Robert van Renesse. Masking the overhead of protocol layering. In Proceedings of the 1996.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....of nodes varied between 10 to 1900. The sequence number size was assumed to be 4 bytes, and thus the size of the array of stability information carried by stability, ack, and info messages is 200 bytes. Also, the message header size was set to 32 bytes, large enough for most transport protocols [3, 23]. The tree degree in S Coord was set to log(n) i.e. each node has log(n) children. Node 0 was chosen as the coordinator of Coord, and as the root of the tree in S Coord. In CubeFullDist, the logical hypercube was built according to node id s binary representation. Since the network was ....

R. van Renesse. Masking the Overhead of Protocol Layering. In Proc. ACM SIGCOMM'96, pages 96--104, August 1996.

....of senders is fixed at 50. The sequence number size is assumed to be 4 bytes, and thus the size of the array of stability information carried by stability, ack, and info messages is at most 200 bytes. Also, the message header size is set to 32 bytes, large enough for most transport protocols [2, 34]. The tree degree in S Coord is set to log(n) that is, each node has log(n) children. Node 0 is chosen as the coordinator of Coord, and as the root of the tree in S Coord. In CubeFullDist, the logical hypercube is built according to node id s binary representation. Since the network is generated ....

R. van Renesse. Masking the Overhead of Protocol Layering. In Proc. ACM SIGCOMM '96, pages 96--104, August 1996.

.... system layer on top of a software storage layer a storage protocol stack, akin to networking protocol stacks that are prominent in communication networks [8] There are some similarities between the two: layering is known to simplify system design, though potentially at the cost of performance [47]. However, a crucial difference exists: the layers that comprise network protocol stacks are derived by design, with the architects carefully deciding where each specific element should be placed. The storage protocol stack, however, has not been developed in a single, coherent manner; the end ....

R. van Renesse. Masking the Overhead of Protocol Layering. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM '96 Conference, pages 96--104, Palo Alto, CA, 1996.

....about 10 higher than the sending time since interrupts need to be handled [1] It is set to t r (u) 1:1 Theta t s (u) The queuing delays incurred at the hosts and routers are also simulated by ns. The message header size is set to h = 32 bytes which is enough for most transport protocols [1] [22]. A. Performance indices The most important goal for a message stability detection protocol is to minimize the time to stabilize a message, reducing the buffer space required for data messages at each member to a minimum. To measure time requirement, we define Time Per Round (TPR) as the ....

R. van Renesse. Masking the overhead of protocol layering. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM'96, pages 96--104, August 1996.

....The interface between protocol components in these systems is richer than in systems such as the x kernel to accommodate information transfer such as membership changes. These project have also worked on performance improvements by bypassing certain protocol components during normal operation [34]. The Cactus model provides a more flexible framework for constructing configurable transport protocols than any of the hierarchical models. Cactus does not force a linear order between modules when the modules are logically on the same level or even completely independent. For example, ....

R. van Renesse, "Masking the overhead of protocol layering," in Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM '96, Aug 1996, pp. 96--104.

....frameworks predefine a fixed set of events whose semantics is well known. For e#ciency reasons, Horus and Ensemble define particular exceptions to the strictly vertical model. For particular sets of events and stack configurations, Horus allows some layers to be bypassed using the fast protocol [7]. On the other hand, in Coyote [1] micro protocols are able to register the events they are interested in. This allows composing protocols in a manner that is not strictly vertical and also prevents layers from processing unnecessary events. All these frameworks allow the application to define ....

R. van Renesse. Masking the overhead of protocol layering. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications, pages 96--104, Palo Alto, CA USA, August 28--30 1996.

....and resource management services within the communication subsystem. Communication subsystem design and performance optimization: Several recent efforts have focused on optimizing the performance of the data transfer path in TCP IP protocol stacks, via improvement of protocol processing latency [57 59], and user level handling of network data [14 16, 60, 61] to increase throughput via data copy minimization. Several researchers have studied the issues affecting the design and performance of network adapters [8, 16, 62] and communication subsystems in general [24, 63] All of these efforts are ....

R. van Renesse, "Masking the overhead of protocol layering," in Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM, pp. 96--104, October 1996.

....Both frameworks prede ne a xed set of events whose semantics is well known. For eciency reasons, Horus and Ensemble de ne particular exceptions to the strictly vertical model. For particular sets of events and stack con gurations, Horus allows some layers to be bypassed using the fast protocol [7]. On the other hand, in Coyote [1] micro protocols are able to register the events they are interested in. This allows composing protocols in a manner that is not strictly vertical and also prevents layers from processing unnecessary events. All these frameworks allow the application to de ne and ....

R. van Renesse. Masking the overhead of protocol layering. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications, pages 96-104, Palo Alto, CA USA, August 28-30 1996.

No context found.

Robert van Renesse. Masking the overhead of protocol layering. In Proceedings of the 1996.

No context found.

R. van Renesse. Masking the Overhead of Protocol Layering. In Proceedings of SIGCOMM '96, pages 96--104, Stanford, California, August 1996.

No context found.

R. Van Renesse. Masking the overhead of protocol layering. In Proceedings of the 1996.

No context found.

R. van Renesse. "Masking the overhead of protocol layering." In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Symposium on Communications Architectures & Protocols, 1996.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC