Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Sat Nov 8 14:22:34 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 mA8MMY92008917 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 14:22:34 -0800 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bourbon.usc.edu (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id mA8MH2b5014976 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 14:17:02 -0800 Message-Id: <200811082217.mA8MH2b5014976@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: cs551 large file transfer Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 14:17:02 -0800 From: Bill Cheng Someone wrote: > Consider the scenario in which a node X is connected to the servant network > through only one node Y > > like X--->Y--->(rest of the SERVANT) > > Now suppose a huge file transfer is taking place between X & Y, will X > receive other requests or responses from the network? Since we modelled it > as one connection per neighbor and this socket is currently busy, how can we > deliver those messages correctly without interfering the active file > transfer? X will *not* receive other messages from Y during the large file transfer due to TCP's stream abstraction! > Will node X remain unseen to the rest of the network? If there is another node behind X, X can still forward messages to the network. Therefore, you should make sure X can send to Y and receive from Y concurrently (with some amount of interleaving). -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu