Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Sun May 6 15:52:10 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 l46MqA1o018564 for ; Sun, 6 May 2007 15:52:10 -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 l46Mp4oi023549 for ; Sun, 6 May 2007 15:51:04 -0700 Message-Id: <200705062251.l46Mp4oi023549@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: About Bistro Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 15:51:04 -0700 From: william@bourbon.usc.edu Someone wrote: > Is the "commit" phase (client-push) transparent to client? I'm not sure what you meant by "transparent". The client has to push the data to a bistro server (any bistro server) on the Internet. > What happens if a Bistro server is overloaded with "push". > I guess there will be a delay in upload of actual data (could > be very large for each client). If yes, how to determine > the length of the delay? Once the first phase is completed, the time it takes for the 2nd (commit) phase does not matter as far as the correctness of the protocol is concerned. If the 2nd phase takes too long, the user might be upset that it's taking too long. The user can turn off his/her machine and restart the 2nd phase at any time (even after the deadline). So, the data transfer is, in a sense, independent of the deadline. > Also, is it required that Bistro-like system be installed > on intermediary systems. Can they be installed on > destination server if scalability is OK? Sure! For our homework/project submission, the data is uploaded to the destination bistro directly during the 2nd phase. -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu