[Nsi-wg] 2-phase commit

[Tomohiro Kudoh]

Hi Dan,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Yes. I agree that the Paxos commit is a good protocol to realize
reliability.I am familiar with the HARC and Paxos commit since I
worked together with Jon Maclaren and EnLIGHTened team for Japan-US
interoperability experiment.

I think Paxos is a little bit complicated for the basis of NSI
architecture and protocol discussions. At this stage, it will be
better to keep discussions on a simple protocol, and even 2PC might be
too complicated.

Thanks,

Tomohiro

2009/12/3 Daniel S. Katz <dsk at ci.uchicago.edu>:
> Hi,
>
> It also might be worth looking at the first HARC paper (http://www.cct.lsu.edu/~maclaren/HARC/Papers/harc-gada-final.pdf), specifically figures 2 and 3, which show 2-phase commit and Paxos commit.  Paxos commit is probably a better protocol for more general situations, though 2-phase commit works well when the "committer" is reliable.
>
> Dan (wishing to have more time to participate in these discussions rather than just reading the emails some of the time)
>
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 7:14 AM, Tomohiro Kudoh wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> here is an updated slide.
>>
>> 2009/12/2 Tomohiro Kudoh <t.kudoh at aist.go.jp>:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Here is a slide on 2-phase commit.
>>> Talk to you soon.
>>>
>>> Tomohiro
>> <2pc-updated.ppt>_______________________________________________
>> nsi-wg mailing list
>> nsi-wg at ogf.org
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
>
> --
> Daniel S. Katz
> University of Chicago
> (773) 834-7186 (voice)
> (773) 834-3700 (fax)
> d.katz at ieee.org or dsk at ci.uchicago.edu
> http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/~dsk/
>
>
>
>
>