My 5 cent to this discussion:
Depending on the level of abstraction, the client and server names can
be ascribed in reverse order. It is true that it is the machine with
the tape and running amdump that initiates the transactions with the
amandad's spread across the netword, and that the latter p
X is analagous to Amanda in that its a matter of defining the
important resource.
In X its the SCREEN, not the CPU cycles that are important.
In amanda its arguably the central control, work area and
tape drive. Anything the clients request is a secondary effect
to the server initiation the proc
Title: RE: "client" and "server" terminology backwards in the docs?
Speaking of the need for the server to listen for a connection,
in fact, the "connection" between the server and the clients is
"established" initially in the disklist file, which name
Title: RE: "client" and "server" terminology backwards in the docs?
Now you have a counterexample to the rule that servers must
passively listen for a connection and respond. Servers provide
a service; clients make use of it. The implementation
specific detail that serve
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 10:36:36PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've been reading the documentation on amanda.org, and it seems the
> authors have this terminology flipped. Servers always passively
> *listen* for a connection, while clients are active initiators. In
> the Amanda model, the c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been reading the documentation on amanda.org, and it seems the
authors have this terminology flipped. Servers always passively
*listen* for a connection, while clients are active initiators. In
the Amanda model, the centralized backup host is actually a *client*,
