Search Results

Search found 13526 results on 542 pages for 'distributed objects'.

Page 3/542 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • The Stub Proto: Not Just For Stub Objects Anymore

    - by user9154181
    One of the great pleasures of programming is to invent something for a narrow purpose, and then to realize that it is a general solution to a broader problem. In hindsight, these things seem perfectly natural and obvious. The stub proto area used to build the core Solaris consolidation has turned out to be one of those things. As discussed in an earlier article, the stub proto area was invented as part of the effort to use stub objects to build the core ON consolidation. Its purpose was merely as a place to hold stub objects. However, we keep finding other uses for it. It turns out that the stub proto should be more properly thought of as an auxiliary place to put things that we would like to put into the proto to help us build the product, but which we do not wish to package or deliver to the end user. Stub objects are one example, but private lint libraries, header files, archives, and relocatable objects, are all examples of things that might profitably go into the stub proto. Without a stub proto, these items were handled in a variety of ad hoc ways: If one part of the workspace needed private header files, libraries, or other such items, it might modify its Makefile to reach up and over to the place in the workspace where those things live and use them from there. There are several problems with this: Each component invents its own approach, meaning that programmers maintaining the system have to invest extra effort to understand what things mean. In the past, this has created makefile ghettos in which only the person who wrote the makefiles feels confident to modify them, while everyone else ignores them. This causes many difficulties and benefits no one. These interdependencies are not obvious to the make, utility, and can lead to races. They are not obvious to the human reader, who may therefore not realize that they exist, and break them. Our policy in ON is not to deliver files into the proto unless those files are intended to be packaged and delivered to the end user. However, sometimes non-shipping files were copied into the proto anyway, causing a different set of problems: It requires a long list of exceptions to silence our normal unused proto item error checking. In the past, we have accidentally shipped files that we did not intend to deliver to the end user. Mixing cruft with valuable items makes it hard to discern which is which. The stub proto area offers a convenient and robust solution. Files needed to build the workspace that are not delivered to the end user can instead be installed into the stub proto. No special exceptions or custom make rules are needed, and the intent is always clear. We are already accessing some private lint libraries and compilation symlinks in this manner. Ultimately, I'd like to see all of the files in the proto that have a packaging exception delivered to the stub proto instead, and for the elimination of all existing special case makefile rules. This would include shared objects, header files, and lint libraries. I don't expect this to happen overnight — it will be a long term case by case project, but the overall trend is clear. The Stub Proto, -z assert_deflib, And The End Of Accidental System Object Linking We recently used the stub proto to solve an annoying build issue that goes back to the earliest days of Solaris: How to ensure that we're linking to the OS bits we're building instead of to those from the running system. The Solaris product is made up of objects and files from a number of different consolidations, each of which is built separately from the others from an independent code base called a gate. The core Solaris OS consolidation is ON, which stands for "Operating System and Networking". You will frequently also see ON called the OSnet. There are consolidations for X11 graphics, the desktop environment, open source utilities, compilers and development tools, and many others. The collection of consolidations that make up Solaris is known as the "Wad Of Stuff", usually referred to simply as the WOS. None of these consolidations is self contained. Even the core ON consolidation has some dependencies on libraries that come from other consolidations. The build server used to build the OSnet must be running a relatively recent version of Solaris, which means that its objects will be very similar to the new ones being built. However, it is necessarily true that the build system objects will always be a little behind, and that incompatible differences may exist. The objects built by the OSnet link to other objects. Some of these dependencies come from the OSnet, while others come from other consolidations. The objects from other consolidations are provided by the standard library directories on the build system (/lib, /usr/lib). The objects from the OSnet itself are supposed to come from the proto areas in the workspace, and not from the build server. In order to achieve this, we make use of the -L command line option to the link-editor. The link-editor finds dependencies by looking in the directories specified by the caller using the -L command line option. If the desired dependency is not found in one of these locations, ld will then fall back to looking at the default locations (/lib, /usr/lib). In order to use OSnet objects from the workspace instead of the system, while still accessing non-OSnet objects from the system, our Makefiles set -L link-editor options that point at the workspace proto areas. In general, this works well and dependencies are found in the right places. However, there have always been failures: Building objects in the wrong order might mean that an OSnet dependency hasn't been built before an object that needs it. If so, the dependency will not be seen in the proto, and the link-editor will silently fall back to the one on the build server. Errors in the makefiles can wipe out the -L options that our top level makefiles establish to cause ld to look at the workspace proto first. In this case, all objects will be found on the build server. These failures were rarely if ever caught. As I mentioned earlier, the objects on the build server are generally quite close to the objects built in the workspace. If they offer compatible linking interfaces, then the objects that link to them will behave properly, and no issue will ever be seen. However, if they do not offer compatible linking interfaces, the failure modes can be puzzling and hard to pin down. Either way, there won't be a compile-time warning or error. The advent of the stub proto eliminated the first type of failure. With stub objects, there is no dependency ordering, and the necessary stub object dependency will always be in place for any OSnet object that needs it. However, makefile errors do still occur, and so, the second form of error was still possible. While working on the stub object project, we realized that the stub proto was also the key to solving the second form of failure caused by makefile errors: Due to the way we set the -L options to point at our workspace proto areas, any valid object from the OSnet should be found via a path specified by -L, and not from the default locations (/lib, /usr/lib). Any OSnet object found via the default locations means that we've linked to the build server, which is an error we'd like to catch. Non-OSnet objects don't exist in the proto areas, and so are found via the default paths. However, if we were to create a symlink in the stub proto pointing at each non-OSnet dependency that we require, then the non-OSnet objects would also be found via the paths specified by -L, and not from the link-editor defaults. Given the above, we should not find any dependency objects from the link-editor defaults. Any dependency found via the link-editor defaults means that we have a Makefile error, and that we are linking to the build server inappropriately. All we need to make use of this fact is a linker option to produce a warning when it happens. Although warnings are nice, we in the OSnet have a zero tolerance policy for build noise. The -z fatal-warnings option that was recently introduced with -z guidance can be used to turn the warnings into fatal build errors, forcing the programmer to fix them. This was too easy to resist. I integrated 7021198 ld option to warn when link accesses a library via default path PSARC/2011/068 ld -z assert-deflib option into snv_161 (February 2011), shortly after the stub proto was introduced into ON. This putback introduced the -z assert-deflib option to the link-editor: -z assert-deflib=[libname] Enables warning messages for libraries specified with the -l command line option that are found by examining the default search paths provided by the link-editor. If a libname value is provided, the default library warning feature is enabled, and the specified library is added to a list of libraries for which no warnings will be issued. Multiple -z assert-deflib options can be specified in order to specify multiple libraries for which warnings should not be issued. The libname value should be the name of the library file, as found by the link-editor, without any path components. For example, the following enables default library warnings, and excludes the standard C library. ld ... -z assert-deflib=libc.so ... -z assert-deflib is a specialized option, primarily of interest in build environments where multiple objects with the same name exist and tight control over the library used is required. If is not intended for general use. Note that the definition of -z assert-deflib allows for exceptions to be specified as arguments to the option. In general, the idea of using a symlink from the stub proto is superior because it does not clutter up the link command with a long list of objects. When building the OSnet, we usually use the plain from of -z deflib, and make symlinks for the non-OSnet dependencies. The exception to this are dependencies supplied by the compiler itself, which are usually found at whatever arbitrary location the compiler happens to be installed at. To handle these special cases, the command line version works better. Following the integration of the link-editor change, I made use of -z assert-deflib in OSnet builds with 7021896 Prevent OSnet from accidentally linking to build system which integrated into snv_162 (March 2011). Turning on -z assert-deflib exposed between 10 and 20 existing errors in our Makefiles, which were all fixed in the same putback. The errors we found in our Makefiles underscore how difficult they can be prevent without an automatic system in place to catch them. Conclusions The stub proto is proving to be a generally useful construct for ON builds that goes beyond serving as a place to hold stub objects. Although invented to hold stub objects, it has already allowed us to simplify a number of previously difficult situations in our makefiles and builds. I expect that we'll find uses for it beyond those described here as we go forward.

