That paper is a nice way to get rid of downstream false patent claims from others, protecting their investment. Good for them.
As stated, the Google system is heirarchical and closed-loop and they already had a top-down architecture and a closed environment. DHT for distributed 'service farms' (lets be accurate as it is mesh of services) are better for environments that are more ad-hoc and open. Amazon's Mechanical Turk, for example, has many joiners and leavers offering services, which is not a top-down type of regime. On 10/4/07, Ryan Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Yeah, I think you're late. I've heard repeated stories about google > using > > DHTs internally. > > i'm not aware of any of our infrastructure that uses DHT techniques at > scale. > we definitely have some sophisticated distributed systems, like chubby, > bigtable, mapreduce, and our cluster management system, but they're all > centralized or hierarchical, with master election. > > there may be some 20% projects, of course, but i don't see us using DHTs > internally in the near future. > > (i'm not an official google spokesperson, look both ways before crossing > the > street, etc. :P) > > -Ryan > On 10/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, I think you're late. I've heard repeated stories about google using > DHTs > internally. > > Thanks > -greg > > Quoting David Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > So I've long been skeptical of the value of the DHT in the real world, > often > > arguing that -- unless anonymity and privacy are critical requirements > -- > > central servers are far superior in every single way. > > > > However, I wonder if the real use for the DHT will be in vast server > farms, > > as suggested by Amazon's Dynamo project: > > > > http://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2007/10/amazons_dynamo.html > > > > I think it starts to make sense there, as we're talking about really > > enormous scales were central servers truly do start to break down, where > > churn operates on a geological timeframe compared to between clients, > where > > there are better trust guarantees and fairness is less a problem, etc. > > > > Is this common knowledge that I'm just late to pick up on? Any > thoughts? > > > > -david > > > > _______________________________________________ > > p2p-hackers mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > -- Michael Slavitch Ottawa Ontario Canada
_______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
