Hey,
yeah I know about the corner case. What do you mean the aggregated
results from superstep number 1? Between supersteps, there are the
"aggregator" supersteps. And they are like this:
- node superstep No.1
- aggregator superstep No.1
- node superstep No.2 etc etc
So if a node at "node superstep No.1" votes to halt, he shouldn't be
included in the aggregator phase which comes next, right?
My question is:
why the node gets aggregated if he has voted to halt? Doesn't "vote to
halt" mean that he wants to stop?
Στις 20/12/2013 11:35 μμ, ο/η Anastasis Andronidis έγραψε:
Hello,
what you actually see it is an expected behavior from the aggregators. The
results you are taking in the superstep number 2, are the aggregated results
from superstep number 1.
There is a small corner case though. In superstep 0 the aggregators are off.
This will change on next release.
Cheers,
Anastasis
On 20 Δεκ 2013, at 4:48 μ.μ., [email protected] wrote:
Hello there,
I am using the Graph API and I have noticed something.
If a node votes to halt at a superstep, we suppose that he won't be part of the
aggregation phase.
BUT he is included in the aggregation phase of the next superstep!
To be more precise:
- Imagine we have a graph with 10 nodes.
- At superstep 1 node K votes to halt.
- At superstep 2 we check the number of the nodes aggregated and its 10. (it
had to be 9)
- At superstep 3 we check again the number of the nodes aggregated and then it
is 9! (which is the correct)
This persists only with the aggregators. Node K doesn't work at superstep 2.
Can someone confirm that this is a problem or am i missing something?
Thanks