    Read the article

  • Use a custom value object or a Guid as an entity identifier in a distributed system?

    - by Kazark
    tl;dr I've been told that in domain-driven design, an identifier for an entity could be a custom value object, i.e. something other than Guid, string, int, etc. Can this really be advisable in a distributed system? Long version I will invent an situation analogous to the one I am currently facing. Say I have a distributed system in which a central concept is an egg. The system allows you to order eggs and see spending reports and inventory-centric data such as quantity on hand, usage, valuation and what have you. There area variety of services backing these behaviors. And say there is also another app which allows you to compose recipes that link to a particular egg type. Now egg type is broken down by the species—ostrich, goose, duck, chicken, quail. This is fine and dandy because it means that users don't end up with ostrich eggs when they wanted quail eggs and whatnot. However, we've been getting complaints because jumbo chicken eggs are not even close to equivalent to small ones. The price is different, and they really aren't substitutable in recipes. And here we thought we were doing users a favor by not overwhelming them with too many options. Currently each of the services (say, OrderSubmitter, EggTypeDefiner, SpendingReportsGenerator, InventoryTracker, RecipeCreator, RecipeTracker, or whatever) are identifying egg types with an industry-standard integer representation the species (let's call it speciesCode). We realize we've goofed up because this change could effect every service. There are two basic proposed solutions: Use a predefined identifier type like Guid as the eggTypeID throughout all the services, but make EggTypeDefiner the only service that knows that this maps to a speciesCode and eggSizeCode (and potentially to an isOrganic flag in the future, or whatever). Use an EggTypeID value object which is a combination of speciesCode and eggSizeCode in every service. I've proposed the first solution because I'm hoping it better encapsulates the definition of what an egg type is in the EggTypeDefiner and will be more resilient to changes, say if some people now want to differentiate eggs by whether or not they are "organic". The second solution is being suggested by some people who understand DDD better than I do in the hopes that less enrichment and lookup will be necessary that way, with the justification that in DDD using a value object as an ID is fine. Also, they are saying that EggTypeDefiner is not a domain and EggType is not an entity and as such should not have a Guid for an ID. However, I'm not sure the second solution is viable. This "value object" is going to have to be serialized into JSON and URLs for GET requests and used with a variety of technologies (C#, JavaScript...) which breaks encapsulation and thus removes any behavior of the identifier value object (is either of the fields optional? etc.) Is this a case where we want to avoid something that would normally be fine in DDD because we are trying to do DDD in a distributed fashion? Summary Can it be a good idea to use a custom value object as an identifier in a distributed system (solution #2)?

    Read the article

  • Geographically distributed file system with preferred locality

    - by dpb
    Hi All -- I'm building a application that needs to distribute a standard file server across a few sites over a WAN. Basically, each site needs to write a lot of misc files of varying size (some in the 100s MB range, but most small), and the application is written such that collisions aren't a problem. I'd like to have a system set up that meets the following qualifications: Each site can store files in a shared "namespace". That is, all the files would show up in the same filesystem. Each site would not send data over the WAN unless necessary. I.e., there would be local storage on each side of the WAN that would be "merged" into the same logical filesystem. Linux & Free ($$$) is a must. Basically, something like a central NFS share would meet most of the requirements, however it would not allow the locally written data to stay local. All data from remote sides of the WAN would be copied locally all the time. I have looked into Lustre, and have run some successful tests with it, however, it appears to distribute files fairly uniformly across the distributed storage. I have dug through the documentation and have not found anything that automatically will "prefer" local storage over remote storage. Even something that went with the lowest latency storage would be fine. It would work most of the time, which would meet this application's requirements. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Distributed File Systems.

    - by GruffTech
    So, I've been reading several articles around ServerFault as well as google. (For Example, this link) My Requirements are very similar to the link above, however i'd like to also have dynamic or at least resizeable file volumes, so if necessary i can add 4-5 servers to the pool, and then expand the volume. Any Distributed File systems that support that, to save me some time? Thanks! LustreFS will be my next test cluster to build. GlusterFS I've build a 3-machine test GlusterFS cluster, However i quickly became aware of several of its limitations that it doesn't seem to make clearly public. One, i can't seem to resize a volume. Once a volume is created, its done. Which seems retarded, why have a fully scalable file system if i can't scale a volume? So maybe i'm doing something wrong. I'm not sure. AmazonS3 while gives the cheapest startup adds too much cost when broken down to per client per month, so its out. Building my own system when prorated over several years with no bandwidth costs makes it significantly cheaper. MogileFS isn't an option as we'd like this server to be a SAN-Replacement, for storing tons of media from a multitude of systems, which for us means it needs to be POSIX compliant so it can be remotely mounted via NFS or CIFS.

    Read the article

  • Using Openfire for distributed XMPP-based video-chat

    - by Yitzhak
    I have been tasked with setting up a distributed video-chat system built on XMPP. Currently my setup looks like this: Openfire (XMPP server) + JingleNodes plugin for video chat OpenLDAP (LDAP server) for storing user information and allowing directory queries Kerberos server for authentication and passwords In testing with one set of machines (i.e. only three), everything works as expected: I can log in to Openfire and it looks up the user information in the OpenLDAP database, which in turn authenticates my user with Kerberos. Now, I want to have several clusters, so that there is a cluster on each continent. A typical cluster will probably contain 2-5 servers. Users logging in will be directed to the closest cluster based on geographical location. Something that concerns me particularly is the dynamic maintenance of contact lists. If a user is using a machine in Asia, for example, how would contact lists be updated around the world to reflect the current server he is using? How would that work with LDAP? Specific questions: How do I direct users based on geographical location? What is the best architecture for a cluster? -- would all traffic need to come into a load-balancer on each one, for example? How do I manage the update of contact lists across all these servers? In general, how do I go about setting this up? What are the pitfalls in doing this? I am inexperienced in this area, so any advice and suggestions would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Architecture for a business objects / database access layer

    - by gregmac
    For various reasons, we are writing a new business objects/data storage library. One of the requirements of this layer is to separate the logic of the business rules, and the actual data storage layer. It is possible to have multiple data storage layers that implement access to the same object - for example, a main "database" data storage source that implements most objects, and another "ldap" source that implements a User object. In this scenario, User can optionally come from an LDAP source, perhaps with slightly different functionality (eg, not possible to save/update the User object), but otherwise it is used by the application the same way. Another data storage type might be a web service, or an external database. There are two main ways we are looking at implementing this, and me and a co-worker disagree on a fundamental level which is correct. I'd like some advice on which one is the best to use. I'll try to keep my descriptions of each as neutral as possible, as I'm looking for some objective view points here. Business objects are base classes, and data storage objects inherit business objects. Client code deals with data storage objects. In this case, common business rules are inherited by each data storage object, and it is the data storage objects that are directly used by the client code. This has the implication that client code determines which data storage method to use for a given object, because it has to explicitly declare an instance to that type of object. Client code needs to explicitly know connection information for each data storage type it is using. If a data storage layer implements different functionality for a given object, client code explicitly knows about it at compile time because the object looks different. If the data storage method is changed, client code has to be updated. Business objects encapsulate data storage objects. In this case, business objects are directly used by client application. Client application passes along base connection information to business layer. Decision about which data storage method a given object uses is made by business object code. Connection information would be a chunk of data taken from a config file (client app does not really know/care about details of it), which may be a single connection string for a database, or several pieces connection strings for various data storage types. Additional data storage connection types could also be read from another spot - eg, a configuration table in a database that specifies URLs to various web services. The benefit here is that if a new data storage method is added to an existing object, a configuration setting can be set at runtime to determine which method to use, and it is completely transparent to the client applications. Client apps do not need to be modified if data storage method for a given object changes. Business objects are base classes, data source objects inherit from business objects. Client code deals primarily with base classes. This is similar to the first method, but client code declares variables of the base business object types, and Load()/Create()/etc static methods on the business objects return the appropriate data source-typed objects. The architecture of this solution is similar to the first method, but the main difference is the decision about which data storage object to use for a given business object is made by the business layer, not the client code. I know there are already existing ORM libraries that provide some of this functionality, but please discount those for now (there is the possibility that a data storage layer is implemented with one of these ORM libraries) - also note I'm deliberately not telling you what language is being used here, other than that it is strongly typed. I'm looking for some general advice here on which method is better to use (or feel free to suggest something else), and why.

    Read the article

  • Distributed and/or Parallel SSIS processing

    - by Jeff
    Background: Our company hosts SaaS DSS applications, where clients provide us data Daily and/or Weekly, which we process & merge into their existing database. During business hours, load in the servers are pretty minimal as it's mostly users running simple pre-defined queries via the website, or running drill-through reports that mostly hit the SSAS OLAP cube. I manage the IT Operations Team, and so far this has presented an interesting "scaling" issue for us. For our daily-refreshed clients, the server is only "busy" for about 4-6 hrs at night. For our weekly-refresh clients, the server is only "busy" for maybe 8-10 hrs per week! We've done our best to use some simple methods of distributing the load by spreading the daily clients evenly among the servers such that we're not trying to process daily clients back-to-back over night. But long-term this scaling strategy creates two notable issues. First, it's going to consume a pretty immense amount of hardware that sits idle for large periods of time. Second, it takes significant Production Support over-head to basically "schedule" the ETL such that they don't over-lap, and move clients/schedules around if they out-grow the resources on a particular server or allocated time-slot. As the title would imply, one option we've tried is running multiple SSIS packages in parallel, but in most cases this has yielded VERY inconsistent results. The most common failures are DTExec, SQL, and SSAS fighting for physical memory and throwing out-of-memory errors, and ETLs running 3,4,5x longer than expected. So from my practical experience thus far, it seems like running multiple ETL packages on the same hardware isn't a good idea, but I can't be the first person that doesn't want to scale multiple ETLs around manual scheduling, and sequential processing. One option we've considered is virtualizing the servers, which obviously doesn't give you any additional resources, but moves the resource contention onto the hypervisor, which (from my experience) seems to manage simultaneous CPU/RAM/Disk I/O a little more gracefully than letting DTExec, SQL, and SSAS battle it out within Windows. Question to the forum: So my question to the forum is, are we missing something obvious here? Are there tools out there that can help manage running multiple SSIS packages on the same hardware? Would it be more "efficient" in terms of parallel execution if instead of running DTExec, SQL, and SSAS same machine (with every machine running that configuration), we run in pairs of three machines with SSIS running on one machine, SQL on another, and SSAS on a third? Obviously that would only make sense if we could process more than the three ETL we were able to process on the machine independently. Another option we've considered is completely re-architecting our SSIS package to have one "master" package for all clients that attempts to intelligently chose a server based off how "busy" it already is in terms of CPU/Memory/Disk utilization, but that would be a herculean effort, and seems like we're trying to reinvent something that you would think someone would sell (although I haven't had any luck finding it). So in summary, are we missing an obvious solution for this, and does anyone know if any tools (for free or for purchase, doesn't matter) that facilitate running multiple SSIS ETL packages in parallel and on multiple servers? (What I would call a "queue & node based" system, but that's not an official term). Ultimately VMWare's Distributed Resource Scheduler addresses this as you simply run a consistent number of clients per VM that you know will never conflict scheduleing-wise, then leave it up to VMWare to move the VMs around to balance out hardware usage. I'm definitely not against using VMWare to do this, but since we're a 100% Microsoft app stack, it seems like -someone- out there would have solved this problem at the application layer instead of the hypervisor layer by checking on resource utilization at the OS, SQL, SSAS levels. I'm open to ANY discussion on this, and remember no suggestion is too crazy or radical! :-) Right now, VMWare is the only option we've found to get away from "manually" balancing our resources, so any suggestions that leave us on a pure Microsoft stack would be great. Thanks guys, Jeff

