| ▲ | ekjhgkejhgk 4 hours ago |
| Here's what I don't understand about distributed systems: TCP works amazing, so why not use the same ideas? Every message increments a counter, so the receiver can tell the ordering and whether some message is missing. Why is this complicated? |
|
| ▲ | ewidar 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Not trying to be snarly, but you should read the article and come back to discuss. This specific point is adressdd. |
| |
|
| ▲ | Etheryte 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| TCP is a one to one relation, distributed systems are many to many. |
| |
| ▲ | ekjhgkejhgk 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You mean like UDP which also works amazing? | | |
| ▲ | Etheryte 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | UDP gives you practically no guarantees about anything. Forget exactly once processing, UDP doesn't even give you any kind of guarantees about delivery to begin with, whether delivery will happen at all, order of delivery, lack of duplicates, etc, nothing. These things are so far from comparable that this idea makes no sense even after trying real hard to steelman it. | | |
| ▲ | ekjhgkejhgk 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | UDP plus increment means that the client can request a snapshot to be re-sent. This mechanism is used in financial exchanges and works amazing. This illustrates that the webdevs who write articles on "distributed system" don't really understand what is already out there. These are all solved problems. |
| |
| ▲ | podgietaru 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | UDP doesn’t guarantee exactly once processing. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | exitb 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It needs a single consumer to be that simple. |
| |
| ▲ | mkarrmann 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | And a single producer! i.e. it breaks down if you add support for fault tolerance |
|
