It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.
It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.
Redis, rabbitmq. There are infrastructure where all nodes work but only one node is responsible for properly and timely synchronizing changes, which is a hard problem to solve in a distributed fashion.
That doesn’t really match the master/slave relationship. The distributed instances aren’t slaved to the master. They’re each doing their own thing, but as part of that they have a hierarchical relationship when it comes to synchronization
Distributed computing gets more into the concept of swarms. Each piece is autonomous, and the swarm self-organizes. We made up a bunch of paradigms around this that were basically obsolete by the time we needed them - I think the relationship here is leader/follower, but I’ve never heard that terminology outside the classroom
They’re sharded. It’s like host/mirror, except each mirror is an equally correct part of the real picture
One of them is the leader, but it doesn’t control the rest of them. It just coordinates them
When you get into swarm concepts, like sharding or activitypub, it doesn’t make sense to describe the relationship between nodes anymore. The relationship between any two nodes is “part of the same swarm”. You describe the nature of the swarm as a whole, or the behavior of individual nodes