3 ms·
In the Second to the last figure (fig 5) you can see a behaviour that is extremely weird in my opinion, the latency is almost in O(1) and then hit a wall and go
by siscia 10y ago
In the Second to the last figure (fig 5) you can see a behaviour that is extremely weird in my opinion, the latency is almost in O(1) and then hit a wall and goes up as exponential (I guess).
It this common? What cause this behavior?
- qaq 10y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gas2v1emubU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gas2v1emubU
- mritun 10y agoThat's multicast for you. Once you congestion and/or group size increase beyond a certain value or group size, things go /really/ bad; as in you may need to "shutdown, wait and reboot" your network to recover.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- tssva 10y agoAll of the tested protocols including unreplicated flows follow the same pattern with the proposed multicast protocol most closely following the same pattern of behavior as the unreplicated data; therefore some intrinsic property of multicast is not responsible.
- considrdharmful 10y agoYes, this is common. That's a throughput-latency graph. What isn't being plotted in that graph is that there's actually an underlying controlled variable which both throughput and latency are responding to---the number of clients/outstanding requests at any given time. The reason you're seeing a "wall" is that the system has some peak throughput, and once you reach full saturation, the average latency for requests is going to go up to infinity. (So, it's actually not exponential growth, it's approaching an asymptote.)