Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Fri Sep 12 08:28:20 2008 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on merlot.usc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (bourbon.usc.edu [128.125.9.75]) by merlot.usc.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m8CFSKQd021075 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:28:20 -0700 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bourbon.usc.edu (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m8CFSIXD000577 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:28:18 -0700 Received: (from william@localhost) by bourbon.usc.edu (8.14.2/8.14.1/Submit) id m8CFSI00000576 for cs551@merlot; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:28:18 -0700 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:28:18 -0700 From: Bill Cheng Message-Id: <200809121528.m8CFSI00000576@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: server busy-wait... Hi, I noticed last night when I logged into nunki that nunki was pretty slow. I ran "top" and I saw that some of the top spots are taken by the "server" program! I assume that these are from our class. I've mentioned in class that your server *never* to busy-wait and you must learn how to do it! Originally, in the grading guidesline, there was a rule about using non-blocking sockets or non-blocking I/O. I've just changed it to say: Using busy-wait (with non-blocking sockets or non-blocking I/O) : -30 points There is also a bunch of explanation after it. Please take a look and make sure that your *server* is not doing busy-wait. I have also updated the tests for malicious clients to say that the server should be able to handle regular clients after the malicious client. (I already mentioned before that I was going to do this, but I haven't put it in the grading guidelines until now.) -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu