Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > scalability and manageability

Reply
Thread Tools

scalability and manageability

 
 
gk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2011

If I increase the Tiers of the application , does scalability and
manageability inverse proportion ?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2011
On 01/18/2011 11:20 PM, gk wrote:
>
> If I increase the Tiers of the application , does scalability and
> manageability inverse proportion ?


Not necessarily, but maybe.

Tiers are there for reasons, and scalability and manageability aren't
necessarily among them.

Let me ask you, in hopes that you'll answer this question at least, in inverse
proportion of what to what?

Scalability and manageability are not related to how many tiers there are but
how well those tiers are engineered and how they connect to one another and
how encapsulated they are from one another.

--
Lew
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
gk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2011

> Let me ask you, in hopes that you'll answer this question at least, in inverse
> proportion of what to what?
>


What to What ? well ok..what I meant was if I increase the Tiers say
1 Tier, 2 Tier , 3 Tier likewise does the manageability of the system
decreases ?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Lew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2011
On 01/19/2011 02:35 AM, gk wrote:
>
>> Let me ask you, in hopes that you'll answer this question at least, in inverse
>> proportion of what to what?
>>

>
> What to What ? well ok..what I meant was if I increase the Tiers say
> 1 Tier, 2 Tier , 3 Tier likewise does the manageability of the system
> decreases ?


That's what I thought you meant, and the question I answered.

--
Lew
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Arne Vajh°j
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2011
On 18-01-2011 23:20, gk wrote:
> If I increase the Tiers of the application , does scalability and
> manageability inverse proportion ?


If we use the definition:
tiers = separation where different tier can but does not have to on
different boxes
layers = separation where different layers (within the same tier) has
to run on the same box

Then I would expect more tiers to:
- increase scalability
- not decrease manageability significant

(the drawbacks of more tiers being worse performance
and more complex software)

Arguments:
- unless all tiers are only vertical scalable then adding
tiers will make some of them horizontal scalable and
that is the key to being scalable
- the managing should depend on the total software not how
that software is distributed on multiple systems (this
assumes that the work of managing OS instances is
insignificant)

Arne
 
Reply With Quote
 
Arne Vajh°j
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2011
On 19-01-2011 07:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> gk wrote:
>> If I increase the Tiers of the application , does scalability and
>> manageability inverse proportion ?

>
> It depends. Division into tiers may simplify an application. Division
> into tiers is a form of modularization, the general strategy of dividing
> a large, complicated design into smaller, simpler pieces. Done well, it
> reduces complexity. Done badly, it makes things worse.


I assume that you are using tiers as synonym for layers here.

Arne
 
Reply With Quote
 
Arne Vajh°j
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2011
On 19-01-2011 20:15, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> Arne Vajh°j wrote:
>> On 19-01-2011 07:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>> gk wrote:
>>>> If I increase the Tiers of the application , does scalability and
>>>> manageability inverse proportion ?
>>>
>>> It depends. Division into tiers may simplify an application. Division
>>> into tiers is a form of modularization, the general strategy of dividing
>>> a large, complicated design into smaller, simpler pieces. Done well, it
>>> reduces complexity. Done badly, it makes things worse.

>>
>> I assume that you are using tiers as synonym for layers here.

>
> I would assume that tiers implies more of at least potential hardware
> separation, which done well can simplify hardware requirements. Each box
> in a tiered system sees a simpler, more homogeneous, workload than would
> be the case for a single box running the whole application. However, my
> comment also applies to software layers in the same box, or indeed to
> any other form of modularization.


OK, then I understand what you are saying.

Arne
 
Reply With Quote
 
gk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2011
On Jan 19, 5:43*am, Lew <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 01/19/2011 02:35 AM, gk wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Let me ask you, in hopes that you'll answer this question at least, in inverse
> >> proportion of what to what?

>
> > What to What ? *well ok..what I meant was if I increase the Tiers say
> > 1 Tier, 2 Tier , 3 Tier likewise *does the manageability of the system
> > decreases ?

>
> That's what I thought you meant, and the question I answered.


No. You are wrong. You are thinking as a direct relationship. But I
meant the other way. You know INDIRECTLY, when you increase the
Tiers , the Scalability increases (modular nature) . So, my question
stands this way , when you increase Tiers , does the Scalability and
manageability are in inverse proportion ?

Hopefully, you got the picture now. Let me know if you still have
doubt.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2011
Lew wrote:
>>>> Let me ask you, in hopes that you'll answer this question at least, in inverse
>>>> proportion of what to what?


gk wrote:
>>> What to What ? well ok..what I meant was if I increase the Tiers say
>>> 1 Tier, 2 Tier , 3 Tier likewise does the manageability of the system
>>> decreases ?


Lew wrote:
>> That's what I thought you meant, and the question I answered.


As a reminder, the answer was "no".

gk wrote:
> No. You are wrong. You are thinking as a direct relationship. But I


You said "inverse proportion" and "increase the [number of} tiers", which
denotes "decreases reliability", which is also exactly what you said in the
post you yourself quoted: "manageability of the system decreases". Inverse
relationship is when the movement is in the opposite direction - one
increases, the other decreases.

> meant the other way. You know INDIRECTLY, when you increase the
> Tiers , the Scalability increases (modular nature) . So, my question


That is direct relationship: increase leads to increase. Inverse is when
increase leads to decrease, i.e., the movement is in the opposite (inverse)
direction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_relationship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_relationship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_proportion

It's also the exact opposite of what you said just above: "manageability ...
decreases".

> stands this way , when you increase Tiers , does the Scalability and
> manageability are in inverse proportion ?
>
> Hopefully, you got the picture now. Let me know if you still have
> doubt.


I answered that question already, when I said, "Not necessarily, but maybe,"
and, "Scalability and manageability are not related to how many tiers there
are but how well those tiers are engineered and how they connect to one
another and how encapsulated they are from one another." Patricia Shanahan
made the same point, as you might recall, "It depends."

In other words, there is neither a direct nor an indirect relationship. Let
me know if you still have doubt.

--
Lew
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
 
Reply With Quote
 
gk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2011

> "Scalability and manageability are not related to how many tiers there
> are but how well those tiers are engineered and how they connect to one
> another and how encapsulated they are from one another." *Patricia Shanahan
> made the same point, as you might recall, "It depends."
>
> In other words, there is neither a direct nor an indirect relationship. *Let
> me know if you still have doubt.
>
> --
> Lew
> Ceci n'est pas une pipe.


Anyway, I have found my answer. What I have found after consulting
some materials is this, when you increase the tiers , the scalability
increases and as there is now more machine components manageability
decreases . And so scalability and manageability are in inverse
proportion in this context . Looks like meaningful to me.

Remember we have 3 parameters here . Tier / scalability /
manageability


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Security and manageability minded LiveCD? lbrtchx@gmail.com Computer Security 0 11-12-2007 12:09 PM
Performance and Scalability of JSP and ASP tharma HTML 5 09-13-2005 07:58 PM
Performance and Scalability of JSP and ASP tharma ASP .Net 4 09-13-2005 06:04 PM
Performance and Scalability of JSP and ASP tharma HTML 0 09-13-2005 03:04 PM
Performance and Scalability of JSP and ASP tharma Java 1 09-13-2005 05:18 AM



Advertisments