[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[DotGNU]NNTP as rsync
From: |
David Nicol |
Subject: |
[DotGNU]NNTP as rsync |
Date: |
Tue, 30 Oct 2001 17:53:35 -0600 |
"Mario D. Santana" wrote:
> What guarantees does jabberd give of a particular message's full and
> successful propagation through the p2p network, i.e. of it's arrival at
> all the nodes? This is basically a 2-phase commit, and though for some
> services it may not be worth the overhead, other services (e.g., auth)
> will probably need a strong guarantee of sane behavior in pathological
> cases like splits.
usenet is very good at propagation between peering machines and even
has strong authentication mechanisims (pgp-signing) to protect
access to the control channel.
Even though universal connectivity has mostly removed the issue
except in terms of bandwidth use (imagine a comparison of the bandwidth use
of a full news server against a web proxy cache network which would
refer to servers containing posts -- the proxy system only needs to distribute
the titles to the end users, instead of millions of articles nobody reads)
It is easy to imagine a self-updating system that uses something like
NNTP to distribute patches rather than pounding a central server, at least
for the mirror network if not for the consumer nodes.
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: MOSIX as WOS, (continued)
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: MOSIX as WOS, Bill Lance, 2001/10/18
- [DotGNU]PVM as WOS, David Nicol, 2001/10/18
- [DotGNU]Re: PVM as WOS, Norbert Bollow, 2001/10/19
- [DotGNU]X as WOS, David Nicol, 2001/10/19
- [DotGNU]Re: X as WOS, Norbert Bollow, 2001/10/20
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: X as WOS, Adam Theo, 2001/10/30
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: X as WOS, Mario D. Santana, 2001/10/30
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: X as WOS, Adam Theo, 2001/10/30
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: X as WOS, Mario D. Santana, 2001/10/31
- [DotGNU]Jabber as general transport (was Re: X as WOS), Norbert Bollow, 2001/10/30
- [DotGNU]NNTP as rsync,
David Nicol <=
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: MOSIX as WOS, Bill Lance, 2001/10/18