky, which leads one to
believe that client-server will not scale well. I was refuting that
point.

-Srivas.