Re: root knowledge

yeongw@spartacus.psi.com Wed, 13 May 1992 03:53 UTC

Received: from nri.nri.reston.va.us by ietf.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26432; 12 May 92 23:53 EDT
Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23243; 12 May 92 23:59 EDT
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23232; 12 May 92 23:59 EDT
Received: from spartacus.psi.com by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.16076-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Wed, 13 May 1992 03:33:50 +0100
Received: from localhost by spartacus.psi.com (5.61/1.3-PSI/PSINet) id AA01138; Tue, 12 May 92 22:33:21 -0400
Message-Id: <9205130233.AA01138@spartacus.psi.com>
To: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: root knowledge
Cc: yeongw@psi.com
Reply-To: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 13 May 92 11:16:43 +1000. <9205130116.AA12022@squid.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU>
Date: Tue, 12 May 92 22:33:19 -0400
From: yeongw@spartacus.psi.com

> > I should point out that any number of database system vendors
> > would be most happy to sell us products that could run circles
> > around our X.500 implementations if all we wanted was high performance
> > searching on a centralized -- in a single "DSA" -- database.
> 
> Yes, this is true now. But I wouldn't necessarily expect it to be true
> for ever.

I'm afraid I have to disagree.

I'd argue that it will always be true. A centralized database will always
outperform a distributed one simply due to not having to go
over the network for anything. You tradeoff performance for added
flexibility and the advantages of distribution by choosing distributed
over centralized.

This only holds true with my definition of 'DSA' of course. By your
definition, the database underlying the 'DSA' is in itself distributed.
In which case I'd say that existing X.500 implementations are already
potentially as good as the state of the art in distributed database
systems. You just need to use said state of the art distributed database
system under your X.500 implementation (easier said than done :-), 
I know -- but that's an implementation problem and has nothing to do
with X.500 as a technology).

> 
> > X.500's
> > strength is in the infrastructure it provides for distributing
> > information
> 
> X.500 has a couple of other strengths as well.

I agree. The (one element) list I originally provided was intended
to contrast a major strength of X.500 with one of its weaknesses compared
to centralized database systems. It wasn't supposed to be comprehensive.


Wengyik