On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 06:35:32PM +0000, Michael Rogers wrote: > toad wrote: > >>> Are you allowing *ALL* requests > >>> to complete before reporting the result? > >> No, I'm taking a slice of the simulation in its steady state and > >> counting the number of messages sent and received in that slice. > > > > If it is actually a steady state - is it? > > It's hard to be sure. FIFO seems likely to reach a steady state quite > quickly because nothing stays in the network for very long, especially > with short queues. But with LIFO I'd imagine it's possible for packets > to sit at the bottom of the queue for a very long time.
Which is precisely why LIFO sucks... FIFO has a more or less fixed latency for a given load, it forces requests to wait in line. Whereas LIFO encourages anti-social behaviour such as cancelling and trying again every 10 seconds. So it's not practical - but I'm very surprised that we are getting apparently good results for it. > I'd have to run > a lot of repetitions and check that the first half of the slice wasn't > distinguishable from the second half. > > Cheers, > Michael -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20061214/06793cde/attachment.pgp>
