Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Mon Nov 24 19:57:55 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 mAP3vtuA006383 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:57:55 -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 mAP3uQCZ032185 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:56:26 -0800 Message-Id: <200811250356.mAP3uQCZ032185@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: CS551_proj2 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:56:26 -0800 From: Bill Cheng Someone wrote: > In the test case for three beacon nodes after we do a store of > blondie and we attempt to get blondie from one of our neighbors; > because the third node is idle and has not received keepalive > from the 2 busy nodes, it sends a notify to them while transfer > is still ongoing and disconnects from the network. How should we > handle this behavior. I use same mutex for all sends so I don't > send anything while transfer is in progress. Are you saying that the node is taking too long to transfer the file? You should find out why it's taking so long. >From nunki to nunki is basically zero hop, so it should be fast! May be your node is sleeping when it should not?! -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu