Thanks for your detailed answers! It's always nice to get a better
understanding of what's really going on.
And yet another question: I see in your announcement descriptions
(and the recent Squeak mailing list) that the WiscWorlds app supports
webcams. What are the requirements for my PC to participate in this?
On 7/7/06, Howard Stearns <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2006, at 7:22 AM, David Faught wrote:
> > Hi Howard,
> > I finally had a chance to try out your new app last night, but it
> > wouldn't work for me. I have a reasonably good cable connection
> > through TimeWarner and the PC is wired, the same one that I have used
> > to Croquet-connect (once, a few weeks ago) to Peter Moore's island at
> > UMN. I tried a couple of different times at around 7:30 and 9:30 PM
> > and waited several minutes each time, but all I ever got was the big
> > red neverending rectangle.
> Try again. It looks like the machine running the router (and a bunch
> of other stuff on campus) was rebooted last night.
> It happens, and we don't have things set to automatically restart
> when the machine goes down.
> For debugging purposes, please see the thread "Running Wisconsin
> Croquet Demo" (e.g., from me July 6).
> Also, this:
> On Jul 4, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Howard Stearns wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Video Conferencing
> > To: [hidden email]
> > If you go into the 'Wisconsinization' project, there are a number
> > of buttons. The one marked '3dWiki' is the same as the button on
> > the startup project, and connects to a router on Mac which also has
> > a headless peer on Windows connected to it (to provide the current
> > world definitions). The one marked 'campus' connects to a router
> > and headless peer both running in the same Squeak, on Linux.
> Neither of these will be up permanently, but the 'campus' router is
> the one likely to go away first.
> > After waiting, I interrupted
> > Croquet/Squeak and the traceback looked like it was waiting to logon
> > to the global cache with some hardcoded ID, not "everyone". I take it
> > that this is a separate thing from joining the island?
> yes. Explained below.
> > On a different tack, by taking this approach to having persistent
> > content, aren't you going a step backwards to a client-server model?
> No. And yes. It depends.
> We're all pretty used to the components of the client-server model,
> and we know what the issues are.
> I think most folks individually have a some idea of what "full"
> TeaTime might be like. (I'm imagining a fully P2P overlay network,
> which carries traffic within and between islands.)
> But the 1.0 SDK, aka Hedgehog, aka "Simplified TeaTime", is something
> in between.
> If we parse it like a lawyer, here are the fragments:
> - There's a router. The Internet is dependent on the workings of
> hardware routers. Here's a software router. We can make it
> arbitrarily reliable in a conventional sense, and of quite small
> scope for scalability, but it is still a single point of failure and
> not infinitely scalable. It's easy, though to envision adding a fail-
> over mechanism for reliability, and __maybe__ some sort of of Paxos-
> like mechanism to make it distributed.
> - There's something to give continuity of island state. This is
> simply a peer that is left on. There's some engineering involved in
> figuring out the "best" way to do this for a given application, but a
> "continuity server" is an easy and adequate model for now.
> - There's a lot of immutable stuff that doesn't need to be in the
> island state. In the SDK, this includes textures, and comes first
> from your disk cache, otherwise you ask the router for a peer in the
> same world to give it to you. In WiscWorlds, we're moving more stuff
> into this cache. Sounds, movies, hopefully meshes. Right now, we have
> a global cache (among all our worlds) that is handled by an
> additional router. Everyone connects to it as a client, and one or
> more machines connect as a "server," analogous to the continuity
> server. This is what you saw being logged into with a hardcoded id.
> (Hats off to Josh for this model and implementation.) A WorldBase
> would be another approach. Both of these approaches do introduce
> another client-server-like single point of failure within this aspect
> of the system. However, I think it's pretty straightforward (e.g.,
> "just work") to swap this whole thing out with a "conventional"
> Distributed Hash Table p2p overlay network.
> - Discovery of routers. The SDK handles this only on the LAN.
> Dormouse used a single global introducer. But it is pretty easy to
> envision a distributed introducer. In WiscWorlds, we ignore the
> problem by hardcoding the router (actually, the dispatcher) address.
> The point is that we're trying to break the problems apart into more
> tractable pieces. Right now, the total effect for practical purposes
> is to still be be pretty dependent on "servers." But I am 100%
> confident of being able to make everything "parallel distributed"
> when required -- except for the routers. Here I am only confident of
> making each router "serially distributed" (e.g., handling failover,
> but not automatically distributing a load using parallelism). My gut
> feeling is that it is too early, and entirely unnecessary, to place
> bets on whether it is more productive to work on a parallel
> distributed router for simplified teatime, or to just work on full
> teatime. But I am going to do neither. Just apps and the technology
> for them.
> > Maybe for this application that makes sense, and I'm still trying to
> > figure out what would be a good way to provide persistent content in a
> > P2P model. I guess UMN's approach is the WorldBase object store
> > server. Maybe by the time you provide a persistent but dynamically
> > updateable object store and a meeting place/introducer server, you may
> > as well have a full participating but unmanned host.
> It should be clear that my preference is to break the issues apart,
> using individual solutions for orthogonal problems. To me, DHTs have
> the right math for immutable data/media, used across worlds, which
> never need to be garbage collected. I think quasi-relational
> databases are a proven technology for handling metadata as a service:
> things like author, time, rating, comments, and postcard data all
> change slowly, and tend to be accessed in a way which allows a
> connectionless, service-oriented, big-iron server implementation to
> be adequate. In the long run, I'd like to see searchable metadata
> services handled in a more free way, but that's a political opinion,
> not an engineering one.
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|