p2psp team mailing list archive

[Cristóbal Medina López <cristobalmedinalopez@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I mean this: http://pastie.org/private/wu1aoi7fnfazwedli88q (expected.py). I
think it's useful and maybe is a good idea to store it in utils directory.

Regards.



El lun., 6 de abril de 2015 a las 11:48, Ilshat Shakirov (<
im.shakirov@xxxxxxxxx>) escribió:

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