Master/Slave and Primary/Secondary

["Sundling, Paul" <pa...@sonyconnect.com>]

When I started computing it was always Master and Slave.  In the last
several years I've seen people use Primary and Secondary instead.  When
I saw the old style I looked it up and this is what I found:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_%28computers%29
 
http://www.techspot.com/news/9129-master-and-slave-computer-labels-unacc
eptable.html
 
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/26/1069825847240.html
 
Is it was worth changing the terminology from master/slave to
primary/secondary?  
 
My personal feeling is that the original impetus behind some of the
change was ridiculous, but it's a simple change to make.  Consider this
a thought bubble, not a request.
 
Paul Sundling

Re: Master/Slave and Primary/Secondary

[Mike Klaas <mi...@gmail.com>]

On 26-Jul-07, at 6:54 PM, Sundling, Paul wrote:

> When I started computing it was always Master and Slave.  In the last
> several years I've seen people use Primary and Secondary instead.   
> When
> I saw the old style I looked it up and this is what I found:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_%28computers%29
>
> http://www.techspot.com/news/9129-master-and-slave-computer-labels- 
> unacc
> eptable.html
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/26/1069825847240.html
>
> Is it was worth changing the terminology from master/slave to
> primary/secondary?

-<hearty sigh>

-Mike

Re: Master/Slave and Primary/Secondary

[Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>]

: As it pertains to Solr, I've often used Master and Searcher.
: Probably even more correct would be Indexer and Searcher.
: Primary and Secondary don't quite sound right for the Solr
: situation... (but Master and Slave doesn't capture it any better
: either).

primary/secondary doesn't relaly apply because the labels are too vague
... primary for what?  primary search box? primary indexing box?

typically the terms primary/secondary relate to failover modes, you have a
primary woozle that does everything a woozle is suppose to do, but if htat
woozle stops working the secondary woozle steps in and acts very woozly.

This is not an inherient concept in Solr.

the (computer) master/slave concepts are not inherient in Solr either --
but they are a part of the *distribution* of indexes that Solr has hooks
for.  one Solr instance can be declared the "master" of the index and
given all the updates to process while other Solr instances can choose to
"slave" off of a master of their choice and take indexes as is from that
master -- but even then the "slaves" may themselves be "masters" as far as
other solr indexes further down a distribution chain are concerned -- so
even using hte terminology "master/searcher" doesn't really apply, since
the "slaves" may not actaully be used for seraching, but only as
way-points.

In the end, it's all fairly irrelevent.

While the term "master" is used quite a bit in the distribution scripts
(to indicate where to pull an index from) the term "slave" is the only
contentious term in the pair and it's use is confined to in
distribution.jsp and a few comments in the scripts about
snappuller.status.  if anyone wants to submit a patch that changes the
comments/variables names, feel free -- just as long as it's something
descriptive regarding the nature of the data exchange relationship.



-Hoss

RE: Master/Slave and Primary/Secondary

["Sundling, Paul" <pa...@sonyconnect.com>]

Actually Indexer and Searcher is the terminology we used for our home
grown Lucene solution we're evaluating Solr against.  Good point.    

Even beyond avoiding words with baggage, or even worst,
overloaded/ambiguous terms (like Service), coming up with meaningful
terminology is often a challenge.  Rename is one of my favorite
refactorings. :)

Paul Sundling

-----Original Message-----
From: yseeley@gmail.com [mailto:yseeley@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yonik
Seeley
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:10 PM
To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Master/Slave and Primary/Secondary


As it pertains to Solr, I've often used Master and Searcher. Probably
even more correct would be Indexer and Searcher. Primary and Secondary
don't quite sound right for the Solr situation... (but Master and Slave
doesn't capture it any better either).

-Yonik

On 7/26/07, Sundling, Paul <pa...@sonyconnect.com> wrote:
> When I started computing it was always Master and Slave.  In the last 
> several years I've seen people use Primary and Secondary instead.  
> When I saw the old style I looked it up and this is what I found:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_%28computers%29
>
> http://www.techspot.com/news/9129-master-and-slave-computer-labels-una
> cc
> eptable.html
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/26/1069825847240.html
>
> Is it was worth changing the terminology from master/slave to 
> primary/secondary?
>
> My personal feeling is that the original impetus behind some of the 
> change was ridiculous, but it's a simple change to make.  Consider 
> this a thought bubble, not a request.
>
> Paul Sundling
>

Re: Master/Slave and Primary/Secondary

[Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org>]

As it pertains to Solr, I've often used Master and Searcher.
Probably even more correct would be Indexer and Searcher.
Primary and Secondary don't quite sound right for the Solr
situation... (but Master and Slave doesn't capture it any better
either).

-Yonik

On 7/26/07, Sundling, Paul <pa...@sonyconnect.com> wrote:
> When I started computing it was always Master and Slave.  In the last
> several years I've seen people use Primary and Secondary instead.  When
> I saw the old style I looked it up and this is what I found:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_%28computers%29
>
> http://www.techspot.com/news/9129-master-and-slave-computer-labels-unacc
> eptable.html
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/26/1069825847240.html
>
> Is it was worth changing the terminology from master/slave to
> primary/secondary?
>
> My personal feeling is that the original impetus behind some of the
> change was ridiculous, but it's a simple change to make.  Consider this
> a thought bubble, not a request.
>
> Paul Sundling
>