Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Wed Sep 24 21:32:57 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 m8P4WvFU007382 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:32:57 -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 m8P4ZvdS008963 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:35:57 -0700 Message-Id: <200809250435.m8P4ZvdS008963@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: CS 551 proj Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:35:57 -0700 From: Bill Cheng Someone wrote: > According to the specs we are supposed to run the simulation only upto the > number of customers entered at the command line or the default value so the > moment we finish serving all the customers we should exit the arrival thread > and proceed to display the statistics. > > so do we still need to worry about arrival thread sleeping after serving all > the customers. My understanding of the previous e-mail is that the arrival thread was "sleeping for a time equal to inter-arrival time". So, there were more customers arriving and it's not the end of simulation yet. If all the customers has arrived, the arrival thread should terminate itself. -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Bill Cheng wrote: > Someone wrote: > > > I just wanted to a question regarding the end of simulation time. Say now 2 > > customers have arrived into the system and both have been served and both > > have left the system. The arrival thread is then sleeping for a time equal > > to inter-arrival time. Now, when the arrival thread is sleeping if the user > > presses Control C, then what is the end of simulation time? Is it the time > > when Control C is pressed or when customer 2 left the system because nothing > > of any note is done after customer 2 leaves the system. Thanks. > > I don't think this is defined in the spec. So, either way > would be fine. You should probably document this in your > README file. > -- > Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu