An alterntive is to create an escrow service. I could register my wave
domain with the escrow service and, when I go out of business or some
other conditions occur, the escrow service takes over the domain and
the waves. The escrow service would maintain a mirror of all the waves
from my domain so that mo content is lost. After failover no new waves
could be created on my domain but existing waves would not be lost/
locked.
Sent froms my iPhone
On Jan 29, 2010, at 2:24 PM, chiang <[email protected]> wrote:
Sounds like if servers, clustered or not, can make sure that waves
initiated from their domain are always available then everything will
be okay. Does that mean that all wave providers, including home set up
ones, need to be given strict "guidelines" to set their servers up to
some standard before they can be allowed to federate? As I can see the
detrimental effects dodgy master wave servers will have on waves
contributed by multiple parties. And this is far from just a not-yet
implemented feature don't you think?
Chiang
On Jan 29, 2:01 pm, Mickaël Rémond <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Dan,
Electing a new master on a federation of internet services does not
sounds a idea (at least extremely complex).
Several component can see at the same time that a service is down
and elect themselves master on a given content, which can thus be
distributed several times.
Many other problems can occurs, especially if you consider the
internet link as not reliable.
That's why I was thinking that the original question was more: "How
to make content persistent on Fedone to avoid loosing waves" than
actually how can we build a fully robust loosely coupled and
distributed data and manipulation system.
Relying on each server building a reliable cluster deployment seems
to be enough for me.
What could be a nice goal however is to allow read only access to
wave that cannot currently be accessed, but that sounds
conceptually easier.
--
Mickaël Rémond
http://www.process-one.net
Le 29 janv. 2010 à 14:45, Dan Peterson a écrit :
Agreed. This is an area I've been thinking about lately -- the
electing a new master scheme is appealing, but then what do you do
when the original master returns to the rest of the network (e.g.
the uplink that was severed is restored, then there'd be 2 servers
that think they are master)?
As an alternative scenario, I suppose the wave client UI could
encourage a "fork" of the wave conversation -- copying the latest
version of the contents into a new wavelet on the non-dead wave
provider. Of course, forks are effectively duplicate content, so
not so ideal.
-Dan
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Torben Weis
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
I fear it is not as easy as assigning it to missing FedOne features.
If the master wave server breaks you need some other server to
take over. But the domain name of the broken server is encoded in
the wavelet URIs which are encoded (i.e. signed and hashed) inside
the deltas. Thus, you cannot simply replace the wave server
without taking care of the cryptographic problems.
Even if this is dealt with, how do you efficiently vote on a new
master server? It must not happen that at any time there is doubt
about the master server (i.e. several clients deem different
servers to be the master). Wave's OT cannot handle such a
scenario. There are peer-to-peer OT concepts which can deal with
it, but wave does not currently.
I think this is a really interesting research question, but the
solution will not be all too easy.
This being said, even normal federation is complex enough :-)
Cheers
Torben
2010/1/29 Mickaël Rémond <[email protected]>
Hello,
Le 29 janv. 2010 à 13:17, chiang a écrit :
Hi all,
This could already have been a known deficiency in the federation
architecture, but I would like to enquire if it is by design that
we
have authoritative or master wave servers for a particular wave? As
I've just found out that if the Fedone wave server (which hosts a
master copy of my initiating wave) goes down or losses all the
waves,
the Fedone wave server does not recover the wave from wavesandbox,
which also has a copy of the wave. I initially thought wave servers
federation is supposed to be scalable, and resilient...
Fedone is an example implementation, not a production ready wave
server. For example, it still miss the storage engine, is not
clustered etc.
So this limitation is not by design but simply a not-yet-
implemented feature.
Having an authoritative server for every wave seems a good and
needed approach for the Wave protocol itself.
--
Mickaël Rémond
http://www.process-one.net/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Wave Protocol" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/
group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Wave Protocol" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/
group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Wave Protocol" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/
group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Wave Protocol" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave
Protocol" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
