In all truth, I think the reason this idea even has legs is that the master/slave labels are not really accurate for the two mesos servers based on their actual roles in a mesos cluster.
That said, I¹m not certain the roles can each be easily distilled down into a single catch-all word. "There are only two hard problems in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things." -- Phil Karlton -Chris On 6/3/15, 3:17 PM, "CCAAT" <[email protected]> wrote: >On 06/03/2015 09:27 AM, Brian Hicks wrote: >> 1. We¹ve been aliasing everything to ³leader/follower² in the projects >> I¹m a part of. I think it gets rid of the problematic language while >> still being descriptive of the architectural model. ³agent² makes sense >> to me, too (since those processes do have agency in some situations) but >> I would call it a second choice, personally. > >With all due respect, I think my concerns are being ignored, so I going >to attempt to shed some light on them, again. > >Backgound: Although most of my work is in software, Computer scientist, >I also hold degrees in Electrical Engineering and PetroChemical >Engineering. I am "a hardware guy" who writes code and implemnents >technology long before it becomes an industry standard. As an older and >definitely wiser engineer folks are not recognizing the problems that >lead to 'shear idiocy' with some perceived benefit. > >IN computers we have busses. This is always a buss-master and slaves >that participate in Buss arbitration as slaves are call >'slave-processor. There are many analogies where you are going to leave >hardware designers scratching their heads and laughing, loudly. > >Master-Slave is as much a mathematical term among its myriad of >connotations. It means that master (A) 100% controls slave (B) in a >fully deterministic fashion. It means slave (B) is 100% subservient to >any future requirement yet to be defined or implemented by Master >(A).It's a mathematical thing. > >I do not believe there is another word-pair in the English (globish) >language that remotely displays this level of control nor instantaneous >comprehension. Technology is built upon jargon; you mess with that you >risk obscurity. The history of parallel process is a grave-yard of >idiodic terminologies. > >Ah *CONTROL THEORY*. Master-Slave is as fundamental as arithmetic. In >the industrial world there are billion if not trillions of master-slave >relationships between hardware, systems and software. It's 100% >deterministic (non-fuzzy unless you count 'dont-care states') for hard, >practical reasons. Often something that acts autonomous, is changed and >brought into "slave mode" to ensure correctness and determinism. A >common example, If you have several process controllers in a series, the >controller at the start of the arrow is always the 'master' and the >controller at the point of the arrow is the slave. Instantly understood >and universally accepted. > >It is a convention in hardware and software that is instantaneously >understood. You change that nomenclature and folks are just going to >scratch their head, stick up their hand and say isn't this just a >master-slave relationship? Once you affirm that, then their second >question is the totally predictable, so why not call it master-slave >like everything else does? I could write textbooks on the engineering >usage of 'master-slave' and never have I as an engineer with a >Professional Certification have I never heard of this complaint about >such a prcise meaning in terms. In engineering and science, english is >the best and universal language, but it is mostly a struggle to approach >such accuracy as the terms 'master-slave'. Please do not 'fuzzify' this >well understood and universally accepted jargon. Surely >you and others can find a better pathway for social improvement? > > >Hardware-->Software-->applications. >----------------------------------- > >I know this is a 'software-weenie' intensive group here developing and >testing mesos; surely I fall into that category too. Hell, I build >everything up form 100% sources as a gentoo aficionado. But, clusters >and clouds will make their biggest splash in the 'hardware world', once >ubiquitous computations and general software can be migrated to a >cluster. Mesos is a candidate, but sticking with established industry >jargon, is a very good idea, imo. > >Process Controls (the software, hardware and logic used to control >pumps) by some estimates are responsible for more that 40% of all energy >consumption on the globe. There is a gargantuan need to apply >clustering, particularly ubiquitous clusters, so that faster and better >software can have more features and support things like R, Scala, and >Haskell. I'm already on contract to deliver a mesos cluster, to a >company full of technicians to use for 'sensor fusion' and 'video >analytics' Most technicians struggle with windows and macs yet every >thing I've set up for them before on linux