Subject: suggestion on distributed systems

From: Neil Harwani <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:44:11 +0530

I am not sure whether this idea that I am about to write has been
implemented before or not but it has crossed my mind so I am writing it to
you all. Grid / distributed computing is being done these days via availing
of services or giving some services as an application in operating systems.
What I want to propose is what if every operating system which for example
has a networking stack implemented in it, in the same way support for grid
computing / distributed computing is built into it and a separate internet
layer manages data transfer to be processed to OSes which are free.

My suggesionts:
1. Have a variable system built into all OSes which have internet interface
which can allocate space and resources as per what amount of space and
resources are free on the OS.
2. Let a separate new internet layer decide from where to pull data and
where to be put on which system where there is space. This could be
auotmatically encrypted and sent over the net and whereever there is free
space it can put up to be processed or delivered as a service from a
webserver. This same layer based on priorities of the data to be processed
or delivered on net as per required could also decide on criticality and
send it to free systems on internet. I would like to differentiate between
caching and this concept of mine. In caching we are keeping a server to
cache regularly used data but here we have a built in container / system on
every OS on net. Here even the container can study its network and get
trends and fetch the data from required servers and locally keep copies.
Another advantage over caching would be same container could be used for
procesing which is not the function of a cache server.

Example : Suppose a server of paypal has to process millions of records
every month. If a high percentage of this processing is encrypted and sent
to container on various systems running on internet, the same work can be
done with less powerfull paypal servers.

Advantages:
Large saving of bandwidth internationally
Lessening on loads of major servers.
Cheaper and less powerful servers could be put up on net

Kindly pardon me if this has been implemented already. I am a computer
science student about to complete his studies in a few months so I am not
aware of all developments that have taken place. I would be happy to have
your suggestions and feedback.

--
Thanking you,
Neil Harwani,
BE (Civil)
L D College of Engineering, Ahmedabad
MCA
ICFAI School of Information Technology,
Hyderabad
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:22:39 +0100

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:44:11AM +0530,
 Neil Harwani <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 128 lines which said:

> implemented before

The idea is interesting but it is clearly underspecified. Before a
serious discussion can take place, you really have to specify it more
completely. If you want the discussion to occur at the IETF, an
Internet-Draft is the proper form:

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html

Technically, I would suggest to think seriously about the Security
Considerations of your Internet-Draft...

> 1. Have a variable system built into all OSes which have internet
> interface which can allocate space and resources as per what amount
> of space and resources are free on the OS.

The big problem is to create a jail strong enough so that the hosted
programs do not compromise or DoS the machine. This is *not* a trivial
problem.

> Example : Suppose a server of paypal has to process millions of
> records every month. If a high percentage of this processing is
> encrypted and sent to container on various systems running on
> internet, the same work can be done with less powerfull paypal
> servers.

Very bad example: first, all Paypal requests require access to the
central database. And, second, Paypal would certainly not trust random
Internet machines for its processing.

---

From: Peter Dambier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:49:21 +0100

>>I am not sure whether this idea that I am about to write has been

"Operating Systems, Design and Implementation" by
Andrew S. Tannanbaum and Albert S. Woodhull,
ISBN 0-13-638677-6 Prentice Hall

Not only do the discuss every aspect of an operating system but
they include as an example and for homework practice the complete
Minix operating system plus source.

Tannenbaum has already written a distributed operating system and
you can find many of his ideas in this book.

Minix is also the origin of the linux operating system.

Minix is really modular. You can easyly take it apart and play
with the peaces. In particalur the devide between memory manager
and filesystem suggests to run the pieces distributed over
many computers.

Minix is designed as an academic exercise. I guess it might
give you ideas if not more.
> programs do not compromise or DoS the machine. This is *not* a trivial

Dr. Bernstein has written an intersting stack of modules

daemontools-0.76

is a stack for building demons. It provides a mechanism that
unifies the world of different unixes, linuxes and bsds broviding
a common interface and getting rid of any special treatment for
demons that differenciates them from "normal" programmes.

ucspi-tcp-0.88

provides a different tcp/ip stack that gets rid of most security
holes in common tcp/ip and socket libraries.

djbdns-1.05

finally gets rid of the "Buggy Internet Name Deamon" bind. Bind
before the version 9 did show several problems. Bernstein shows
an alternative for bind and resolver libraries.

http://lifewithdjbdns.org/

> Internet machines for its processing.

The example is good. It is management that is bad :)

Cheers
Peter and Karin Dambier

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
The Public-Root Consortium
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49(6252)671-788 (Telekom)
+49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: [email-masked]
mail: [email-masked]
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 06:42:48 -0800

--On 23. januar 2006 00:44 +0530 Neil Harwani <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> interface which can allocate space and resources as per what amount of
> space and resources are free on the OS.
> webserver. This same layer based on priorities of the data to be
> processed or delivered on net as per required could also decide on
> criticality and send it to free systems on internet.

It would be interesting to see whether such a system could be made to work 
- the system I've seen that most resembles what you speak of is BOINC, the 
Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing - see 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boinc> for details.

A separate, but also interesting, question is what parts of the system can 
be usefully standardized.

                    Harald

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:57:51 +0100

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:49:21PM +0100,
 Peter Dambier <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 112 lines which said:

> ucspi-tcp-0.88
> 
> provides a different tcp/ip stack

No, it is not a TCP/IP stack (just a framework and library to develop
network applications). Sometimes, I really wonder if you know what you
are talking about.

---

From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:32:45 +0100

> Minix operating system plus source.

It hardly discusses _every_ aspect of an operating system; a lot is
left out (presumably the stuff with which Tannebaum was unfamiliar).
It's still a good book.  It's a little bit too oriented towards UNIX,
though, IIRC--I guess that's the author's favorite OS.

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:45:13 -0500

>left out (presumably the stuff with which Tannebaum was unfamiliar).

Nonsense.  Tanenbaum has forgotten more about operating systems than 
most of us will ever know.  But when you teach a subject, especially at 
the introductory level -- I'm teaching operating systems right now, 
using Tanenbaum's text -- you have to abstract out certain details and 
omit some others entirely.  

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

---

From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:27:02 +0100

Steven M. Bellovin writes:

> most of us will ever know.

He has apparently forgotten a lot of things that I remember, or, more
likely, he just has never been exposed to them.  In his book he writes
about the things he knows, which is only logical, but he doesn't know
everything.