Name server and remote link strategies for name resolution in the distributed object database Thor are evaluated. When a name service is used to resolve names, communication overhead may be accrued when the object is accessed. On the other hand, an efficient remote link strategy accrues communication overhead to update the link whenever an object is moved (or at least on first access after a move). The authors argue that Thor objects are accessed a lot more than they are moved, so it is more efficient to pay the cost at move time than at access time.

Since the authors do not provide any measurements from Thor, I am not convinced. In a real-world distributed system, a relatively small number of objects should account for the bulk of the references. I would therefore expect that a name server strategy combined with client name caches would be an effective high-performance alternative. The advantage of a centralized (albeit replicated) name repository in a distributed database, especially from the system administration perspective, should be a factor in selecting a name resolution strategy.