<html>
At 11:28 AM 04/03/2003 -0500, Yair Amir wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>It's not likely to be a
"bug" in Spread because the same configuration<br>
works for them with the layered architecture of Secure Spread,
which<br>
has a regular Spread 3.17.0 underneath. In theory there should be
no<br>
difference when running only Spread without Secure Spread. In<br>
practice, native Spread sends these join messages much faster than<br>
Secure Spread (that needs to compute the keys). Sending these
messages<br>
at that speed creates a upd loss. It is a pure flow control problem
but<br>
in my opinion, it might not be a Spread flow control problem. Last time I
checked<br>
it we traced it to a very high loss rate on all links coming to one
cite<br>
which participated in all the experiments at the time.</blockquote><br>
Yair, <br><br>
This is in response to your above statement:<br>
" Last time I checked it we traced it to a very high
loss rate on all links coming to one cite which participated in all the
experiments at the time."<br><br>
Some of the more recent information provided for the partition
issue, as seen within and discussed within the SecureSpread
Experiment, <br>
is that we are now seeing the partition on links and sites
<b>other</b> than the noisy link /site you refer to.
<br><br>
We can completely bypass the site you refer to [the TIC] and
the noisy links into that site, and the partition occurs.<br><br>
It does not occur all of the time, which is probably why it was not
seen earlier, especially on the day we were at the TIC, but it does
happen., <br><br>
This new info is that the partitioning issue has also been seen on
the Experiment links between the Cambridge site and the New York
[AFRL] site.<br>
This link was one of the links that we checked using your send and
receive utility, on the day we [you, Aswin and myself] were all at the
TIC.<br>
On that day, as I recall, you thought the loss on the
Cambridge-AFRL link was acceptable. <br>
The send and receive utility still shows roughly the same loss rate of 5
- 7 % on this Cambridge - AFRL link.<br>
[the links into the tic were reporting a 30% loss]<br><br>
In addition, On the Cambridge-AFRL link, there seems to be some
correlation of the partition occurrence to the time of day and presumably
the network load,. When the network has [presumably] a
lighter load - say at 5AM - the partitioning will happen more
often. If the same type Run is executed at 3PM, the
partitioning will occur less often.<br><br>
This new info is why we raised this question again.
This new information seemed to conflict with the previous
determination.<br>
I'm not sure I'm making myself clear without having a white board to draw
on. If this new information and how it seems to conflict with
the previous determination <br>
is not clear, please let me know and I'll try again.<br>
We are still able to conduct our Experiment Runs, but were hoping
that you or someone on the mailing list could shed more insight<br>
with respect to this new information.<br><br>
thank you<br><br>
Sara<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Aswin's e-mail suggests they get
this now with other sites as well.<br><br>
Cheers,<br><br>
:) Yair.<br><br>
<br>
On Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:09 AM<br>
Ben Laurie ben@algroup.co.uk wrote:<br><br>
Ben> I'm curious to know why you don't think this is a bug in
Spread?<br><br>
Ben> Cheers,<br><br>
Ben> Ben.<br><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Spread-users mailing list<br>
Spread-users@lists.spread.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.spread.org/mailman/listinfo/spread-users" eudora="autourl">http://lists.spread.org/mailman/listinfo/spread-users</a>
</blockquote></html>