Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Network transparency

Network transparency is a fundamental principle in that enables users and applications to interact with remote resources—such as files, printers, or services—indistinguishable from local ones, thereby concealing the underlying network infrastructure and its complexities. This concept combines access transparency, which ensures uniform operations on local and remote entities, and location transparency, which hides the physical or logical placement of resources across the network. Originating in the 1980s as distributed systems evolved from standalone computing, network transparency became a cornerstone for seamless resource sharing in environments like operating systems. In practice, network transparency is implemented through protocols and that abstract network details, allowing applications to function without modification when resources are distributed. For instance, the Network File System (NFS) mounts remote directories as if they were local, enabling file operations like reading or writing without specifying network paths. Similarly, the provides transparency by running remote applications on a local display, a feature pivotal in early . These mechanisms enhance and but introduce challenges, such as managing , failures, and without exposing them to the user. While full network transparency remains an ideal—often limited by performance variations and requirements in real-world deployments—it underpins modern , , and remote access technologies, where resources span global data centers yet appear unified. Ongoing research focuses on balancing transparency with efficiency, as seen in systems like the (AFS), which uses caching and location databases to maintain this illusion at scale.

Fundamentals

Definition

Network transparency is a core principle in distributed systems, defined as the property that hides the details of the underlying network and the physical distribution of resources from users and applications, enabling them to access and interact with remote components as if they were local. This concealment extends to network-specific elements such as communication protocols, , hardware heterogeneity, and potential failures, allowing the system to present a unified without requiring explicit management of these aspects. Key characteristics of network transparency involve masking distribution-related challenges, including communication delays, resource locations, and inconsistencies arising from heterogeneous environments, to foster the illusion of a single (SSI). By achieving this, the system appears as a cohesive, centralized rather than a collection of disparate machines connected over a network, thereby simplifying interactions and reducing the on developers and end-users. At its foundation, network transparency builds on abstractions provided by and distributed operating systems, which layer services to obscure the separation of components and deliver a uniprocessor-like experience. This approach ensures that the distributed nature remains invisible at higher levels, promoting seamless resource sharing while maintaining the appearance of locality in all operations. A representative example is the invocation of a (RPC), where the syntax and semantics are identical to those of a local call, with the underlying network transmission, parameter marshaling, and error handling fully abstracted away.

Importance

Network transparency, by abstracting the underlying network complexities from users and applications, significantly simplifies interactions in environments, allowing seamless access to resources as if they were local. This abstraction eliminates the need for users to possess knowledge of , resource locations, or distribution mechanisms, thereby enhancing usability and reducing cognitive overhead in managing distributed resources. For instance, users can interact with remote services uniformly, perceiving the system as a cohesive whole rather than a fragmented collection of nodes. For developers, network transparency reduces the intricacy of application design by shielding low-level handling details, enabling a focus on core business logic and functionality rather than distribution-specific implementations. This leads to improved and portability, as applications can operate across heterogeneous networks without requiring modifications, supported by mechanisms like symbolic that decouple resource names from physical locations. Consequently, development efforts are streamlined, minimizing the burden of adapting to varying conditions or configurations. In terms of scalability, network transparency facilitates efficient load balancing and resource sharing in large-scale systems, such as those in , by enabling dynamic resource placement and migration without disrupting ongoing operations. This abstraction optimizes resource utilization, reduces network traffic—potentially by up to 34% through migration techniques—and supports replication for higher availability via weighted voting protocols. Economically, it lowers development and operational costs by improving system reliability and , abstracting intricacies that could otherwise lead to bottlenecks or single points of failure, while leveraging existing infrastructure to minimize and overhead.

