In general, synchronous communication means you have to wait for the answer all the time. The programming logic is simpler, but the cost that you spend a lot of time waiting.
If the options are:
<span>a. The people communicating don't need to be online at the same time.
b. There is lag time in the communication.
c. The communication occurs in real time.
a is false, you do need to be online to receive the message
b is true, typically you continue only after an acknowledgement
c is true, you wait for acknowledgement that occurs in real time (not necessarily fast though)</span>
Answer:
Below
Explanation:
I believe that it's a bit of a case by case scenario. However, personal biases will inevitably show throughout any sort of writing or other presenting within media. That's why you should always be careful about what you read and believe is true
Some of the disadvantages of using layered protocols are the redundancy and overall lower performance.
Reimplementing everything from remote and wired to connectionless and association situated application correspondence, with each ringer and shriek of BGP, MPLS, multicast steering and so on would be a gigantic endeavor and potentially unmanageable in this solid across the board convention. I could envision specialty utilize situations where most extreme execution is imperative most importantly where an exceptionally basic framework might be wanted.
Answer:
r = 1
Explanation:
Average processing time ( p ) = 3 minutes
Average inter-arrival time ( a ) = 3 minutes
number of servers ( m ) = 3
<u>Determine the value of r </u>
r ( offered load ) = p/a
= 3 / 3 = 1
∴ value of r ( offered load ) = 1
