Going by that definition: All client server architectures are distributed.
like ftp, ldap, sql servers are all distributed. As i understood, in distributed systems there is no single point of failure. but in all these cases there are single point of failures. internet is distributed because there is no single point of failure. But after looking at the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_computing, here client server architecture is termed as distributed. I think the responsibility of not having single point of failure is to have intermediary clients, which can do that. Now I think we can call it that way. On Jun 10, 9:22 pm, Les Mikesell <[email protected]> wrote: > Dilip wrote: > > We read that memcached is "Free & open source, high-performance, > > distributed memory object caching system" Where as "distirbuted" is > > not part of memcached servers. We have to have some client which knows > > about all memcached servers and uses some hash based on key to > > determine a server. > > > Is My understanding correct? If it is correct, we should remove > > "Distributed" from the above definition. > > The data is distributed - but the servers don't need to know anything about > that. Doesn't that still make it a distributed system? > > -- > Les Mikesell > [email protected]
