Senthil,
-> Just go through *http://www.cs.bu.edu/fac/matta/Papers/jsac95.ps*.
-> They do for two TOS classes: delay and throughput in a non-FCFS
-> scheduling environment. you are suggesting for n- classes.
-> The paper concludes based on simulations and analytical results
-> using liapunov functions that there is some reduction in end-to-end
^^^^
-> delay.
-> So for just coming to one conclusion, the authors have done lot
-> of simulation and analytical work. But it is unfortunate that you
-> are making sweeping conclusions without a valid proof.
You misunderstood me. I am not concluding anything.
I am giving my own view in a different perspective and
letting you know how we can co-relate recent events.
Let me go through the above paper - I will get back to you.
-> I will reply detaily later today.But before that clarify
-> these points,
-> - you all accept that diffrout is not going to solve any problem.
^^^
Let us see :) You are contradicting your-self. Just in the above
para you said "SOME reduction in end-to-end performance" and
again said "diffrout is not going to solve ANY problem".
If that SOME reduction is tolerable then, I think, we solved
SOME problem. Thus I can prove that that statement
"diffrout is not going to solve ANY problem" is incorrect.
-- Venkata
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT