3 ms·

A more interesting definition is that a server is something that is asymmetric from a client. Things that are peer to peer which are symmetric to each other are

by shazow 8y ago

A more interesting definition is that a server is something that is asymmetric from a client. Things that are peer to peer which are symmetric to each other are something special.

chatmasta 8y ago
Not really. Each peer is running a client and server and the only difference is the role of each node in a given transaction.
- noobiemcfoob 8y ago
  While you can frame peer-to-peer interactions as as a series of server-client interactions with servers and clients swapping roles... you shouldn't. It's a different paradigm with different implications. Individual transactions might be usefully described as server-client, but the overall system is not server based. So...serverless.
  - chatmasta 8y ago
    In all cases, one node must send the first packet. The node sending the packet is the client, and the destination of the packet is the server. Also, the internet is a peer-to-peer system. But "peer-to-peer" is an abstract paradigm, because ultimately, (a) two peers need to know about each other, and (b) one peer needs to initiate every transaction. I realize we're just arguing semantics here, and I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make, but it's an interesting discussion nonetheless...
    - clarry 8y ago
      > In all cases, one node must send the first packet. The node sending the packet is the client, and the destination of the packet is the server. I'm pretty sure you are just making up new definitions. It's kinda like saying that whoever says the first word in class is the teacher and the rest are student. The fact is that both peers send packets and the first packet isn't particularly significant, except from a stateful connection or firewall perspective.
      - chatmasta 8y ago
        Well, let’s breakout Wikipedia [0] > Clients therefore initiate communication sessions with servers which await incoming requests. > Both client-server and master-slave are regarded as sub-categories of distributed peer-to-peer systems. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client–server_model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client–server_model
        clarry 8y ago
        > Clients therefore initiate communication sessions with servers which await incoming requests. Dogs walk on four feet, therefore anything that walks on four feet is a dog? > Both client-server and master-slave are regarded as sub-categories of distributed peer-to-peer systems. Dogs are canids, that doesn't mean all canids are dogs. The client-server model really entails more than having one party that sends a packet before the other. Some illuminating details and a shallow comparison to the peer-to-peer architecture can be found in the article you linked.

by shazow 8y ago

A more interesting definition is that a server is something that is asymmetric from a client. Things that are peer to peer which are symmetric to each other are something special.

chatmasta 8y ago

Not really. Each peer is running a client and server and the only difference is the role of each node in a given transaction.

noobiemcfoob 8y ago
While you can frame peer-to-peer interactions as as a series of server-client interactions with servers and clients swapping roles... you shouldn't. It's a different paradigm with different implications. Individual transactions might be usefully described as server-client, but the overall system is not server based. So...serverless.
- chatmasta 8y ago
  In all cases, one node must send the first packet. The node sending the packet is the client, and the destination of the packet is the server. Also, the internet is a peer-to-peer system. But "peer-to-peer" is an abstract paradigm, because ultimately, (a) two peers need to know about each other, and (b) one peer needs to initiate every transaction. I realize we're just arguing semantics here, and I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make, but it's an interesting discussion nonetheless...
  - clarry 8y ago
    > In all cases, one node must send the first packet. The node sending the packet is the client, and the destination of the packet is the server. I'm pretty sure you are just making up new definitions. It's kinda like saying that whoever says the first word in class is the teacher and the rest are student. The fact is that both peers send packets and the first packet isn't particularly significant, except from a stateful connection or firewall perspective.
    - chatmasta 8y ago
      Well, let’s breakout Wikipedia [0] > Clients therefore initiate communication sessions with servers which await incoming requests. > Both client-server and master-slave are regarded as sub-categories of distributed peer-to-peer systems. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client–server_model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client–server_model
      - clarry 8y ago
        > Clients therefore initiate communication sessions with servers which await incoming requests. Dogs walk on four feet, therefore anything that walks on four feet is a dog? > Both client-server and master-slave are regarded as sub-categories of distributed peer-to-peer systems. Dogs are canids, that doesn't mean all canids are dogs. The client-server model really entails more than having one party that sends a packet before the other. Some illuminating details and a shallow comparison to the peer-to-peer architecture can be found in the article you linked.