p2psp team mailing list archive

[Ilshat Shakirov <im.shakirov@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello!,

Are you about script for computing value by formula? Or about log parser?
(average.py). If about log parser, it is already in repo -
https://github.com/P2PSP/sim/blob/master/utils/average.py .


2015-04-06 14:41 GMT+05:00 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>