p2psp team mailing list archive

[Ilshat Shakirov <im.shakirov@xxxxxxxxx>]

>
> I don't know the procedure you are using to add peers to a team (how the
> peers contact the splitter, receives the list of peers of the splitter and
> send the [hello] message to the peers that are in the list), but I suppose
> that this procedure is similar to one used in a real team.

Yes, the peers are added to team as it described in DBS of rules (new peer
sends HELLO to splitter, splitter sends list of peers, peer sends HELLO to
rest of team).
I have new hypothesis - how much time is spent for sending chunks? and for
sending simple messages, like HELLO/GOODBYE. In peersim implementation
there is no difference in times between these two types of message. If it's
able to send 2 or more simple messages while one chunk is sending, then
simulation results will match with expected results.

> This means that if the peer 34 were the trusted peer, the attacker would
> send only one poisoned chunk before it is reported. For this reason, I
> think that the order of the peers in the lists should have some influence
> in the average number of poisoned chunks.

There is such results already. I.e. cell D43 in google sheet
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pc6yb87xJy8gNkWSWvvCvjAjR6WBFdOzCbPvO-zEooU/edit#gid=0>.


Also, I can remove the latency for simple messages (like hello and
goodbye), and (I suppose) results will match with expected results.

An accurate P2PSP simulator is very interesting for researching the
> performance of the P2PSP. Any kind of advance/facility in this direction is
> really appreciated :-)

Ok, I will begin to write readme file about performing experiments =)

2015-03-20 12:04 GMT+05:00 Vicente Gonzalez <vicente.gonzalez.ruiz@xxxxxxxxx
>:

> Hi IIshat!
>
> 2015-03-19 13:58 GMT+01:00 Ilshat Shakirov <im.shakirov@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> Well, the output seems to be OK, but I cannot see the list of peers.
>>
>> I have prepared new log file -
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/888pro42z02r8ww/log_50peers_buffers_peerlist.txt?dl=0
>>
>> Could you please tell me more about an order in which peers must send
>> chunks? In peersim implementation it simply round robin, i.e. if peer have
>> peers number 4,2,1, he will send chunks in the same order (splitter will do
>> the same).
>>
>
> Yes, you are using the right scheduling algorithm (Round-robin). No
> problem about that. I don't know the procedure you are using to add peers
> to a team (how the peers contact the splitter, receives the list of peers
> of the splitter and send the [hello] message to the peers that are in the
> list), but I suppose that this procedure is similar to one used in a real
> team. If this is true, the order in which the peers are in the list of
> peers of most of the peers of the team is almost the same. For example, in
> the simulation output you have sent, most peers (at least at the beginning
> of the simulation) has the peer 34 in the first entry of their lists. This
> means that if the peer 34 were the trusted peer, the attacker would send
> only one poisoned chunk before it is reported. For this reason, I think
> that the order of the peers in the lists should have some influence in the
> average number of poisoned chunks.
>
>
>>
>> ps Should I prepare the guide, how to perform experiments with
>> p2psp-peersim? And what experiments should be performed (what parameters
>> should I use?).
>>
>
> An accurate P2PSP simulator is very interesting for researching the
> performance of the P2PSP. Any kind of advance/facility in this direction is
> really appreciated :-)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Vi.
> --
> Vicente González Ruiz
> Depto de Informática
> Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería
> Universidad de Almería
>
> Carretera Sacramento S/N
> 04120, La Cañada de San Urbano
> Almería, España
>
> e-mail: vruiz@xxxxxx
> http://www.ual.es/~vruiz
> tel: +34 950 015711
> fax: +34 950 015486
>