Tomas Toft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Tomas,
>> Using a thread to receive listed for input, and another thread to >> work on reducing the tree, then this should work nicely. Perhaps a >> third thread to send out messages produced by the tree reducer... >> >> Tomas, I guess this design is similar to the one you though of when >> we discussed alternatives for the SIMAP runtime? > > Yes, that was very much my idea. Drop rounds and split communication > out in one or two threads, so that communication and computation > could be parallelized. I'm not sure if the above is the best idea, > but implementing rounds explicitly means "wasting" potential > communication time on processing (and vice versa), which is bad. Yeah, it's silly to let the players wait on a slow player if it would be secure for them to proceed with the next operation! > Of course this means a new proof of security (how is that coming > along?). I think the proof is okay -- it still needs lots of editing, though. I'm currently merging the stuff on VIFF with the paper Ivan, Mikkel and I got accepted at ACISP 2007 and the result will be my PhD progress report. So that means that there is a whole lot more editing to do... :-) My deadline is mid-January. When it's done we could bundle it with VIFF, or maybe it would be better to just put it online at viff.dk... We should also put the design talk slides online and have links to the other central papers that VIFF builds upon like your thesis and progress report. -- Martin Geisler _______________________________________________ viff-devel mailing list (http://viff.dk/) [email protected] http://lists.viff.dk/listinfo.cgi/viff-devel-viff.dk
