[Top][All Lists]
[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 ?
- [Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hempp..., Hermanni Hyytiälä, 2003/06/02
- [Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hempp..., Hermanni Hyytiälä, 2003/06/03
- [Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hempp..., Hermanni Hyytiälä, 2003/06/03
- [Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hempp..., Hermanni Hyytiälä, 2003/06/04
- [Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hempp..., Hermanni Hyytiälä, 2003/06/04
- [Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hempp..., Hermanni Hyytiälä, 2003/06/04
- [Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hempp..., Hermanni Hyytiälä, 2003/06/04
- [Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hempp...,
Hermanni Hyytiälä <=
- [Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hempp..., Hermanni Hyytiälä, 2003/06/04
- [Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hempp..., Hermanni Hyytiälä, 2003/06/04
- [Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hempp..., Hermanni Hyytiälä, 2003/06/04
- [Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hempp..., Hermanni Hyytiälä, 2003/06/04
- [Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hempp..., Hermanni Hyytiälä, 2003/06/05
- [Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hempp..., Hermanni Hyytiälä, 2003/06/05
- [Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hempp..., Hermanni Hyytiälä, 2003/06/05
- [Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hempp..., Hermanni Hyytiälä, 2003/06/05
- [Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/storm_gisp_simulation--hempp..., Hermanni Hyytiälä, 2003/06/05