Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Mon Oct 27 08:40:04 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 m9RFe4Xk021434 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:40:04 -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 m9RFovWX005447 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:50:57 -0700 Message-Id: <200810271550.m9RFovWX005447@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: Status Msg Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:50:57 -0700 From: Bill Cheng Someone wrote: > Case B - 1 - a) in this  > start both nodes - beacon and non beacon > 2) call status for both > 3) shutdown beacon first > 4) more 04.out > >  Should the status file 04.out for nonbeacon be created??? Yes. Any neighbor information about itself and the status response messages it receives, it should report them in the output file. It doesn't matter if some nodes have gone down in the middle of this command. > more > general question - should we create status file on the fly or > wait to get all status reponses and create the file after the > timeout??? Either way. You need to make sure that if is pressed, you still generate the output file. Please note that you should *always* generate the output file. In the worst case, this node has no neighbors, so the nam file should contain just one node and no edges! -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu