jc@cdx39.UUCP (04/28/86)
Hello out there. We just got hooked up into the Network, and I'm
taking this opportunity to broadcast a request for info,
experience, anecdotes, and so on about the general subject of
existing distributed systems. We here at Codex (a division of
Motorola) are getting more and more serious about learning all we
can about how people are actually using their networks, and what
they have to say (nice or nasty) about whatever systems they are
currently using (or trying to use).
We are in particular looking into installing in-house one or more
(preferably more) of several commercially available systems.
Before putting out the cash and people-hours (months? years?) it
will take, I'm chartered to collect what data I can about how
well they really function (as opposed to what the salesmen
proudly claim). Some of the candidates on our list:
TNC (The Newcastle Connection)
SUN's distributed file system.
LOCUS (from UCLA?)
_________________________________(your favorite)
We have a collection of several species of little Unix machines,
mostly with SYS/V, but a few with XENIX. We also have some
Apollos, a couple of VAXen (micro- and macro-), a Pr1me, plus
lots of Macs and IBM PCs with DOS. As you can see, it's not
likely that we'll find a single vendor to magically tie them all
together. F'rinstance, we have DECNet running on the VAXen; try
tying that in with Apollos and Macs!
One of the questions I'm trying to find out is what sort of
"real" distributed processing each system provides. Thus, I was
recently at a DEC show where they proudly demonstrated their
world-wide "distributed system". After a while, I became very
much aware that all I had seen was remote logins, followed by
some programs that only accessed local data. No distributed file
access, much less remote execution.
Now, I'm not disparaging remote login. It's a very useful thing
to be able to do. But it'd be nice to know, if three systems are
all advertised as "distributed", that the first only supports
remote login and local access, while the second supports remote
file access by locally-run programs, and the third allows remote
execution of programs that can do remote access to files.
[Perhaps there's a fourth that supports programs that do multi-
tasking, with the tasks running on different cpus? Such a
dreamer!]
It's really hard to find out from sales literature or people just
what is really meant when they say they support "Network Wide
Access" or whatever their phrase is. It's also really hard to
find out how much is hardware, how much is software, and how much
is vaporware.
I've sent this out to a bunch of newsgroups, partly because I
have no idea of what is the "right" one (if such exists), and
also because I suspect that the people who can give the best
responses are involved in various different groups. Please
respond by E-mail; if I get enough interesting responses, I'll
summarise and post them. [Presumably by then I'll have a better
idea where to do the posting; or I'll just create a mailing
list.]
--
John Chambers
/ cthulhu \ /usenet
/ inmet \ / news
...!{ harvax }!cdx39!{ jc
\ mit-eddie / \ uucp
\ mot[bos] / \root