Re: [Gzz] attacking gisp peg comments

[Hermanni Hyytiälä]

On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 13:37, Tuomas Lukka wrote:

> > We expect that GISP's fault tolerance is at least at the same level as 
> > Chord_'s 
> > fault tolerace since GISP's routing table is based on Chord's routing table.
> > 
> > Chord's general properties:
> > - O(log^2 n) messages are required to join/leave operations 
> > - O(log n) lookup efficiency
> > - Routing table maintains information about O(log n) peers
> > - Routing table requires information about O(log n) of other peers
> >   of *efficient* routing, but performance degrades gracefully
> >   when that information is out of date 
> > - Only one piece of information per peer need to be corect in 
> >   order to guarantee correct (though slow) routing queries  
> 
> Do you *KNOW* whether this works for GISP with dumb peers or not?

No I don't. The problem is that we don't know how similar GISP's routing
table *really* (and overlay network) is to Chord's one.

That's why I sent an email to Daishi earlier today. 


> 
> 
> > Eventually, we will compare (and validate) our test results with the 
> > Chord's 
> > fault tolerance properties.
> 
> Not eventually.
> 
> YOU NEED TO MAKE A REAL INFORMATIVE STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT THE RESULTS
> WILL BE THAT COULD BE RIGHT OR WRONG.

This PEG (and this part of the document) is not ready yet... 

OTOH, is that obvious that the "RIGHT" results are (almost) similar
to Chord's results which are listed in the PEG already, e.g., 
"Result: 20% of lookups fail, when 20% of peers are failed" ?

Hm...so I should *emphasize* (i.e., repeat) that we expect similar
results as Chord has gained in the paper, or...?


> > Simulation Process: 
> > - 9*10^k normal peers, 1*10^k "dumb" peers, where k = 1..3
> > - n*10^k normal peers, d*10^k "dumb" peers, where k = 1..3, n = 1..9
> >   and d = 1..9
> 
> What?

Yes, indistinctly expressed. I already tried to make this better.


> > - Perform 2500 queries randomly with *normal* peers (random peer selection  
> >   and random query selection)
> 
> Why 2500?


Uh, I forgot to update this to 100*N (which I talked about yesterday).
Will do it.



-Hermanni