X-Git-Url: http://p2p-next.cs.pub.ro/gitweb/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=doc%2Fsrc%2Fresults.tex;h=a4ca2e8037635d44e1719d273ef7b10c7d8e8f9f;hb=HEAD;hp=f2a328e378c59bad4cae80ea6fafe798a8ace454;hpb=ff860ca1651625fa3c6eee06796e7b341a4d66fa;p=p2p-kernel-protocol.git

diff --git a/doc/src/results.tex b/doc/src/results.tex
index f2a328e..a4ca2e8 100644
--- a/doc/src/results.tex
+++ b/doc/src/results.tex
@@ -1,23 +1,81 @@
 \section{Results}
 \label{sec:results}
-The results of the tests performed.
+
+Our goal is to stress our implementation in order to determine if it is
+viable in terms of performance. In order to achieve this, we have compared our
+results with the \texttt{sendfile} system call. As already stated in Section
+\ref{sec:intro}, this function uses a zero-copy mechanism to avoid passing
+information from kernel space and back.
 
 \begin{table}
 	\begin{center}
-	\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | c |}
+	\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | c | c |}
 		\hline
-		Sent(MB) & Time(s) & Two peers & Tree peers & Six peers \\
+		Sent(MB) & \multicolumn{5}{|c|} {Time}  \\
+		\cline{2-6}
+		& one peer & two peers & tree peers & six peers & eight peers\\
 		\hline
-		32 & 4 & 10 & 18 & 49 \\
+		32 & 4 & 10 & 18 & 49 & 61 \\
 		\hline
-		64 & 10 & 20 & 35 & 80 \\
+		64 & 10 & 20 & 35 & 80 & 115 \\
 		\hline
-		128 & 20 & 42 & 58 & 226 \\
+		128 & 20 & 42 & 58 & 226 & 347\\
 		\hline
-		256 & 41 & 75 & 129 & 385 \\
+		256 & 41 & 75 & 129 & 385 & 534 \\
 		\hline
 	\end{tabular}
 	\end{center}
 	\caption{Sendfile Results}
-	\label{sendfile_results}
+	\label{sendfile-results}
+\end{table}
+
+Section \ref{sec:testing} largely details the test scenarios we have
+performed. Particularly, this is the test where we varied the number of peers
+from 1 to 8. The results gathered are displayed in Table \ref{sendfile-results}.
+We can easily observe that the time needed to send files of different size grows
+almost linearly, with a factor lower than 1. This was expected because for each
+peer, we execute at least one more \texttt{sendfile} system call.
+
+For the second test, we used our peer-to-peer kernel protocol for sending
+files on with sizes growing from 32MB up to 256MB. The number of peers used in
+this test was varied from 1 to 8. The results presented in Table,
+\ref{p2pkp-results}, show an almost linear growth of the time needed to send the
+files from sender to peers, but with a smaller factor than the one achieved in
+case of the \texttt{sendfile} system call. For small number of peers, one, two
+or three, \texttt{senfile} has a higher performance rate, but for a greater
+number of peers our implementation has better results.
+
+\begin{table}
+	\begin{center}
+	\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | c | c |}
+		\hline
+		Sent(MB) & \multicolumn{5}{|c|} {Time}  \\
+		\cline{2-6}
+		& one peer & two peers & tree peers & six peers & eight peers\\
+		\hline
+		32 & 13 & 29 & 35 & 45 & 53 \\
+		\hline
+		64 & 34 & 53 & 67 & 103 &  125 \\
+		\hline
+		128 & 66 & 118 & 142 & 167 &  197 \\
+		\hline
+		256 & 121 & 223 & 277 & 378 & 446 \\
+		\hline
+	\end{tabular}
+	\end{center}
+	\caption{P2PKP Results}
+	\label{p2pkp-results}
 \end{table}
+
+We have also compiled a graphic, shown in Figure \ref{fig:comp}, that better
+exposes the differences between \texttt{sendfile} and the P2PKP kernel module.
+As we can see, while the number of peers increase, our implementation
+overcomes the performance of \texttt{sendfile}.
+
+\begin{figure}[h!]
+        \centering
+        \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{img/comparison.png}
+		\caption{\texttt{sendfile} vs P2PKP}
+        \label{fig:comp}
+\end{figure}
+