peer-to-peerlang (was RE: One Million Processes)
Tue Oct 21 20:02:58 CEST 2003
--- Bjorn Gustavsson <bjorn@REDACTED> wrote:
> "Vlad Dumitrescu" <vlad_dumitrescu@REDACTED>
> I think it is clear that the distribution should NOT
> be used,
> for several reasons.
> Security: Anyone that is able to connect (has the
> cookie) can do
> any kind of damage to any other connected Erlang
> node. (Through
> spawn/4 or one of the rpc:call functions.)
> Scalability: The distribution was not designed to
> allow that many
> nodes connected to each other.
> Distribution is good for communication between a
> small number of
> hosts that that mutually trust each other.
Indeed. BUT the replacement mechanism (unreliable
distribution, if you will) should be about as
convenient as today, if not more so. Perhaps something
- automatic scalable, unreliable distribution handling
millions of nodes that may join or leave at any time
- transparent message passing among the nodes
- some sort of directory (or directories) for the
- some way to manage code
- again, security/trust issues
and "whatever more is needed". Target audience: p2p
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
More information about the erlang-questions