p2psp team mailing list archive

[Cristóbal Medina López <cristobalmedinalopez@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ilshat,

Could you add the Python script for computing average number of poisoned
chunks to the github repository?

Thanks!!

El lun., 6 de abril de 2015 a las 9:25, Vicente Gonzalez (<
vicente.gonzalez.ruiz@xxxxxxxxx>) escribió:

> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>