gzz-commits
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hempp...


From: Hermanni Hyytiälä
Subject: [Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hempp...
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 07:21:21 -0400

CVSROOT:        /cvsroot/storm
Module name:    storm
Changes by:     Hermanni Hyytiälä <address@hidden>      03/06/04 07:21:20

Modified files:
        doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hemppah: peg.rst 

Log message:
        updates

CVSWeb URLs:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/storm/storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hemppah/peg.rst.diff?tr1=1.7&tr2=1.8&r1=text&r2=text

Patches:
Index: storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hemppah/peg.rst
diff -u storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hemppah/peg.rst:1.7 
storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hemppah/peg.rst:1.8
--- storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hemppah/peg.rst:1.7       Wed Jun 
 4 07:12:52 2003
+++ storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hemppah/peg.rst   Wed Jun  4 
07:21:20 2003
@@ -5,8 +5,8 @@
 
 :Authors:  Hermanni Hyytiälä
 :Date-Created: 2003-06-02
-:Last-Modified: $Date: 2003/06/04 11:12:52 $
-:Revision: $Revision: 1.7 $
+:Last-Modified: $Date: 2003/06/04 11:21:20 $
+:Revision: $Revision: 1.8 $
 :Status:   Incomplete
 
 .. :Stakeholders:
@@ -16,28 +16,24 @@
 .. Affect-PEGs:
 
 
-Performing GISP P2P simulations with Storm we can increase our understanding 
-GISP's scalability properties. Also, we want to know how GISP performs
-against different threats such as network partition or security 
-attacks. If not separately mentioned, in this context we mean with 
-"Storm" as an entity which is able to do a (limited/simplified) number 
-of Storm's functionalies.
+For determining whether Storm with unmodified GISP P2P protocol is practical, 
+we want increase our understanding GISP's scalability properties. Also, we 
want 
+to know how GISP performs against different threats such as network 
+partition or security attacks. 
 
 This PEG discusses research problems, hypotheses, the theoretical 
 knowledge we have about the hypotheses, and possible simulations to 
-validate hypotheses.
+validate hypotheses related to the GISP P2P protocol.
 
+If not separately mentioned, in this context we mean with 
+"Storm" as an entity which is able to do a (limited/simplified) number 
+of Storm's functionalies.  
 
 Issues
 ======
 
 ISSUE:
 
-    How many concurrent "Storm" entities with blocks are we able to simulate 
-    on a single machine (e.g., with 256Mb of memory) ?
-
-ISSUE:
-
     In the future, do we want to perform simulations in a LAN cluster (or 
     relevant) ?
   
@@ -64,12 +60,12 @@
     Why GISP ? Why are we using it versus some other systems?
     
     1) According to Benja, "it's written in Java" :)
-    2) Aasy implementation (and it's implemented)
+    2) Easy implementation (and it's implemented)
     3) (belief that) GISP is a Kademlia implementation (which
      is not true - only distance function is similar)
      
-    There is also a Python implemenation of Kademlia called
-    Kashmir_.
+    It is good to mention that there is also a Python 
+    implemenation of Kademlia called Kashmir_.
      
     What properties does it share with others, to such a degree
     that its performance might be deduced from theirs?
@@ -78,7 +74,12 @@
     table - O(log^2 n) messages are required to join/leave 
     operations and O(log n) lookup efficiency (according to 
     original Chord publication). GISP extends Chord's routing
-    table to have more space for cached data (peer information)    
+    table to have more space for cached data (peer information).
+    
+    However, neither the original GISP publication nor the GISP
+    protocol specification do not provide any lookup properties.
+    In publication, the author states that GISP is more efficient
+    than "broadcasting system".    
        
 
 ISSUE:
@@ -155,7 +156,7 @@
   and if it does, what are the influences ? 
   
 - How much better/worse pure Kademlia implementation (e.g. Kashmir) is over 
the GISP 
-  protocol if face performance and fault-tolerance ?
+  protocol in face performance and fault-tolerance ?
          
 - How well GISP is able to perform in adverse conditions, e.g., a
   network partition occurs ?




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]