3 ms·
> They are claiming there's no global synchronization and a global order. Need to update your textbook ;) http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport
by tomegun 10y ago
> They are claiming there's no global synchronization and a global order.
Need to update your textbook ;) http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/time-clocks.pdf http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/t...
In particular, what we did is described here: https://github.com/bus1/documentation/wiki/Message-ordering https://github.com/bus1/documentation/wiki/Message-ordering
If anything is unclear or misleading, please let me know and I'll try to clarify.
- mfukar 10y agoI've read both, thanks. I clearly remember the fact the total ordering is "somewhat arbitrary" in Lamport's own words, which is what I pointed out here [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12803907 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12803907], too. I admit I haven't read the implementation to see what kind of bounds you derive, and I couldn't find them in the wiki either. So, I think I'll go with "accidentally exaggerated" instead of "manipulative".
- tomegun 10y ago"[S]omewhat arbitrary" is a correct description. We take something that is fundamentally partially ordered (real-world events that may happen exactly at the same time), respect the partial order and extend it to a total order. The extension is arbitrary, but I fail to see the problem with that, or how it contradict anything we wrote? Could you explain what bounds you are interested in and in what way you think anything is exaggerated? I would like to update the docs if necessary.