[zeromq-dev] nomenclature

[Michel Pelletier]

I prefer the term Flow Graph

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_graph_(mathematics)

It might not mathematically accurate but my feeling is most distributed
systems like you're describing can be modeled with a flow graph.  In the
example you provided your scaling points would be coefficients and
bottlenecks can be found by flow analysis.  Like the wikipedia page says:

"The nomenclature is far from standardized, and...no standardization can be
expected in the foreseeable future."

Sounds about right. :)

-Michel

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Andrew Hume <andrew at humeweb.com> wrote:

> pieter,
>
>         i can’t figure out what you’re saying here. based on my several
> years experience
> with you, i have to conclude that i have somehow misspoken.
>
>         i have a distributed application. that is, there are a number of
> discrete components
> that (for this discussion) are distinct processes running on some number
> of servers.
> some are accessed thru RPC calls, others generate work that then processed
> by
> some number of worker components.
>
>         in order for this to work, i clearly need to figure out how data
> will flow
> through this system. as i have understood the design methodology around
> zeromq,
> this means figuring out the fixed points in the data flow and organising
> the
> components around those fixed points. some of these allow for “scaling”
> (as in increasing the size of a worker pool).
>
>         so i don’t understand
> 1) how can this sort of design be a “mistake”? how can you do anything
> without
> (trying to) understand where the data needs to go?
>
> 2) many protocols (which i guess you mean things defined by RFCs) don’t
> scale;
> they simply detail teh bi-lateral contract between (roughly) user and
> supplier of a service
> (like NTP). i know some address this directly (like the Gossip protocol),
> but surely you don’t mean just those?
>
>         andrew
>
>
> > On Aug 24, 2016, at 11:06 AM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:
> >
> > FWIW I have come to believe that trying to design or even understand
> > the overall flows of data is a mistake, at least when you want to
> > scale.
> >
> > What does scale is to speak of protocols and implementations. I know
> > this isn't a happy answer yet it's a proven one (RFCs, Internet).
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > zeromq-dev mailing list
> > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20160825/461440d1/attachment.htm>