peer-to-peerlang (was RE: One Million Processes)
Wed Oct 22 10:39:42 CEST 2003
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-erlang-questions@REDACTED
> [mailto:owner-erlang-questions@REDACTED]On Behalf Of Thomas Lindgren
> --- Bjorn Gustavsson <bjorn@REDACTED> wrote:
> > "Vlad Dumitrescu" <vlad_dumitrescu@REDACTED>
> > writes:
> > 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
> whole thing
> - some way to manage code
> - again, security/trust issues
> and "whatever more is needed". Target audience: p2p
I do not think that a new, more secure, distribution mechanism should
REPLACE the existing mechansim. It is more like they should co-exist.
Consider; my several erlang nodes large cluster (p2p-node) trust each other,
while I'd like one or a few of them to connect to another p2p-node.
Internally within my cluster I'd like to have the normal distribution, but
between p2p-nodes I'd like the more secure one. So there are actually some
nodes that needs them both...
More information about the erlang-questions