Types of Transparency

Access, Location, and Migration Transparency

Access transparency in distributed systems conceals the differences in data representation and access methods between local and remote resources, allowing users and applications to invoke operations uniformly regardless of whether the resource is local or remote. This ensures that the interface for accessing a resource remains consistent, masking variations in protocols, data formats, or invocation mechanisms that might otherwise distinguish distributed from centralized access. For instance, middleware systems standardize interfaces to hide these discrepancies, enabling seamless interaction across heterogeneous environments. Location transparency permits resources to be identified and accessed using logical names rather than physical addresses, such as addresses or machine locations, thereby enabling and relocation without user awareness. Users interact with resources through abstract identifiers that do not reveal their underlying or geographic position, often facilitated by naming services that map logical names to current locations. This supports in large-scale systems by resource references from specific bindings. Migration transparency allows resources, such as processes or files, to move between nodes in the network without interrupting ongoing operations or requiring reconfiguration by users or applications. This is achieved through mechanisms that maintain consistent access points during relocation, ensuring that references to the resource remain valid post-migration. For example, in scenarios, ongoing connections like telephone calls persist as devices switch between network cells. These transparencies interrelate to enable advanced services, such as renaming and , where access and location transparencies provide the foundation for by preserving uniform and name-based addressing during movement. Name servers play a crucial role in achieving location-independent addressing by maintaining mappings from logical names to current physical locations, updating these dynamically to support without exposing changes to clients. This integration forms a core aspect of distribution transparency in open distributed frameworks.

Replication, Failure, and Performance Transparency

Replication transparency allows users to access resources in a distributed system without awareness of the multiple copies maintained across nodes for and . By hiding the replication process, including and , it presents a unified view of the resource, as if it were stored in a single location. This abstraction is crucial in systems where is duplicated to enhance reliability, yet users interact solely through a consistent . Seminal work on distributed systems principles emphasizes that replication transparency simplifies application by insulating it from the complexities of managing replicas. Failure transparency conceals faults in , software, or components, enabling seamless continuation of operations through mechanisms like and automated . When a occurs, the reroutes requests to healthy nodes or restores without interrupting user tasks, masking the underlying disruption. This property relies on techniques such as process migration and error detection to maintain overall integrity. Research in fault-tolerant computing underscores that transparency reduces the burden on applications to handle exceptions directly. A key mechanism for achieving this is checkpointing, where processes periodically save their states to stable storage; upon , the rolls back to the most recent consistent checkpoint and replays operations to recover progress. The coordinated checkpointing algorithm developed by Koo and Toueg provides a foundational approach, ensuring global consistency with minimal storage overhead by limiting each process to at most two checkpoints. Performance transparency abstracts fluctuations in response times and throughput caused by network latency, varying loads, or resource reconfiguration, delivering a stable experience to users. It is often implemented via dynamic load balancing, which distributes workloads across nodes, and caching, which stores frequently accessed data closer to users to reduce delays. In high-impact distributed systems, this transparency enables reconfiguration—such as adding nodes—without perceptible degradation, though it remains challenging to fully achieve due to inherent trade-offs with other properties. For replication, distributed locking mechanisms enforce by granting exclusive access to resources during updates, preventing concurrent modifications that could lead to inconsistencies across replicas. These locks coordinate via protocols that use timestamps or sequences to resolve contention efficiently. A primary challenge in implementing these transparencies lies in balancing consistency models for replication. demands synchronous updates to all replicas, ensuring immediate visibility of changes but increasing latency and reducing under failures. In contrast, permits asynchronous propagation, allowing higher throughput and at the cost of potential temporary discrepancies, as seen in Amazon's key-value store, which prioritizes for web-scale applications. This trade-off, rooted in the implications, requires designers to select models based on application needs, often favoring for performance-sensitive systems while using distributed locking to mitigate conflicts in critical updates.

Historical Development

Origins

Network transparency emerged in the and amid in and multiprocessor systems, where the goal was to mask the underlying distribution of resources to provide users with a unified view of the system. This period saw early efforts to address the challenges of interconnecting independent computers, drawing from advancements in concurrent programming and network protocols that abstracted away and location details. Researchers recognized that effective distributed systems required hiding complexities such as communication delays and node failures to enable seamless interaction. A key influence came from and early projects in the 1970s, which demonstrated the practical need to abstract network complexities for reliable communication. , operational from 1969, connected diverse computers and spurred the development of protocols like TCP/IP by 1974, designed to allow networked computers to communicate transparently across multiple linked packet networks. These initiatives highlighted how transparency could simplify application development by treating remote resources as if they were local, influencing subsequent distributed system designs. Foundational contributions in the 1980s came from Andrew S. Tanenbaum's work on distributed operating systems, which emphasized the "single system image" principle to make distributed resources appear as one coherent entity. In his 1981 publication Computer Networks, Tanenbaum introduced transparency principles, distinguishing networks from distributed systems based on the degree of cohesiveness and hiding of distribution aspects. The theoretical basis for these ideas stemmed from concurrent programming models, including the proposed by Carl Hewitt, , and Richard Steiger in 1973, which treated actors as primitives for concurrent computation with location-transparent , and process calculi like Robin Milner's Calculus of Communicating Systems () from 1980, which formalized synchronous and asynchronous interactions in distributed settings. These models provided mathematical foundations for achieving transparency in process communication without exposing network details.

