Sasan,
I see your point.
How much do differ results you got in the two
cases?
By exact same simulation you mean that you simply
changed the
trace format and nothing else (included
the machine you working on)?
Regards,
Marco Fiore
>----Messaggio originale----
>Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ucc.ie
>Data: 15-apr-2006 9.33 PM
>A: "Marco Fiore"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <ns-users@isi.edu>
>Ogg: Re: R: [ns]
which trace format is more accurate?
>
>Marco,
>
>I agree that I need
separate awk scripts for different trace formats but
>the particular
example that I gave below is straight forward
>
>$1~/s/ && /AGT/ {
sent ++; }
>
>and should return total number of sents message in a
simulation and that
>still returns different values (unless this is not
the correct way to
>calculate the total sent messages)
>
>what do you
think?
>
>Thanks,
>Sasan
>
>
>
>> Sasan,
>>
>> both versions of
tracefile report the same information.
>> The
>> difference only lies
in the format (actually, the
>> new trace format is
>> somehow more
complete).
>> So they are accurate in the same way, but the
>> point
>>
is that you can't use the same awk script on both!
>> You have to
>>
write two versions of you awk script,
>> and then you'll get the same
>> results.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Marco Fiore
>>
>>>----Messaggio
originale----
>>>Da:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>Data: 15-apr-2006 8.06
AM
>>>A: <ns-users@ISI.EDU>
>>>Ogg: [ns] which trace format is more
accurate?
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi All,
>>>
>>>I am
>> generating both trace
formats (old and new) for the "exact" same
>>>simulation, and for
instance I count total number of messages sent as
>>>below (in my awk
file)
>>>
>>>$1~/s/ && /AGT/ { sent ++; }
>>>
>>>but I get
>> two
different results
>>>
>>>now I wonder, which one of the trace files are
>> accurate? which one should
>>>I pick? the version is 2.29.
>>>
>>>I'll
>> appreciate your advice.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Sasan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
