No more DSLs: Implement and deploy a distributed system with a single program
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: No more DSLs: Implement and deploy a distributed system with a single program
#2I am curious is there similarities to BOINC[1] ?
[1] boinc.berkeley.edu
Re: No more DSLs: Implement and deploy a distributed system with a single program
#3I am curious is there similarities to BOINC[1] ? [1] boinc.berkeley.edu
No similarities. The focus is different.
- BOINC looks like an interface for end-users to volunteer compute resources for various (existing) distributed-computing projects.
- Post is about building your own distributed system starting from minimal-yet-effective principles.
Re: No more DSLs: Implement and deploy a distributed system with a single program
#4This article could use a disambiguation. Distributed systems are systems "whose components are located on different networked computers, which communicate and coordinate their actions by passing messages to one another"[0].
This article appears to be focused on running many components on a single computer under the same process tree. Perhaps a better title would be "No more DSLs: Implement and deploy microservices as a monolith".
Re: No more DSLs: Implement and deploy a distributed system with a single program
#5Seems like a lot lower cognitive load and control. However, doesnt this effectively mean youre building lots of primitives from scratch?
Re: No more DSLs: Implement and deploy a distributed system with a single program
#6This article could use a disambiguation. Distributed systems are systems "whose components are located on different networked computers, which communicate and coordinate their actions by passing messages to one another"[0]. This article appears to be focused on running many components on a single computer under the same process tree. Perhaps a better title would be "No more DSLs: Implement and deploy microservices as…
No, this is distributed; see this line in the introduction:
>Functionality for distributed execution and monitoring is shared through libraries rather than by delegating to external orchestration systems, making a single-program system completely self-contained.
and this section in the examples: http://catern.com/caternetes.html#thread
Re: No more DSLs: Implement and deploy a distributed system with a single program
#7This article could use a disambiguation. Distributed systems are systems "whose components are located on different networked computers, which communicate and coordinate their actions by passing messages to one another"[0]. This article appears to be focused on running many components on a single computer under the same process tree. Perhaps a better title would be "No more DSLs: Implement and deploy microservices as…
No, this is distributed; see this line in the introduction: >Functionality for distributed execution and monitoring is shared through libraries rather than by delegating to external orchestration systems, making a single-program system completely self-contained. and this section in the examples: http://catern.com/caternetes.html#thread
The quote you pulled out mentions "distributed execution" being completely contained in a "single-program system" - isn't a single-program system, by definition, not a distributed system?
With the emphasis on distributed systems, I was waiting to see how the approach would help synchronization, replication, network dependencies, etc. But all the examples show calling other services as functions or spawning new processes. At the end orderd starts listening for requests, but I don't see any example in the article where the example program talks to another computer in the system. Perhaps I am missing something?
Re: No more DSLs: Implement and deploy a distributed system with a single program
#8[deleted]
Re: No more DSLs: Implement and deploy a distributed system with a single program
#9It’s a confusing article, especially given the emphasis on DSLs in the title, which I assume is a reference to k8s but I’ve never dived into it so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Building a distributed architecture is so much more than what’s presented here: error handling, consistency management, data plane, control plane, name services… this feels like it’s taking 2% of what Erlang offers out of the box and calling it done.
Re: No more DSLs: Implement and deploy a distributed system with a single program
#10Great for showing off how smart you are, not great for running real high load applications in prod with a team size over 1