Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu
Delivery-Date: Wed Sep 24 12:05:17 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 m8OJ5HSb001829
	for <cs551@merlot.usc.edu>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:05:17 -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 m8OJ8CUU000577
	for <cs551@merlot>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:08:12 -0700
Message-Id: <200809241908.m8OJ8CUU000577@bourbon.usc.edu>
To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu
Subject: Re: No of Customers
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:08:12 -0700
From: Bill Cheng <william@bourbon.usc.edu>

Someone wrote:

  > In the spec it says the mu ,lambda, n ,etc arguments should be ignored
  > if -t is specified. So shouldnt we just use the number of customers
  > specified in the tracefile.

You are absolutely correct.  Please ignore my previoius e-mail!
--
Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu <URL:http://merlot.usc.edu/william/usc/>




  On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Bill Cheng <william@bourbon.usc.edu> wrote:
  > Someone wrote:
  >
  >  > Should no of Customers from trace file be ignored if -n xyz
  >  > is present in cmd line ?
  >
  > Hmm... The spec isn't clear about this.  If both -n and -t are
  > specified, it's probably reasonable to use the minimum of what's
  > specified in -n and what's in the trace file.
  > --
  > Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu <URL:http://merlot.usc.edu/william/usc/>