Article View: mod.os
Article #50Re: definitions of distributed
From: darrell
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1987 01:32
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1987 01:32
54 lines
3007 bytes
3007 bytes
In article <2699@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> cogito@cs.vu.nl (Robbert van Renesse)
writes:
>When is an application ``distributed?''
(justification omited)
>=======================================
>
> Definition. A distributed application is an application
> carried out by two or more processors.
>
>This leaves the terms ``application'' and ``processor'' to be
>defined.
The problem with this definition is that it allows nearly every application
to be defined as distributed. The pc I'm using to write this on, for example
has a keyboard processor, a graphics processor, a floating point co processor
and a cpu, so that I can argue that any application it runs is distributed.
>What is a distributed system?
>=============================
(justification omited)
>
> Definition. A distributed system consists of two or more
> processors which have the ability to commun-
> icate with one another.
Since the advent of kermit, almost any two processors have the ability to
communicate with each other, provided a long enough cable. (;-)
These definitions, although acurate are overly broad. Unfortunately, I don't
have an alternative definition which is any better ("If it walks like a
duck and it quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.")
Or maybe, the definitions are right and all applications are distributed; so
we are trying to discuss the wrong things.
An alternative way to view a distributed system is in terms of packaging;
I claim that my PC isn't a distributed system because all of the
processors were intentionally packaged into a system which won't work
without them. Multiprocessor systems aren't distributed by this definition
because they were packaged as such; but multiple workstations running a
file server are a distributed system.
The problem with this definition comes from two grey areas. First, if a
vendor were to offer a turnkey distributed system would it become no longer
a distributed system? Second, some systems are designed to be packed in
many ways. A single VAX 11/780 isn't really a distributed system, even
though it has at least two processors (the VAX CPU and the LSI-11,) and a
VAX 11/785, which is really two 11/780s and a shared memory is sold as a
multiprocessor; while a vax cluster is viewed as either a multiprocessor or
as a distributed system, depending on the way the software is configured.
Oh well, needs more thought.
Marty
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<2700@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!sdcsvax!darrellShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!sdcsvax!darrell From: darrell@sdcsvax.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.os Subject: Re: definitions of distributed Message-ID: <2700@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> Date: Wed, 11-Feb-87 20:32:13 EST Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.2700 Posted: Wed Feb 11 20:32:13 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 13-Feb-87 00:39:38 EST Sender: darrell@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, CA Lines: 54 Approved: mod-os@sdcsvax.uucp