p2psp team mailing list archive

[Vicente Gonzalez <vicente.gonzalez.ruiz@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ilshat,

thanks for your guide. We really appreciate your efforts.

Best,
Vi.

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 4:11 PM Ilshat Shakirov <im.shakirov@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Hello!,
>
> I just prepared the new pull request : https://github.com/P2PSP/sim/pull/3
>
> Also, there is new result (with fix from previous mail) :
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pc6yb87xJy8gNkWSWvvCvjAjR6WBFdOzCbPvO-zEooU/edit#gid=506203193
> (result3 tab)
>
> As you can see, there is something strange in experiments with 50 peers,
> and T>1. But now DIFF decreases with number of experiments (10 000 instead
> of 1000 I have tested).
>
> Also, I prepared guide in README file, now you can perform experiments of
> your own, you need only JDK on local machine. You can change the number of
> trusted peers in attackers in next lines:
>
>> init.2.malicious_count 1
>> init.2.trusted_count 1
>>
> Also, you can change the size of the network in the fist line.
> And you can uncomment these lines to see all the information about network
> (peer's buffers and neighbors)
>
>> #control.0 sim.src.PeerObserver
>> #control.0.protocol 2
>> #control.0.step CYCLE*1
>>
> There is file sim/utils/average.py - it's a file for computing average
> value of poisoned chunks from many experiments. You simply should call it
> like 'python average.py -i log.txt'. Log.txt is a output from simulator.
>
> That's all, next I will try to investigate the strange values from
> simulator (with 50 peers).
>
> Thanks!
>
> 2015-04-03 10:03 GMT+05:00 Ilshat Shakirov <im.shakirov@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> Hello!,
>>
>> I found problem in the concept of simulation =)
>> The malicious peer connects to the team after some delay and it's a
>> problem. Because of that, i.e. with parameters N=9, T=6, A=3, splitter will
>> give the peer list with first trusted peers for attackers. And the result
>> will be 3. But expected is 3.4. And this is why the expected differs from
>> result.
>> I will fix it soon, and update the sheet. I think after this update the
>> DIFF rows must become equal to 0.00 =)
>>
>> Thanks for feedback!
>>
>> 2015-04-03 3:49 GMT+06:00 Vicente Gonzalez <
>> vicente.gonzalez.ruiz@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:19 AM Ilshat Shakirov <im.shakirov@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello!,
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I began fill the results to table -
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pc6yb87xJy8gNkWSWvvCvjAjR6WBFdOzCbPvO-zEooU/edit#gid=506203193
>>>> (result3 tab)
>>>> I think formula works, but Im a little bit confused about diifs
>>>> 0,1-0,12. May be it's some bugs in stat gatherer module of simulator, maybe
>>>> there some mistake with formula.
>>>>
>>>> Soon, I will prepare scripts for running simulation without ide. And I
>>>> will attach log files (with each peer' buffers) to experiments.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think? =)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, I don't know is there is a mistake somewhere (in any case,
>>> results are quite good). But I have a question. Does DIFF decrease with the
>>> number of experiments?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Vi.
>>>
>>
>>
>