Subject: [seamoby] centralized vs. distributed context storage

From: "Shahrier, Sharif M." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:09:19 -0500

I had a favorable response to the fault-tolerant issues of context storage
in a centralized  vs. distributed repository. Thus, in this light I would
like to add a sub-section following 4.1.4 on "distributed repository". Under
this scheme, there would be several repositories, keeping copies of the
contexts, e.g. a 3MR system. Hence, if one of them fails, it is still
possible to retreive the context from a working repository. Another
advantage of a 3MR (NMR, in general) is that it reduces contention compared
to a centralized repository. Of course, a disavantage of the distributed
case is that more hardware is required for the replications.

Sharif Shahrier

---

From: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:56:20 +0100

Sharif,

    I'd like to look forward to the next step, which I hope willd be a
requirements document, rather than fiddle too much with the problem
statement.  From the comments so far, it seems that we have managed
to present the case for context transfer in an acceptable form, which
will enable us to go forward -- which is the whole idea.
    Would it be acceptable to you to leave the draft as-is for now,
and then maybe, if it finds favour with the gods, put your thoughts
and requirements into the requirements document?

    Regards,
        Henrik