[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [DotGNU]Network SEE architecture, v2
From: |
Chris Smith |
Subject: |
Re: [DotGNU]Network SEE architecture, v2 |
Date: |
Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:14:07 +0100 |
> http://csserver.evansville.edu/~sc87/see-arch.txt
I read this with interest.
This post is an off-the-top-of-my-head comparison of the SEE and the VRS.
I can't get it out of my head that the SEE and VRS are very similar beasts:
SEE VRS
Accepts requests for Y Y
webservices from 'users'
Accepts request for Y Y
webservices from other
nodes
Runs Webservices Y Y
Provides a secure exec Y Y
environment
Distributes resources N Y
uniformly across the
cluster
Supports multiple Y Y
protocols/transports
Supports the addition of Y Y
new protocols/transports
Requires identification Y Y
... There are more pluses for the SEE and minuses for the VRS and vice-versa
I'm sure, but this is just off the top of my head :o)
Basically, a single node in a VRS looks like a SEE. How executables/data is
stored is very much 'local' in the true SEE sense, and distributed in the VRS
sense. How/where data is stored is handled by the Resource Manager of the
VRS and will be entirely local if the VRS contains a single node.
I see no reason why an 'equivelent' Resource Manager could not be substituted
for the VRS default to provide the entirely local storage and
forward-to-another-SEE-node behaviour required by the true SEE.
How someone adds 'echo servers' to the VRS and requests access to webservices
stored in the VRS has not been identified.