|
How about Linux Virtual Service? 'LVS' stays but the meaning becomes
more accurate. Plus the name change is not so dramatic.
Joseph Mack NA3T wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Gerry Reno wrote:
>
>
>> I mean I would not like to go to conferences and see people asking
>> questions like, "Is that the real realserver, or is it the real
>> virtualserver?" or "Is that the virtual virtualserver or the real
>> virtualserver?". We are talking "Confusion!".
>>
>
> The problem with the name "linux virtual server" is that it
> is all technical terms and you should be able to tell what
> it does from the name. However you can't and when you find
> out what it doesn, you can always say "well I thought it
> would probably did this..". At least with "squid" you know
> you don't know and have to be told it's a cacheing web
> proxy.
>
> LVS has been around long enough that it's probably not worth
> changing its name unless there's some major redesign of the
> code. So LVS is unchangeable.
>
> The name "director" or "loadbalancer" is defined and the LVS
> director fits right in to the definition. So no problem
> there.
>
> The name "realsever" has problems. We need a name with at
> least the following properties
>
> o doesn't collide with other names in computing/linux. You
> have to be able to google for it and get pages talking about
> LVS. "server" or "worker" is out.
>
> o has to be one word ("real server" is out), so you can
> google for it and I can search for it in the HOWTO and it
> won't be on two lines.
>
> o maybe implies functionality (a machine that sits behind
> the director and does all the work, but is never seen by the
> user)
>
> o can apply to a physical node or a virtual node.
>
> o has to be politically correct ("slave" is out).
>
> How about "drone" (job is to attend to the queen bee - the
> director)?
>
> Other ideas quite welcome.
>
> Joe
>
|