Key Milestones

In the 1980s, the distributed operating system, developed by and colleagues at the starting in the early 1980s, served as an early prototype that demonstrated a comprehensive suite of network transparencies, including , location, migration, replication, and failure handling, by presenting the distributed environment as a single unified system to users. A key advancement in file transparency came in 1984 with the introduction of the Network File System (NFS) by , which enabled clients to remote files as if they were local through a that abstracted network details. The 1990s saw progress in standardizing location transparency for remote object invocation through the (CORBA), with version 1.1 released in 1991 by the (), allowing applications to communicate across distributed environments without explicit knowledge of object locations via interface definition language (IDL) and object request brokers. In the 2000s, the era advanced replication transparency with the launch of Amazon Simple Storage Service (S3) on March 14, 2006, by , which provided scalable where data replication across multiple facilities for durability and availability was managed automatically and invisibly to users. A more recent milestone occurred in 2014 with the initial release of in June, an open-source container orchestration platform originally developed at and donated to the , which achieves migration and failure transparency by automatically rescheduling workloads across nodes and restarting failed containers without user intervention.

Applications

In Windowing Systems

Network transparency in windowing systems enables graphical applications to operate across networked machines as if they were local, abstracting the distribution of display and input resources. A seminal implementation is the , developed in 1984 at MIT's , which permits applications on one host to render windows and process user input on a remote display while concealing the network transport mechanisms. The system's architecture relies on a client-server paradigm, where the X client—typically the graphical application—sends rendering requests and receives input events from the , which manages the physical display and peripherals. This communication occurs transparently over TCP/IP, allowing the client to remain unaware of whether the server is local or remote. The X11 protocol, released on September 15, 1987, enhances this by providing location for windows, enabling applications to draw and interact without needing details about the server's rendering hardware or network position. This design supports visual resource migration, where windows can be dynamically redirected or rehosted to different displays in the network without interrupting the application's execution, facilitating seamless transitions in distributed graphical environments. Such capabilities align with broader principles of location and migration transparency in networked systems. Contemporary extensions preserve and secure this transparency; for instance, X11 forwarding in SSH tunnels the X protocol through an encrypted connection, allowing users to run remote graphical applications with local display output while mitigating eavesdropping risks on open networks.

In Database Systems

In database systems, network transparency enables applications to access, query, and update distributed data across geographically dispersed nodes as if interacting with a single, local database, abstracting the underlying network complexities such as latency and node distribution. This abstraction supports seamless scalability and without requiring modifications to application logic. Distributed databases like Google Spanner, developed in , provide a prime example by supporting SQL-like queries over data replicated across global datacenters, presenting the system to users as a unified, local store. Spanner achieves this through its multi-version data model and TrueTime API, which bounds clock uncertainty to under 10 milliseconds using GPS and atomic clocks, ensuring externally consistent reads and writes despite network distances. Location transparency is facilitated via federated queries that automatically route and aggregate results from multiple shards without explicit user directives on data placement. Replication for failure tolerance is implemented via synchronous Paxos-based replication across 3 to 5 datacenters per data item, automatically failing over replicas to maintain during outages. A core mechanism underpinning this transparency is the two-phase commit (2PC) protocol, which coordinates atomic transactions across distributed nodes without exposing the distribution to applications. In the prepare phase, the coordinator polls participants to reserve resources and vote on commit readiness; if unanimous, the commit phase instructs all to finalize changes, logging outcomes for ; otherwise, an abort rolls back all, ensuring all-or-nothing semantics. This protocol, optimized in commercial systems for performance, hides coordination overhead and failure from users. Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) demonstrates practical application of these principles by hiding node s during ongoing transactions, using Cache Fusion over a interconnect to transfer blocks and Oracle Clusterware to relocate services and virtual IPs to surviving nodes. Transparent Application (TAF) automatically reconnects clients to backup instances, replaying in-flight work via features like Application to mask outages, with policies such as SESSION or SELECT types preserving state. Replication and transparency serve as enablers here, allowing queries to continue uninterrupted even amid node crashes or network issues. Sharding transparency represents a specialized form where horizontal data partitioning into is entirely concealed from applications, enabling scalable storage without routing awareness. In Spanner, data is divided into tablets—self-contained —managed dynamically by directories that applications reference abstractly, with automatic reshards and migrations occurring invisibly to balance load and ensure locality. This allows standard query interfaces to operate across partitions as if on a monolithic database, enhancing performance without developer intervention.

In File Systems

Network transparency in file systems allows users to access shared across networks as if files were stored locally, abstracting the complexities of to enable seamless and manipulation. This primarily manifests through access transparency, where operations like reading and writing files do not differ based on whether the resides on local or remote , and replication transparency, where multiple copies of are maintained without user awareness of the duplication process. The Network File System (NFS), developed by and first released in 1984, exemplifies early achievement of this transparency by enabling clients to remote directories directly into their local , treating distant files identically to local ones. NFS achieves location transparency by decoupling file access from physical details, allowing users and applications to interact with remote resources without specifying network paths or identities. The protocol's core mechanism relies on a client- architecture where servers export file systems via RPC calls, and clients perform operations like open, read, and write as if accessing a local disk. NFS version 3 (NFSv3), specified in 1995, operates as a , with each request containing all necessary context to avoid state maintenance, which supports reliable caching on clients but requires separate handling for file locking. In contrast, NFS version 4 (NFSv4), introduced in 2000, incorporates statefulness to manage sessions, compound operations, and integrated locking, enhancing efficiency for caching and delegation while preserving location independence for users. Building on these foundations, the file system, developed at in the early 1990s, advanced network transparency by integrating replication transparency with support for disconnected operations. Coda replicates volumes across multiple servers, allowing clients to access data from any replica transparently, and caches files locally to enable continued read-write access during network outages or mobility scenarios. Upon reconnection, Coda employs optimistic replication with version vectors to detect and resolve conflicts from concurrent modifications, ensuring without interrupting user workflows. A more modern example is Ceph, an open-source distributed storage system originating from Sage Weil's 2006 doctoral research and first publicly detailed in 2006, which provides object-based storage with automatic data placement for enhanced scalability. Ceph uses the CRUSH algorithm to pseudorandomly distribute objects across cluster nodes based on cluster topology, delivering and as data is rebalanced dynamically without client intervention or downtime. This self-managing placement supports petabyte-scale deployments while maintaining for file, block, and object interfaces. Handling concurrency transparency in multi-user file modifications remains a key challenge and differentiator in these systems, ensuring that simultaneous accesses yield consistent results akin to single-user local environments. NFS addresses this through the Network Lock Manager (NLM) protocol in NFSv3, which provides advisory byte-range locking to coordinate modifications and prevent overwrites, integrated more tightly in NFSv4's stateful model to avoid race conditions. Coda enhances concurrency handling via server-side resolution policies and client-side hoarding, using timestamps and version vectors to merge divergent updates from disconnected users, prioritizing by automating resolutions where possible and prompting manual intervention only for irreconcilable conflicts. In Ceph, concurrency is managed at the object level with atomic operations and leasing mechanisms in RADOS, the underlying object store, allowing multi-user modifications to proceed with guarantees without exposing replication details to applications.

Challenges

Firewalls and Security

Firewalls, essential for blocking unauthorized traffic in distributed systems, often interfere with access transparency by necessitating explicit port and protocol configurations that users must manage, thereby exposing the underlying network structure rather than hiding it. This requirement contradicts the goal of seamless resource access, as applications assuming network transparency may fail when firewall rules restrict connections based on origin or destination details. A prominent example is (NAT), commonly implemented in firewalls to mask internal addresses and conserve public IPv4 space, which hides resource locations but complicates migration transparency by preventing straightforward relocation of processes or services without reconfiguration or address rewriting. NAT breaks end-to-end connectivity, forcing applications to incorporate mechanisms that undermine the illusion of a uniform . To mitigate these disruptions, strategies such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and secure tunnels using protocols encapsulate traffic, restoring aspects of and location transparency while enforcing policies through and . , for instance, supports extensions to maintain connectivity across translated networks without exposing internal details. However, these solutions introduce trade-offs between and usability; achieving full network transparency can heighten vulnerabilities to attacks like man-in-the-middle exploits by reducing isolation layers. Introduced in the by Software Technologies, stateful inspection firewalls track connection states to enhance security but add processing latency that challenges performance transparency in distributed environments. This overhead, stemming from maintaining state tables for each session, can degrade throughput in high-volume scenarios, requiring careful tuning to balance protection and efficiency.

Limitations in Modern Networks

In massive environments, achieving perfect failure transparency—where system failures are entirely hidden from users—proves impractical due to the need for to maintain . allows asynchronous replication across geo-distributed datacenters, enabling elastic scaling and , but it introduces temporary inconsistencies that cannot be fully masked, as updates may not propagate immediately to all replicas. For instance, in systems like Pileus, reads under can be over 100 times faster than in global setups, yet developers must explicitly manage these trade-offs via agreements to ensure predictable behavior, thereby limiting full transparency. The further underscores these constraints, positing that distributed systems cannot simultaneously guarantee consistency, , and partition tolerance in the presence of network partitions. This impossibility directly challenges network transparency, particularly failure and performance aspects, as partial failures (e.g., node crashes or network splits) force systems to sacrifice either consistent views or uninterrupted access, breaking the illusion of a seamless, unified environment. In practice, strategies like best-effort during partitions (e.g., in web caching systems) prioritize responsiveness but deliver potentially stale data, while approaches may render parts of the system unavailable, requiring explicit failure notifications that expose underlying distribution. Network delays and bandwidth constraints inherently undermine performance transparency, especially in global distributions where propagation latency varies significantly across paths. In path-aware networks like , the abundance of alternative routes (dozens to over 100 per destination) complicates latency measurement, as dynamic queuing delays from cross-traffic prevent accurate predictions, leading to suboptimal path selection and visible performance disparities. For short-lived flows, such as DNS queries, measurement overhead exceeds flow duration, exacerbating bottlenecks and making it difficult to hide latency variations from applications. Modern and amplify these issues through device heterogeneity, where variations in protocols, formats, and connectivity models hinder full network transparency. Heterogeneity in devices (affecting 49% of challenges) and communication standards (36%) creates barriers, as diverse nodes cannot seamlessly mask differences in access methods or representation, leading to fragmented views across the system. In edge environments, this results in partial transparencies that expose underlying variations, complicating unified management without specialized frameworks. Looking ahead, offers potential for adaptive transparency in and networks by dynamically optimizing and handling inconsistencies. AI-driven approaches, including hybrid evolutionary algorithms, enhance interpretability and simulatability in vehicular and scenarios, enabling adjustments to and failures while improving overall efficiency and robustness.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] A Survey of Distributed File Systems
    This property, called network transparency, implies that any operation that can be performed on a local file may also be performed on a remote file. The extent ...
  2. [2]
    [PDF] From Coulouris, Dollimore, Kindberg and Blair - Distributed Systems
    ... Distributed Systems: Concepts and Design Edn. 5. © Pearson Education ... Network transparency: access transparency + location transparency (most important).
  3. [3]
    Network Transparency Definition - The Linux Information Project
    Dec 23, 2005 · Network transparency is the situation in which an operating system or other service allows a user to access a resource (such as an application ...Missing: science | Show results with:science
  4. [4]
    [PDF] Transparency in Distributed Systems - CSE SERVICES
    Transparency in distributed systems means users should not worry about the system's details, making the aspects of distribution invisible, and the system ...
  5. [5]
    Transparencies
    A transparency is provided by including some set of mechanisms in the distributed system at a layer below the interface where the transparency is required.
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Distributed Systems: Concepts and Design - Fenix
    Designing Distributed Systems: Devoted to a major new case study on the Google infrastructure. Topics added to other chapters: Cloud computing, network ...
  7. [7]
    [PDF] Transparency in Distributed File Systems - DTIC
    network transparency. This includes, as described in section 2.2.6, access ... R., "Identifiers (Naming) in Distributed Systems." in Distributed ...
  8. [8]
    https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA214430.pdf
  9. [9]
    X.903 : Information technology - Open Distributed Processing - Reference model: Architecture
    ### Extracted Definitions from ITU-T X.903
  10. [10]
    Failure transparency - Semantic Scholar
    In a distributed system, failure transparency refers to the extent to which errors and subsequent recoveries of hosts and services within the system.Missing: seminal | Show results with:seminal
  11. [11]
    https://www.semanticscholar.org/topic/Failure-transparency/1050690
  12. [12]
    [PDF] Dynamo: Amazon's Highly Available Key-value Store
    Dynamo provides eventual consistency, which allows for updates to be propagated to all replicas asynchronously. A put() call may return to its caller before ...
  13. [13]
    [PDF] A brief introduction to distributed systems - Computer Science
    Jun 8, 2016 · This so-called distribution transparency is an important design goal of distributed systems. In a sense, it is akin to the approach taken in ...
  14. [14]
    History of Distributed Computing Projects - CS Stanford
    The first distributed computing programs were a pair of programs called Creeper and Reaper which made their way through the nodes of the ARPANET in the 1970s, ...
  15. [15]
    A Brief History of the Internet & Related Networks
    The objective was to develop communication protocols which would allow networked computers to communicate transparently across multiple, linked packet networks.
  16. [16]
    A Universal Modular ACTOR Formalism for Artificial Intelligence
    A modular ACTOR architecture and definitional method for artificial intelligence that is conceptually based on a single kind of object: actors, ...
  17. [17]
    Experiences with the Amoeba distributed operating system
    The chief goal of this work is to build a distributed system that is transparent to the users. This concept can best be illustrated by contrasting it with a ...
  18. [18]
    [PDF] The Sun Network Filesystem: Design, Implementation and Experience
    Introduction. The Sun Network Filesystem (NFS ) provides transparent, remote access to filesystems. Unlike many other remote filesystem implementations ...
  19. [19]
    [PDF] The Common Object Request Broker: Architecture and Specification
    SunSoft, Inc. The Common ORB Architecture and Specification defines a framework for different ORB implementations to provide common ORB services and interfaces ...
  20. [20]
    Developer Resources – Amazon Simple Storage Service (S3) – AWS
    Amazon S3 was launched 15 years ago on Pi Day, March 14, 2006, and created the first generally available AWS service. Over that time, data storage and usage has ...Missing: launch | Show results with:launch
  21. [21]
    Amazon S3 Replication
    Amazon Simple Storage Service (S3) Replication is an elastic, fully managed, low cost feature that replicates objects between buckets.Overview · When To Use S3 Replication · More Info
  22. [22]
    The inevitable Kubernetes - 10 years, still a lot to do | CNCF
    Jul 26, 2024 · Kubernetes launched in June 2014 – since then, it has played a huge part in popularizing cloud-native application designs and supporting more microservices ...
  23. [23]
    Kubernetes
    Kubernetes restarts containers that crash, replaces entire Pods where needed, reattaches storage in response to wider failures, and can integrate with node ...Overview · Learn Kubernetes Basics · Kubernetes Documentation · KubernetesMissing: 2014 migration transparency
  24. [24]
    [PDF] Section F.1.1 Display Management: The X Window System - MIT
    Oct 29, 1986 · An application can utilize windows on any display in a network in a device-independent, network-transparent fashion. Interposing a network ...
  25. [25]
    The X window system | ACM Transactions on Graphics
    A hierarchy of resizable, overlapping windows allows a wide variety of application and user interfaces to be built easily. Network-transparent access to the ...
  26. [26]
    RFC 1013: X Window System Protocol, version 11
    RFC 1013 defines the X Window System Protocol, version 11, a widely reviewed and tested system, distributed for information only.
  27. [27]
    ssh(1) - Linux manual page - man7.org
    X11 connections, arbitrary TCP ports and Unix-domain sockets can also be forwarded over the secure channel. ssh connects and logs into the specified destination ...
  28. [28]
    Chapter 12. OpenSSH | Red Hat Enterprise Linux | 7
    Using a technique called X11 forwarding, the client can forward X11 (X Window System) applications from the server. It provides a way to secure otherwise ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] Spanner: Google's Globally-Distributed Database
    Spanner is Google's scalable, multi-version, globally- distributed, and synchronously-replicated database. It is the first system to distribute data at ...
  30. [30]
    [PDF] Two-phase commit optimizations and tradeoffs in the commercial ...
    Section 2 introduces a 2PC protocol that is used as a baseline for comparing the 2PC variations introduced in the rest of the paper. Section 3 presents the ...
  31. [31]
    [PDF] Real Application Clusters Administration and Deployment Guide
    If you use this software or hardware in dangerous applications, then you shall be responsible to take all appropriate fail-safe, backup, redundancy, and other ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] Design and Implementation of the Sun Network Filesystem
    Mar 28, 2000 · Introduction. The Sun Network Filesystem (NFS) provides transparent, remote access to filesystems. Unlike many other remote filesystem ...
  33. [33]
    What is Network File System (NFS)? - TechTarget
    Apr 14, 2022 · Sun Microsystems published the first implementation of its network file system in March 1984. ... transparent, remote access to file systems ...
  34. [34]
    IETF RFC 1813 – NFS Version 3 Protocol Specification
    The Lock Manager provides support for file locking when used in the NFS environment. The Network Lock Manager (NLM) protocol isolates the inherently stateful ...
  35. [35]
    [PDF] Coda: A Highly Available File System for a Distributed Workstation ...
    Disconnected operation is transparent to a user unless a cache miss occurs. Return to normal operation is also transparent, unless a conflict is detected. A ...
  36. [36]
    Disconnected operation in the Coda file system - ACM Digital Library
    Disconnected operation is a mode of operation that enables a client to continue accessing critical data during temporary failures of a shared data repository. ...
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Ceph: A Scalable, High-Performance Distributed File System
    Abstract. We have developed Ceph, a distributed file system that provides excellent performance, reliability, and scala- bility.Missing: 2007 | Show results with:2007
  38. [38]
    [PDF] Distributed Systems: Concepts and Design - Fenix
    Transparency is defined as the concealment from the user and the application programmer of the separation of components in a distributed system, so that the ...
  39. [39]
    https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/2252418288979313/Xtra-S1-A2-Coulouris-Distributed_Systems_CH-1.pdf
  40. [40]
    RFC 4924: Reflections on Internet Transparency
    ... issues. Far from having lessened in relevance, technical implications of intentionally or inadvertently impeding network transparency play a critical role ...Missing: challenges | Show results with:challenges
  41. [41]
    Outer Header Translator - IETF
    Network address translation technology has a convenient aspect, however, it has the side effect of breaking end-to-end transparency.Missing: impact | Show results with:impact
  42. [42]
    SP 800-77 Rev. 1, Guide to IPsec VPNs | CSRC
    Jun 30, 2020 · This publication provides practical guidance to organizations on implementing security services based on IPsec so that they can mitigate the risks.
  43. [43]
    [PDF] IPsec NAT Transparency - Cisco
    The IPsec NAT Transparency feature introduces support for IP Security (IPsec) traffic to travel through Network Address Translation (NAT) or Port Address ...
  44. [44]
    RFC 2775: Internet Transparency
    For example, network address translation is an artefact, but Intranets are not. Thus the way forward must recognise the fundamental changes in the usage of ...
  45. [45]
    What Is a Stateful Packet Inspection Firewall? - Check Point Software
    SPI firewalls should have the resources required to analyze and secure corporate network traffic at scale while minimizing latency and performance impacts.
  46. [46]
    Stateful vs. Stateless Inspection: Use Cases and Limitations
    Ultra-High-Speed Networks: In environments where processing speed is critical, the added latency from stateful inspection might be a concern.
  47. [47]
    [PDF] Consistency-Based Service Level Agreements for Cloud Storage
    Many provide a relaxed form of consistency, eventual consistency, in order to achieve elastic scalability and good performance while some strive for strong.
  48. [48]
    [PDF] Perspectives on the CAP Theorem - Research
    In this paper, we review the CAP Theorem and situate it within the broader context of distributed computing theory. We then discuss the practical implications ...
  49. [49]
    [PDF] Modular fault tolerance in a network-transparent language
    Partial failure clearly breaks network transparency because it cannot be hidden in general (given our fault model, this is a consequence of the CAP theorem [3]) ...
  50. [50]
    [PDF] Toward Global Latency Transparency
    We show that path-aware networks solve current network problems but also highlight novel challenges encountered in such networks and how to overcome them.Missing: limitations | Show results with:limitations
  51. [51]
    Challenges in Integration of Heterogeneous Internet of Things
    Due to the heterogeneity of IoT, devices on the market nowadays have diversity in communication protocols, methods of network connectivity, and resulting models ...
  52. [52]
    AI-Enabled 6G Networks and Applications | Wiley
    ... AI algorithms for 6G networks, with focus on network transparency, interpretability and simulatability for vehicular networks, space systems, surveillance ...