Faculty of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences 
Not logged in (login)


This forum is provided to promote discussion amongst students enrolled in Computer Networks (CITS3002).
Before posting a question here, you may like to read the article How To Ask Questions The Smart Way.
RSS cloud
Jump to:

How to interpret the Lab3 Q2 Graph

1 of 695 articles shown, currently no other people reading this forum.
From: Christopher M.
Date: Wed 8th Apr, 6:40am

> I have been experimenting with altering the frame loss and corruption rates of stopandwait and piggyback, and have found stopandwait always sends at a higher rate. As I understand it, this because stopandwait is sending acknowledgement frames without data. 
> So, does this mean the 2 line graph is not demonstrating the efficiency of the protocols in terms of rates of data sent?

Have a peek at the sample solution which, I believe, explains this:

"Remember why we are considering piggybacking - to reduce the number of frames crossing the Physical Layer and,
 thus, to reduce the number of hardware interrupts managed by each node's operating system.
 Because the piggyback protocol introduces an artificial delay, waiting for an outgoing data-frame to carry each
 acknowledgment, the rate of progress of the protocol is necessarily slower and will transmit fewer Application Layer messages."

Make sense?

Related articles

How to interpret the Lab3 Q2 Graph (both) RSS
├─ original   Tue 7th Apr, 1:16pm, ANONYMOUS
└─ THIS   Wed 8th Apr, 6:40am, Christopher M.
This Page

Program written by: [email protected]
Feedback welcome
Last modified:  8:27am May 24 2020