Thread View: mod.os
1 messages
1 total messages
Started by darrell
Thu, 12 Feb 1987 01:32
Re: definitions of distributed
Author: 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
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads