Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu
Delivery-Date: Fri Oct 31 08:20:48 2008
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on merlot.usc.edu
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 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 m9VFKmb2018091
	for <cs551@merlot.usc.edu>; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:20:48 -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 m9VFWd01028196
	for <cs551@merlot>; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:32:39 -0700
Message-Id: <200810311532.m9VFWd01028196@bourbon.usc.edu>
To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu
Subject: Re: timeout
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:32:39 -0700
From: Bill Cheng <william@bourbon.usc.edu>

Someone wrote:

  > I have a quick question when I write timer thread.
  > 
  > Could you tell me which understanding between the following is
  > correct? Let's take the join timeout for example.
  > 
  > 1->Before Join timeout, the program just block there to receive
  > any amount of join_response message. After timeout, the node
  > select the nearest nodes to add to neighbor list. Then it send
  > hello message, and do the following thing.(Ctrl-C could interrupt
  > timeout)
  > 
  > 
  > 2->If before the join timeout, the node has received
  > enough(InitNeighbors) join response. Then it goes to the
  > following steps. In this case, the timeout is used to test when
  > timeout occurs, there are not enough nodes response the join
  > request.
  > 
  > 1 or 2 is correct?

(1) is more correct than (2).  You should wait for the join
timeout to expire.  (You should also do a soft restart
before you start making connections and saying hellos to
your new neighbors.)
--
Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu <URL:http://merlot.usc.edu/william/usc/>