    Read the article

  • Cross-platform distributed fault-tolerant (disconnected operation/local cache) filesystem

    - by Adrian Frühwirth
    We are facing a design "challenge" where we are required to set up a storage solution with the following properties: What we need HA a scalable storage backend offline/disconnected operation on the client to account for network outages cross-platform access client-side access from certainly Windows (probably XP upwards), possibly Linux backend integrates with AD/LDAP (permission management (user/group management, ...)) should work reasonably well over slow WAN-links Another problem is that we don't really know all possible use cases here, if people need to be able to have concurrent access to shared files or if they will only be accessing their own files, so a possible solution needs to account for concurrent access and how conflict management would look in this case from a user's point of view. This two years old blog posts sums up the impression that I have been getting during the last couple of days of research, that there are lots of current übercool projects implementing (non-Windows) clustered petabyte-capable blob-storage solutions but that there is none that supports disconnected operation nicely and natively, but I am hoping that we have missed an obvious solution. What we have tried OpenAFS We figured that we want a distributed network filesystem with a local cache and tested OpenAFS (which, as the only currently "stable" DFS supporting disconnected operation, seemed the way to go) for a week but there are several problems with it: it's a real pain to set up there are no official RHEL/CentOS packages the package of the current stable version 1.6.5.1 from elrepo randomly kernel panics on fresh installs, this is an absolute no-go Windows support (including the required Kerberos packages) is mystical. The current client for the 1.6 branch does not run on Windows 8, the current client for the 1.7 does but it just randomly crashes. After that experience we didn't even bother testing on XP and Windows 7. Suffice to say, we couldn't get it working and the whole setup has been so unstable and complicated to setup that it's just not an option for production. Samba + Unison Since OpenAFS was a complete disaster and no other DFS seems to support disconnected operation we went for a simpler idea that would sync files against a Samba server using Unison. This has the following advantages: Samba integrates with ADs; it's a pain but can be done. Samba solves the problem of remotely accessing the storage from Windows but introduces another SPOF and does not address the actual storage problem. We could probably stick any clustered FS underneath Samba, but that means we need a HA Samba setup on top of that to maintain HA which probably adds a lot of additional complexity. I vaguely remember trying to implement redundancy with Samba before and I could not silently failover between servers. Even when online, you are working with local files which will result in more conflicts than would be necessary if a local cache were only touched when disconnected It's not automatic. We cannot expect users to manually sync their files using the (functional, but not-so-pretty) GTK GUI on a regular basis. I attempted to semi-automate the process using the Windows task scheduler, but you cannot really do it in a satisfactory way. On top of that, the way Unison works makes syncing against Samba a costly operation, so I am afraid that it just doesn't scale very well or even at all. Samba + "Offline Files" After that we became a little desparate and gave Windows "offline files" a chance. We figured that having something that is inbuilt into the OS would reduce administrative efforts, helps blaming someone else when it's not working properly and should just work since people have been using this for years. Right? Wrong. We really wanted it to work, but it just doesn't. 30 minutes of copying files around and unplugging network cables/disabling network interfaces left us with (silent! there is only a tiny notification in Windows explorer in the statusbar, which doesn't even open Sync Center if you click on it!) undeletable files on the server (!) and conflicts that should not even be conflicts. In the end, we had one successful sync of a tiny text file, everything else just exploded horribly. Beyond that, there are other problems: Microsoft admits that "offline files" in Windows XP cannot cope with "large files" and therefore does not cache/sync them at all which would mean those files become unavailable if the connection drop In Windows 7 the feature is only available in the Professional/Ultimate/Enterprise editions. Summary Unless there is another fault-tolerant DFS that supports Windows natively I assume that stacking a HA Samba cluster on top of something like GlusterFS/Lustre/whatnot is the only option, but I hope that I am wrong here. How do other companies allow fault-tolerant network access to redundant storage in a heterogeneous environment with Windows?

    Read the article

  • Alternative to distributed caching

    - by Chen
    Hi, There is a technical requirement to scale a new system easily. This new system consists of three tiered applications (as a batch processors). Each tier will contains at least 2 servers with the same application resides on each server. So, when one of the tier reaches peak performance, we could extend the scalability easily by adding a new server and the same application to off-load some of the processing loads. The problem is that one or two of the three tiers require heavy caching (about 3 million records and increasing). I'm thinking of using distributed caching system to overcome this problem but the new distributed caching system will means an additional point of failure as applications now need to interact with additional caching systems for processing. I'm currently looking at ncache but just wondering if there is an alternatives to this problem? or is there any other comparable distributed caching system that maybe similar or better than ncache and provide enterprise supports too? Thanks, Chen

    Read the article

  • Is there a secure p2p distributed database?

    - by p2pgirl
    I'm looking for a distributed hash table to store and retrieve values securely. These are my requirements: It must use an existing popular p2p network (I must guarantee my key/value will be stored and kept in multiple peers). None but myself should be able to edit or delete the key/value. Ideally an encryption key that only I have access to would be required to edit my key value. All peers would be able to read the key value (read-only access, only the key holder would be able to edit the value) Is there such p2p distributed hash table? Would the bittorrent distributed hash table meet my requirements?' Where could I find documentation?

    Read the article

  • What is a good strategy for binding view objects to model objects in C++?

    - by B.J.
    Imagine I have a rich data model that is represented by a hierarchy of objects. I also have a view hierarchy with views that can extract required data from model objects and display the data (and allow the user to manipulate the data). Actually, there could be multiple view hierarchies that can represent and manipulate the model (e.g. an overview-detail view and a direct manipulation view). My current approach for this is for the controller layer to store a reference to the underlying model object in the View object. The view object can then get the current data from the model for display, and can send the model object messages to update the data. View objects are effectively observers of the model objects and the model objects broadcast notifications when properties change. This approach allows all the views to update simultaneously when any view changes the model. Implemented carefully, this all works. However, it does require a lot of work to ensure that no view or model objects hold any stale references to model objects. The user can delete model objects or sub-hierarchies of the model at any time. Ensuring that all the view objects that hold references to the model objects that have been deleted is time-consuming and difficult. It feels like the approach I have been taking is not especially clean; while I don't want to have to have explicit code in the controller layer for mediating the communication between the views and the model, it seems like there must be a better (implicit) approach for establishing bindings between the view and the model and between related model objects. In particular, I am looking for an approach (in C++) that understands two key points: There is a many to one relationship between view and model objects If the underlying model object is destroyed, all the dependent view objects must be cleaned up so that no stale references exist While shared_ptr and weak_ptr can be used to manage the lifetimes of the underlying model objects and allows for weak references from the view to the model, they don't provide for notification of the destruction of the underlying object (they do in the sense that the use of a stale weak_ptr allows for notification), but I need an approach that notifies the dependent objects that their weak reference is going away. Can anyone suggest a good strategy to manage this?

    Read the article

  • Distributed, Parallel, Fault-tolerant File System

    - by Eddified
    There are so many choices that it's hard to know where to start. My requirements are these: Runs on Linux Most of the files will be between 5-9 MB in size. There will also be a significant number of small-ish jpgs (100px x 100px). All of the files need to be available over http. Redundancy -- ideally it would provide the space efficiency similar to RAID 5 of 75% (in RAID 5 this would be calculated thus: with 4 identical disks, 25% of the space is used for parity = 75% efficent) Must support several petabytes of data scalable runs on commodity hardware In addition, I look for these qualities, though they are not "requirements": Stable, mature file system Lots of momentum and support etc I would like some input as to which file system works best for the given requirements. Some people at my organization are leaning towards MogileFS, but I'm not convinced of the stability and momentum of that project. GlusterFS and Lustre, based on my limited research, appear to be better supported... Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Web application design with distributed servers

    - by Bonn
    I want to build a web application/server with this structure: main-server sub-server transaction-server (create, update, delete) view-server (view, search) authentication-server documents-server reporting-server library-server e-learning-server The main-server acts as host server for sub-server. I can add many sub-servers and connect it to main-server (via plug-play interface maybe), then it can begin querying data from another sub-servers (which has been connected to the main-server). The sub-servers can be anywhere as long as connected to internet. The main-server can manage all sub-servers which are connected to it (query data, setting permission between sub-servers, etc). The purpose is simple, the web application will be huge as the company grows, so I want to distribute it into small connected plug-able servers. My question is, does the structure above already have a standardized method? or are there any different views? what are the technologies needed? I need a lot of researches before the execution plan begin. thanks a lot.

    Read the article

  • Distributed filesystem across a slow link

    - by Jeff Ferland
    I have an image in my head where a link is too slow to realize the real-time transfer of files, but fast enough to catch up every day. What I'd like to see is a master <- master setup where when I write a file to Server A, the metadata will transfer to Server B immediately and the file will transfer at idle or immediately when Server B's client tries to read the file before Server A has sent it. It seems that there are many filesystems which can perform well over fast links, but I don't know of any that do well with a big bottle neck and a few hours of latency.

    Read the article

  • Can Foswiki be used as a distributed Redmine replacement? [closed]

    - by Tobias Kienzler
    I am quite familiar with and love using git, among other reasons due to its distributed nature. Now I'd like to set up some similarly distributed (FOSS) Project Management software with features similar to what Redmine offers, such as Issue & time tracking, milestones Gantt charts, calendar git integration, maybe some automatic linking of commits and issues Wiki (preferably with Mathjax support) Forum, news, notifications Multiple Projects However, I am looking for a solution that does not require a permanently accesible server, i.e. like in git, each user should have their own copy which can be easily synchronized with others. However it should be possible to not have a copy of every Project on every machine. Since trac uses multiple instances for multiple projects anyway, I was considering using that, but I neither know how well it adapts to simply giting the database itself (which would be be easiest way to handle the distribution due to git being used anyway), nor does it include all of Redmine's feature. After checking http://www.wikimatrix.org for Wikis with integrated tracking system and RCS support, and filtering out seemingly stale project, the choices basically boil down to Foswiki, TWiki and Ikiwiki. The latter doesn't seem to offer as many usability features, and in the TWiki vs Foswiki issue I tend to the latter. Finally, there is Fossil, which starts from the other end by attempting to replace git entirely and tracking itself. I am however not too comfortable with the thought of replacing git, and Fossil's non-SCM features don't seem to be as developed. Now before I invest too much time when someone else might already have tried this, I basically have two questions: Are there crucial features of Project Management software like Redmine that Foswiki does not provide even with all the extensions available? How to set Foswiki up to use git instead of the perl RcsLite?

    Read the article

  • topics in distributed systems

    - by scatman
    what do you think is an interesting topic in distributed systems. i should pic a topic and present it on monday. at first i chose to talk about Wuala, but after reading about it, i don't think its that interesting. so what is an interesting (new) topic in distributed systems that i can research about. sorry if this is the wrong place to post.

    Read the article

  • DRY Authenticated Tasks in Cocoa (with distributed objects)

    - by arbales
    I'm kind of surprise/infuriated that the only way for me to run an authenticated task, like perhaps sudo gem install shi*t, is to make a tool with pre-written code. I'm writing a MacRuby application, which doesn't seem to expose the KAuthorization* constants/methods. So.. I learned Cocoa and Objective-C. My application creates a object, serves it and calls the a tool that elevates itself and then performs a selector on a distributed object (in the tool's thread). I hoped that the distributed object's methods would evaluated inside the tool, so I could use delegation to create "privileged" tasks. If this won't work, don't try to save it, I just want a DRY/cocoa solution. AuthHelper.m //AuthorizationExecuteWithPrivileges of this. AuthResponder* my_responder = [AuthResponder sharedResponder]; // Gets the proxy object (and it's delegate) NSString *selector = [NSString stringWithUTF8String:argv[3]]; NSLog(@"Performing selector: %@", selector); setuid(0); if ([[my_responder delegate] respondsToSelector:NSSelectorFromString(selector)]){ [[my_responder delegate] performSelectorOnMainThread:NSSelectorFromString(selector) withObject:nil waitUntilDone:YES]; } RandomController.m - (void)awakeFromNib { helperToolPath = [[[NSBundle mainBundle] resourcePath] stringByAppendingString:@"/AuthHelper"]; delegatePath = [[[NSBundle mainBundle] resourcePath] stringByAppendingString:@"/ABExtensions.rb"]; AuthResponder* my_responder = [AuthResponder initAsService]; [my_responder setDelegate:self]; } -(oneway void)install_gems{ NSArray *args = [NSArray arrayWithObjects: @"gem", @"install", @"sinatra", nil]; [NSTask launchedTaskWithLaunchPath:@"/usr/bin/sudo" arguments:args]; NSLog(@"Ran AuthResponder.delegate.install_gems"); // This prints. } ... other privileges tasks. "sudo gem update --system" for one. I'm guessing the proxy object is performing the selector in it's own thread, but I want the current (privileged thread) to do it so I can use sudo. Can I force the distributed object to evaluate the selector on the tool's thread? How else can I accomplish this dryly/cocoaly?

    Read the article

  • What is lightweight lock in distributed shared memory systems?

    - by Kutluhan Metin
    I started reading Tanenbaum's Distributed Systems book a while ago. I read about two phase locking and timestamp reordering in transactions chapter. While having a deeper look from google I heard of lightweight transactions/lightweight transactional memory. But I couldn't find any good explanation and implementation. So what is lightweight memory? What are the benefits of lightweight locks? And how can I implement them?

    Read the article

  • Where do you earn more money (Autonomous Systems vs Distributed Systems)? [closed]

    - by Puckl
    I am interested in both topics and I can choose between them for my computer science master. I think the distributed systems master focuses more on software technologies and the autononmous systems master is focused on robotics and machine learning. Do you get good jobs in the fild of machine learning without a Ph.D.? I guess there are more jobs available in the Software-Tech world, is this right? Where do you earn more money? (It is not the only criteria, but it matters)

    Read the article

  • Distributed, persistent cache using EHCache

    - by Richard
    I currently have a distributed cache using EHCache via RMI that works just fine. I was wondering if you can include persistence with the caches to create a distributed, persistent cache. Alongside this, if the cache was persistent, would it load from the file store, then bootstrap from the cache cluster? Basically, what I want is: Cache starts Cache loads persistent objects from the file store Cache joins the distruted cluster and bootstraps as normal The usecase behind this is having 2 identical components running on independent machines, distributing the cache to avoid losing data in the event that one of the components fails. The persistence would guard against losing all data on the rare occasion that both components fail. Would moving to another distribution method (such as Terracotta) support this?

    Read the article

  • Simplest distributed persistent key/value store that supports primary key range queries

    - by StaxMan
    I am looking for a properly distributed (i.e. not just sharded) and persisted (not bounded by available memory on single node, or cluster of nodes) key/value ("nosql") store that does support range queries by primary key. So far closest such system is Cassandra, which does above. However, it adds support for other features that are not essential for me. So while I like it (and will consider using it of course), I am trying to figure out if there might be other mature projects that implement what I need. Specifically, for me the only aspect of value I need is to access it as a blob. For key, however, I need range queries (as in, access values ordered, limited by start and/or end values). While values can have structures, there is no need to use that structure for anything on server side (can do client-side data binding, flexible value/content types etc). For added bonus, Cassandra style storage (journaled, all sequential writes) seems quite optimal for my use case. To help filter out answers, I have investigated some alternatives within general domain like: Voldemort (key/value, but no ordering) and CouchDB (just sharded, more batch-oriented); and am aware of systems that are not quite distributed while otherwise qualifying (bdb variants, tokyo cabinet itself (not sure if Tyrant might qualify), redis (in-memory store only)).

    Read the article

  • Framework or tool for "distributed unit testing"?

    - by user262646
    Is there any tool or framework able to make it easier to test distributed software written in Java? My system under test is a peer-to-peer software, and I'd like to perform testing using something like PNUnit, but with Java instead of .Net. The system under test is a framework I'm developing to build P2P applications. It uses JXTA as a lower subsystem, trying to hide some complexities of it. It's currently an academic project, so I'm pursuing simplicity at this moment. In my test, I want to demonstrate that a peer (running in its own process, possibly with multiple threads) can discover another one (running in another process or even another machine) and that they can exchange a few messages. I'm not using mocks nor stubs because I need to see both sides working simultaneously. I realize that some kind of coordination mechanism is needed, and PNUnit seems to be able to do that. I've bumped into some initiatives like Pisces, which "aims to provide a distributed testing environment that extends JUnit, giving the developer/tester an ability to run remote JUnits and create complex test suites that are composed of several remote JUnit tests running in parallel or serially", but this project and a few others I have found seem to be long dead.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >