ASSIGNMENT 1

DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING

MAHNOOR AMIR
BCSM-F19-236
7E
TOPIC 1:
A response to CAP theory being widely misunderstood and misused.

Answer
The compromises among consistency and accessibility CAP for huge
frameworks. It's exceptionally simple to highlight CAP and attest that no
framework can have consistency and accessibility.
However, there is a trick. CAP has been misjudged in various ways. As Coda
Robust makes sense of in his statement,
"Of the CAP hypothesis' Consistency, Accessibility, and
Segment Resistance, Parcel Resilience is compulsory in appropriated
frameworks. You can't not pick it. Rather than CAP, you ought to contemplate
your accessibility concerning yield (percent of solicitations addressed
effectively) and collect (percent of required information really remembered for
the reactions) and which of these two your framework will forfeit when
disappointments occur."
The rising in accessibility of huge scope frameworks by issue lenience, control
and separation:
We expect that clients make questions to servers, in which case there are
something like two measurements for right way of behaving: yield, which is the
likelihood of finishing a solicitation, and gather, which estimates the small
portion of the information reflected in the reaction, for example the
culmination of the solution to the question.
The two measurements, Reap and Yield can be summed up as follows:
• Reap:
The information accordingly structure aggregate sum of information.
For instance: On the off chance that one of the hubs is down in a 100 hub
bunch, the collect is close to 100% as long as necessary.
• Yield:
The solicitations finished with progress complete number of solicitations.
Note: Yield is not the same as uptime. Yield manages the quantity of
solicitations, not just the time the framework couldn't answer demands.
Exchanging Harvest for Yield Probabilistic Accessibility:
"Virtually all frameworks are probabilistic regardless of whether they
understand it. Specifically, any framework that is 100 percent accessible under
single flaws is probabilistically accessible by and large (since there is a non-no
likelihood of different disappointments)"

TOPIC 2:
How much of harvest/yield to sacrifice in the event of a network partition

Answer
We Can’t Sacrifice Partition Tolerance
Partition tolerance does not mean your distributed system can't be consistent
and available because your network dropped one packet, or one node failed.
What would be the point of such a definition? Instead, the CAP theorem
implies that while the network is partitioned, consistency or availability must
be sacrificed. In the case of the dropped packet, once it is retransmitted the
partition is healed and progress can be made. Or in the case of the failed node,
nothing says that the rest of the system can't be consistent and available, so
that the system as a whole maintains that property. There is no requirement
that the unavailable node be available.
In order to model partition tolerance, the network will be allowed to lose
arbitrarily many messages sent from one node to another. When a network is
partitioned, all messages sent from nodes in one component of the partition to
nodes in another component are lost. (And any pattern of message loss can be
modeled as a temporary partition separating the communicating nodes at the
exact instant the message is lost.)