[Csci551-talk] Re: some thoughts about TA's sample implemenation
nainesh solanki
nsolanki at usc.edu
Mon Apr 25 16:26:18 PDT 2005
> 2. In TA's code, a node can only start next round of download when the
> ReqTOTimer expires. That means, even there are no loss in
> CLNT_SEG_REP,a node must wait timeout to send next
> GROUP_SHOW_INTEREST. But I think a
> node should start next round of downloading immediately after it gets
> all the CLNT_SEG_REP. It should only wait for a timeout if some
> CLNT_SEG_REPs are lost.
> > That might be overlooked but can be easily taken care of, and if oyu
> want to use it, it would be good that you do implement this.
>
Actually the code does implement it. It removes the timer once all the CLNT_SEG_REP messages are received. I dont know if I am supposed to discuss the working of code so I havent pointed out where this is done. If the instructor doesnt mind I can give you a pointer.
thanks
Nainesh Solanki
----- Original Message -----
From: csci551-talk-request at mailman.isi.edu
Date: Saturday, April 23, 2005 12:00 pm
Subject: Csci551-talk Digest, Vol 9, Issue 16
> Send Csci551-talk mailing list submissions to
> csci551-talk at mailman.isi.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/csci551-talk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> csci551-talk-request at mailman.isi.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> csci551-talk-owner at mailman.isi.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Csci551-talk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. some thoughts about TA's sample implemenation (hua liu)
> 2. homework 3 has been posted to the class web page (John
> Heidemann) 3. RE: some thoughts about TA's sample implemenation
> (Affan, Syed)
> 4. RE: some thoughts about TA's sample implemenation (hual)
> 5. Re: homework 3 has been posted to the class web page
> (John Heidemann)
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:15:01 -0700
> From: hua liu <hual at usc.edu>
> Subject: [Csci551-talk] some thoughts about TA's sample implemenation
> To: csci551-talk at mailman.isi.edu
> Message-ID: <971a401c2fb87.4268eac5 at usc.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hi,
>
> I compared my implementation and TA's sample implmentation of
> ProjA and had some questions in TA's code. Here are my thoughts:
>
> 1. What if node A is in e_SegUpdate or in e_FileXchange and now a
> new node B joins in. Node B will send tracker a
> GROUP_SHOW_INTEREST, and tracker will send GROUP_ASSIGN to node A
> and node B. In TA's code, on reception of GROUP_ASSIGN, node A
> will generate an error message. But is this actually an error?
>
> 2. In TA's code, a node can only start next round of download when
> the ReqTOTimer expires. That means, even there are no loss in
> CLNT_SEG_REP, a node must wait timeout to send next
> GROUP_SHOW_INTEREST. But I think a node should start next round of
> downloading immediately after it gets all the CLNT_SEG_REP. It
> should only wait for a timeout if some CLNT_SEG_REPs are lost.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong. I am wondering how do we handle the
> first case. Can we just ignore the GROUP_ASSIGN if we are not in
> e_TrackerSent?
>
> Thanks!
> Hua
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:45:07 -0700
> From: John Heidemann <johnh at ISI.EDU>
> Subject: [Csci551-talk] homework 3 has been posted to the class web
> page
> To: csci551-talk at ISI.EDU
> Message-ID: <200504221945.j3MJj7qu011616 at dash.isi.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
> Homework 3 has been posted to the class web page.
> -John Heidemann
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:53:41 -0700
> From: "Affan, Syed" <asyed at usc.edu>
> Subject: RE: [Csci551-talk] some thoughts about TA's sample
> implemenation
> To: "'hua liu'" <hual at usc.edu>, <csci551-talk at mailman.isi.edu>
> Message-ID: <000201c54775$028036f0$0300a8c0 at A2D>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: csci551-talk-bounces at mailman.isi.edu
> [csci551-talk-bounces at mailman.isi.edu] On Behalf Of hua liu
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 12:15 PM
> To: csci551-talk at mailman.isi.edu
> Subject: [Csci551-talk] some thoughts about TA's sample implemenation
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I compared my implementation and TA's sample implmentation of
> ProjA and
> had some questions in TA's code. Here are my thoughts:
>
> 1. What if node A is in e_SegUpdate or in e_FileXchange and now a new
> node B joins in. Node B will send tracker a GROUP_SHOW_INTEREST, and
> tracker will send GROUP_ASSIGN to node A and node B. In TA's code, on
> reception of GROUP_ASSIGN, node A will generate an error message.
