[coyotos-dev] On distributed systems
e_mc_h2 at web.de
Wed Feb 1 13:26:35 EST 2006
Dominique Quatravaux wrote:
> Tom Bachmann wrote:
>>I have been thinking about how to build transparent "distributed
> You should have a look at
> http://www.erights.org/elib/capability/ode/ode-protocol.html (and the
> rest of the site while you are there :-).
Great. I somewhat reinvented it. :(
>>The basic idea is to have a trusted object on every machine that
>>forwards requests over the net.
> Correct (there can be several per machine; they are called "vats" in E)
So those "vats" have to communicate?
Anyway, I think this is a minor detail.
>>The cap itself is probably encrypted or something like this,
> It doesn't need to. the identity of a remote machine comprises a public
> and the pointer to the exact object is simply a random secret
> number of 80 bits or more (therefore unguessable)
I'm not too familiar with this cryptography stuff, but 2 ** 80 sounds
> Separating activation from data
> moving, as discussed last week for Coyotos,
What have I missed?
> is not helpful in the
> networked case due to latency considerations (you want to do as much as
> possible in one network round-trip).
agreed. This was just an expliaction artifact.
>>Actually, the forwarder is the only object in the system that has to
>>deal with the difference between real local capabilities and logical
> Depends on how one is supposed to handle network outages, and also on
> performance considerations. Under E, everybody knows the difference.
With performance considerations you mean the measurable different
latencies when invoking local/remote caps?
I think one of the nice things with a transparent solution is that
applictions don't see any difference, hence there is no special handling
needed. Still the forwarder or vat(s) could offer to reveal "logical
More information about the coyotos-dev