or bsd is wonderfully >accepted and operated by *TECHNICIANS*. Please go spend some time in the >field and deploy some state of the art software and train technicians to >use, to 'master it' and how to fix it in the middle of the night so you >can get some sleep (thank GOD for redundancy and hot spares). Cameras >and sensors are 'slaved' to processes and controllers and software, >routinely. > >I also am working with some computational chemistry folks (at a >university) for customizing a cluster with very specific and bontiful >embedded systems (FPGAs). Sorry, but the term master-slave is of >paramount importance systemically in that project too. > > > >As a public speaker, as a consultant, as the defacto resident expert on >matters of software-hardware interaction where ever I go, much to my >chagrin, I can tell you unequivacolly I have never ever heard anybody >complain about the term, master or slave or master-slave, in the many >heterogeneous environments over the deecades from the deserts, to the >arctic and places that do not formally exist. *NEVER*. But I will >concede I avoid idiot psycologists and social engineering to those that >like to *waste the time* of others. Me, I have to 'getter done' and >master slave is not optional, its a fundamental mathematical >relationship, since long before the 'Greek masters' and mathematicians. > > > > >> 2. mesos-{whatever-we-decide} >> 3. I don¹t think ³master² is as problematic as ³slave², but it does have >> some of the same connotations. If we¹re going to take the time to >> rename, we should rename both. But if it turns out to be infeasible from >> a project management standpoint, ³master² will probably be fine. >> 4. same as others have said: start off with documentation changes, >> follow through with code changes. Deprecate the old binary names over >> several versions, to avoid a cliff. > >Masters only have slaves. A master is 100% in control or some form of >autonomy exists. So if you have a master, you have slaves. What level of >math did you finish in school? Did you go to a good university or night >school? You need to brush up on math, for this audience, imho. > >I previously suggested that this naming scheme be set up so as to be >'user definable'. You know may 'preprocessor directives' or such. This >would ease the transition across a few releases of mesos and allow for >folks like myself to use industry standard jargon, i.e. to use correct >terms with instantaneous understanding, in a fully deterministic manner. >Where is the discussion on that propose solution? This solution >of user definability is a win-win for all users of mesos. It also set >the stage in the future for nodes that have some degree of well define >autonomy or even experimentation with 'self-modifying-codes' among the >slave populations. It even sets the state for node migration amoung >differnent cluster solutions in data centers. > >So if you are fully determined to change the name, why not add some >flexibiilty for the evolution of mesos, but allowing these and other >terms to be 'user definable'? > > > >> For what it¹s worth, I think it¹s good that the Mesos project >> understands that the words we use have different meanings to different >> people. While I am not ³offended² by the current terminology I >> understand that master/slave has a strong connotation towards ongoing >> civil and human rights abuses, and I would seek to distance the project >> from that. Continuing to make these words part of our everyday lexicon >> normalizes oppressive structures, and sends a strong signal to people >> outside the ³blessed² group. > > >BLAH BLAH BLAH. Really? You sound like a pedantic defining a social evil >that fills you full of guilt;but yet to instantiate for the rest of >society. Can you name one actual person that is offended by the terms >master-slave that will actually peruse the sources? Note: sun-baked >Californians with little productive requirements at their job, do not >count. Boy, I guess the drought is really tougher than the rest of us >realized? > > >> Mesos is an industry-leading technology, and we have a responsibility >>to build an inclusive >> and friendly community. This is not only for the good of the product, >>but for >> the good of the industry and all the people whose lives are effected >>by it. > >Not if idiotic ideas like this dominate. I suggest you weigh this >perceived benefit against the technical costs and the shear fact that if >these 'workers' are 100% control, they are slaves in ALL common industry >jargon. No wonder EEs laugh at CS folks. Just so you know >there are EE that are building and operating computers that run on >on waves (light). You might also directly comment on the idea of making >these terms 'user definable'. Or is this just some form of tantrum? > > >> So, strong +1. >> Brian Hicks > >So a realistic and practical -1 >Sincerely >James >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
