[Csci551-talk] Re: [Cs551] termination conditions with long latency

[Xi Wang]

Let's make the number of iterations to 4. We will also try different 
global timeout values.

-Xi

S. Houtris wrote:

> Hi Xi,
> 
> What exactly do you mean by "adjusting the termination condition" ? You 
> mean increasing the number of iterations without progress before 
> exiting? ie making it 4 (instead of 2) rounds of group update  without 
> "progress" for a seed before exiting, and 6 (instead of 4) for a non-seed?
> 
> This is a very easy thing to change but also very important to the 
> behavior of our program...
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Solon
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Xi Wang" <xiw at usc.edu>
> To: <cs551 at catarina.usc.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 10:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [Cs551] termination conditions with long latency
> 
> 
>> First, bandwidth is different from latency. For project B bandwidth 
>> limitation is added and the latency test would be the same as project A.
>>
>> Yes please adjust termination condition. We may increase global 
>> timeout for testcases with low bandwidth. If low bandwidth is the only 
>> reason for node to exit before completion, it would not be considered 
>> as an error.
>>
>> -Xi
>>
>>
>> Jonathan May wrote:
>>
>>> In projects a we were supposed to allow graceful termination of nodes 
>>> following reasonable constraints. For seeds or nodes that became 
>>> seeds, I allowed termination if 2*the request timeout seconds had 
>>> expired without any incoming traffic (i.e. requests). If, as the TAs 
>>> have proposed, latency times are bumped up to the order of seconds, 
>>> this becomes a problem if the request timeout is left at, say, 5 
>>> (seconds). 5 nodes with a latency of 1 second in the midst of a large 
>>> packet request that happens not to touch the seed (as might be the 
>>> case after a certain point) will easily exceed the termination 
>>> condition and the seed will die. May I assume that large latencies 
>>> will accompany large request timeouts (which seems like a reasonable 
>>> assumption)? Or should I just allow for more hanging on (changing my 
>>> multiplication constant to something like 10)? Or is there another 
>>> solution?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> jon
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cs551 mailing list
>>> Cs551 at catarina.usc.edu
>>> http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cs551
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cs551 mailing list
>> Cs551 at catarina.usc.edu
>> http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cs551 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cs551 mailing list
> Cs551 at catarina.usc.edu
> http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cs551