> But is
> this actually an error?
> > I don't get it, why would A receive the GROUP_ASSIGN? The new
> node B
> receives that and he should be in e_TrackerSent state. There is no
> needfor tracker to send gratuitous group assignments.
>
>
> 2. In TA's code, a node can only start next round of download when the
> ReqTOTimer expires. That means, even there are no loss in
> CLNT_SEG_REP,a node must wait timeout to send next
> GROUP_SHOW_INTEREST. But I think a
> node should start next round of downloading immediately after it gets
> all the CLNT_SEG_REP. It should only wait for a timeout if some
> CLNT_SEG_REPs are lost.
> > That might be overlooked but can be easily taken care of, and if oyu
> want to use it, it would be good that you do implement this.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong. I am wondering how do we handle the first
> case. Can we just ignore the GROUP_ASSIGN if we are not in
> e_TrackerSent?
>
> Thanks!
> Hua
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
> From: hual <hual at usc.edu>
> Subject: RE: [Csci551-talk] some thoughts about TA's sample
> implemenation
> To: "Affan, Syed" <asyed at usc.edu>
> Cc: csci551-talk at mailman.isi.edu
> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0504221406440.23633-100000 at aludra.usc.edu>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Affan, Syed wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: csci551-talk-bounces at mailman.isi.edu
> > [csci551-talk-bounces at mailman.isi.edu] On Behalf Of hua liu
> > Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 12:15 PM
> > To: csci551-talk at mailman.isi.edu
> > Subject: [Csci551-talk] some thoughts about TA's sample
> implemenation>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I compared my implementation and TA's sample implmentation of
> ProjA and
> > had some questions in TA's code. Here are my thoughts:
> >
> > 1. What if node A is in e_SegUpdate or in e_FileXchange and now
> a new
> > node B joins in. Node B will send tracker a
> GROUP_SHOW_INTEREST, and
> > tracker will send GROUP_ASSIGN to node A and node B. In TA's
> code, on
> > reception of GROUP_ASSIGN, node A will generate an error
> message. But is
> > this actually an error?
> > > I don't get it, why would A receive the GROUP_ASSIGN? The new
> node B
> > receives that and he should be in e_TrackerSent state. There is
> no need
> > for tracker to send gratuitous group assignments.
> >
>
> Thanks. I get your point. I made a mistake on the client-track
> protocl.The tracker should only reply the requesting node. Not all
> the node in a
> group.
>
> >
> > 2. In TA's code, a node can only start next round of download
> when the
> > ReqTOTimer expires. That means, even there are no loss in
> CLNT_SEG_REP,> a node must wait timeout to send next
> GROUP_SHOW_INTEREST. But I think a
> > node should start next round of downloading immediately after it
> gets> all the CLNT_SEG_REP. It should only wait for a timeout if some
> > CLNT_SEG_REPs are lost.
> > > That might be overlooked but can be easily taken care of, and
> if oyu
> > want to use it, it would be good that you do implement this.
> >
> Thanks. I think if the loss probability of the network is small,
> implementthis can improve the performance.
>
> > Correct me if I am wrong. I am wondering how do we handle the first
> > case. Can we just ignore the GROUP_ASSIGN if we are not in
> > e_TrackerSent?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Hua
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:58:57 -0700
> From: John Heidemann <johnh at ISI.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [Csci551-talk] homework 3 has been posted to the class
> web page
> To: csci551-talk at ISI.EDU
> Message-ID: <200504222158.j3MLwvjX014775 at dash.isi.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:45:07 PDT, John Heidemann wrote:
> >
> >Homework 3 has been posted to the class web page.
> > -John Heidemann
>
> After two (sigh) errors the hw3 links should now be correct.
>
> -John Heidemann
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Csci551-talk mailing list
> Csci551-talk at mailman.isi.edu
> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/csci551-talk
>
>
> End of Csci551-talk Digest, Vol 9, Issue 16
> *******************************************
>
More information about the Csci551-talk
mailing list