To me the resiliency implies that the system can work around the fault and continue functioning as usual. For example, it can transparently re-route the traffic around a link that goes down.
The fault tolerance on the other hand means that the system will continue functioning in some fashion, probably with a degraded quality, and it will be able to recover to its fully functional state once the fault is removed. The lack of both means the system become inoperational in a presence of certain faults. An example here would be the server going down in a traditional client-server system. Alex -----Original Message----- From: p2p-hackers-boun...@lists.zooko.com [mailto:p2p-hackers-boun...@lists.zooko.com] On Behalf Of Anh Dinh Sent: August 18, 2009 6:56 AM To: theory and practice of decentralized computer networks Subject: [p2p-hackers] Tolerance vs resilience to fault Dear all, I'm struggling a bit to differentiate the two terms. More specifically: ** Given a fault, what are the differences of a (P2P) system being tolerant of that fault and being resilient to that fault. ** My take of it is that from the system's structure point of view, being resilient is more to do with how the system recovers from the fault. On the other hand, designing the system to be fault tolerant places more restrictions and requirements of the performance in the worst-case scenarios. I'm sure many of you may think differently. Regards, Anh. _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
