Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Comparing Distributed System Design Proposals, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Computer Science

A tabular comparison of various distributed system design proposals, highlighting their pros and cons. The team includes prasad saripalli, jeremiah blanchard, and saurin desai. Each proposal is evaluated based on factors like implementation approach, documentation, and design complexity.

Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research

Pre 2010

Uploaded on 09/17/2009

koofers-user-62g
koofers-user-62g 🇺🇸

5

(1)

10 documents

1 / 2

Toggle sidebar

Related documents


Partial preview of the text

Download Comparing Distributed System Design Proposals and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Computer Science in PDF only on Docsity! Team: Prasad Saripalli, Jeremiah Blanchard & Saurin Desai Proposal Review Table: In order to keep the overall discussion brief the tabular format is adopted and pros and cons are mentioned here for each of the proposals reviewed. No. Name of the document Pros Cons Score 1 Bhavyan.pdf 1) No new commands needed. 2) Unique BFS tree approach is nice to trickle down the information and easy to maintain though a little more implementation detail would have helped. 1) How to join a new group? 2) Definition of neighbor can be relative since no criteria are mentioned on what defines a neighbor 3) Maintaining two lists will add overhead. 4) Resources would be consumed in information retrieval. 5) No message and command syntax defined other than server discovery protocol. 4 2 Jindal.pdf 1) Implementation Directory service approach is included for server discovery which create a centralized repository for information lookup. 1) How to maintain the directory service and how many replicas are needed on the overall network? 2) Maximum number of multicast address needs to be defined. 3) Fault tolerance system needs thorough implementation details. 4.5 3. Boada.pdf 1) Simple implementation. 2) Reuse of the project2 details. 1) Too many parameters in each commands. 2) Large overhead 3) Message syntax confusing 4.5 4. Brian.pdf None? Very short on detail 1 5. Dube.pdf 1) Detailed documentation 2) All features including fault tolerance designed well. 2) Complicated design; may be difficult to implement. 4 6. Dugan.pdf Detailed, easy-to-read Could use more 4
Docsity logo



Copyright © 2024 Ladybird Srl - Via Leonardo da Vinci 16, 10126, Torino, Italy - VAT 10816460017 - All rights reserved