On 5/28/2010 4:11 PM, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > On 5/28/10, Lynn W. Taylor<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> I haven't looked at the BOINC protocol, but.... >> >> The server should not consider the work unit "assigned" until the remote >> end acks (accepts) the assignment. >> >> That keeps the server from thinking something is assigned when the >> client doesn't have it. >> >> Three-steps probably isn't out of the question. TCP uses a three step >> connection sequence to prevent one side from thinking that the >> connection is open while the other side is still waiting. > > Currently: Client asks for N seconds of work, server gives some tasks, > and there is potentially no more communication between them until the > client finishes the tasks and reports them. > > Martin and I had already suggested a protocol where the client asks > for work, the server "offers" tasks, and the client then has to say if > it wants them or not. For example, the client could ask for work to > all projects it's attached to, and based on what is available, decide > which ones to accept. See "[boinc_dev] Work Scheduling (pt 2, > Cooperative Scheduling?)", from April 29, 2009. I see where you were going with that, but that is a major change, while the alternative (affirmative "ACK") wouldn't mean restructuring BOINC communication. _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
