Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Sat Apr 21 20:21:21 2007 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on merlot.usc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00, NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=ham version=3.1.3 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (bourbon.usc.edu [128.125.9.75]) by merlot.usc.edu (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l3M3LL6T014035 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:21:21 -0700 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bourbon.usc.edu (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l3M3L9vO002541 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:21:09 -0700 Message-Id: <200704220321.l3M3L9vO002541@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: Question on test guideline Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:21:09 -0700 From: william@bourbon.usc.edu Someone wrote: > In (A)(2)(a), CacheProb should be equal to 0 but seems in the files > b4-n00.ini, b4-n01.ini , b4-n02.ini, the CacheProb=1. Are these correct? Since these are fully connected beacon nodes, CacheProb shouldn't matter because everything should be one-hop away. But I guess it's possible that if you do things a certain way, you may end up sending data in two hops. Anyway, you are correct that they are inconsistent. I've changed the b4-n??.ini files. Thanks for catching these. -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu