最新计算机英文文献翻译

最新计算机英文文献翻译内容摘要：

m, he had to connect to the mainframe, gain appropriate access, and then do his business while essentially “ renting” the program or data from the server. Users connected to the server via a puter terminal, sometimes called a workstation or client. This puter was sometimes called a dumb terminal because it didn’t have a lot (if any!) memory, storage space, or processing power. It was merely a device that connected the user to and enabled him to use the mainframe puter. Users accessed the mainframe only when granted permission, and the information technology (IT) staff weren’t in the habit of handing out access casually. Even on a mainframe puter, processing power is limited— and the IT staff were the guardians of that power. Access was not immediate, nor could two users access the same data at the same time. Beyond that, users pretty much had to take whatever the IT staff gave them—with no variations. Want to customize a report to show only a subset of the normal information? Can’ t do it. Want to create a new report to look at some new data? You can’ t do it, although the IT staff can— but on their schedule, which might be weeks from now. The fact is, when multiple people are sharing a single puter, even if that puter is a huge mainframe, you have to wait your turn. Need to rerun a financial report? No problem— if you don’ t mind waiting until this afternoon, or tomorrow morning. There isn’t always immediate access in a client/server environment, and seldom is there immediate gratification. So the client/server model, while providing similar centralized storage, differed from cloud puting in that it did not have a usercentric focus。 with client/server puting, all the control rested with the mainframe— and with the guardians of that single puter. It was not a userenabling environment. PeertoPeer Computing: Sharing Resources As you can imagine, accessing a client/server system was kind of a “ hurry up and wait” experience. The server part of the system also created a huge bottleneck. All munications between puters had to go through the server first, however inefficient that might be. The obvious need to connect one puter to another without first hitting the server led to the development of peertopeer (P2P) puting. P2P puting defines a work architecture in which each puter has equivalent capabilities and responsibilities. This is in contrast to the traditional client/server work architecture, in which one or more puters are dedicated to serving the others. (This relationship is sometimes characterized as a master/slave relationship, with the central server as the master and the client puter as the slave.) P2P was an equalizing concept. In the P2P environment, every puter is a client and a server。 there are no masters and slaves. By recognizing all puters on the work as peers, P2P enables direct exchange of resources and services. There is no need for a central server。 because any puter can function in that capacity when called on to do so. P2P was also a decentralizing concept. Control is decentralized, with all puters functioning as equals. Content is also dispersed among the various peer puters. No centralized server is assigned to host the available resources and services. Perhaps the most notable implementation of P2P puting is the Inter. Many of today’ s users fet (or never knew) that the Inter was initially conceived, under its original ARPA guise, as a peertopeer system that would share puting resources across the United States. The various ARPA sites— and there weren’t many of them— were connected together not as clients and servers, but as equals. The P2P nature of the early Inter was best exemplified by the Use work. Use, which was created back in 1979, was a work of puters (accessed via the Inter), each of which hosted the entire contents of the work. Messages were propagated between the peer puters。 users connecting to any single Use server had access to all (or substantially all) the messages posted to each individual server. Although the users’ connection to the Use server was of the traditional。