## 5 Experiments
### Experiment 4: Static Splitting Factors with Stopping Criteria
#### 5.4.3 Connections Saved Criterion
In detail, as observed from Figure 12 and Table 15, in terms of time requirements, for small-sized connection pools of 1K to 4K, the best performing splitting factors are 4, 8, and 10, requiring from approximately 0.6 to 2 min to save 80% of the benign connections. In terms of nodes spawned, in the same spectrum of connections, the best-performing splitting factors are 2 and 6, necessitating from 32 to 125 nodes. Moreover,  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Num. of connections**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 2**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 4**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 6**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 8**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 10**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 12**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 14**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 16**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 18**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 20**} \\ \hline
1000 & 1.29 & 1.14 & 0.92 & 1.45 & 0.61 & 0.77 & 0.86 & 0.94 & 1.03 & 1.28 \\
2000 & 2.12 & 1.37 & 1.08 & 1.75 & 2.85 & 4.15 & 5.96 & 1.04 & 1.28 & 1.55 \\
3000 & 2.35 & 1.52 & 3.64 & 1.92 & 3.03 & 4.35 & 6.07 & 8.63 & 1.53 & 1.65 \\
4000 & 3.60 & 3.65 & 3.86 & 2.10 & 3.23 & 4.56 & 6.40 & 9.00 & 12.05 & 15.51 \\
5000 & 3.69 & 3.66 & 3.91 & 2.00 & 3.24 & 4.65 & 6.62 & 8.95 & 11.98 & 16.83 \\
6000 & 6.02 & 4.05 & 4.27 & 9.74 & 3.43 & 5.07 & 7.08 & 9.88 & 13.02 & 17.27 \\
7000 & 6.25 & 4.18 & 4.55 & 10.11 & 3.70 & 5.26 & 7.53 & 9.98 & 13.56 & 17.38 \\
8000 & 6.50 & 4.33 & 4.59 & 10.29 & 3.80 & 5.36 & 7.62 & 10.07 & 13.81 & 17.65 \\
9000 & 10.54 & 11.79 & 4.86 & 10.94 & 3.87 &for medium- and large-sized connection pools, namely, from 6K to 10K, the splitting factor of 10 is consistently optimal concerning time demands. Precisely, the simulation takes from roughly 3.4 to 4 min to achieve an 80% of success. For the same connection pools, the splitting factors of 2 and 10 are the most effective in terms of resource utilization. Namely, for 6K to 8K connections, the factor of 2 needs around 240 nodes, while for 9K and 10K connections, the factor of 10 requires exactly 289 nodes. On the other hand, high splitting factors steadily exhibit the worst performance. Indicatively, for connection pools spanning from 5K to 10K, the splitting factor of 20 has the most requirements both in time and nodes, taking \(\approx\)15 to 18 min, and demanding from around 1300 to 1850 nodes to preserve 80% of the benign connections. To examine the efficiency of our scheme compared to previous experiments of Sections 5.2, 5.4.1, and 5.4.2, we once again focus on the best-performing splitting factor and a connection pool size of 10K. Note that in this scenario the best-performing factor is 10 for all the experiments regardless of the criterion applied. In this context, the simulation obtains 80% of benign connections in 3.97 min using 289 nodes. Comparing this to the experiment detailed in Section 5.2, there is an 86.3% increase in time and an 86% increase in node requirements. In the experiment specified in Section 5.4.1, with a 15 min constraint enforced, the simulation requires 73.5% more time and 67% more nodes. Finally, in the experiment given in Section 5.4.2, with a 1000-node criterion established, the simulation requires an 80.8% increase in time and a 71.1% increase in nodes. Recall that the simulation terminates once at least 80% of the 90% benign connections are maintained, indicating that a maximum of 10% of the benign connections are sacrificed. _Takeaways:_ The experiments of this Section systematically evaluated the performance of our splitting scheme under various stopping criteria, including time constraints, resource constraints, and connection saved percentage constraints. Across all experiments, it was observed that low-to-medium splitting factors, generally outperformed high ones, in terms of both success rates, time demands, and resource utilization. However, as a general remark, we observed that as the pollution factor increased, success rates decreased, with even the best-performing splitting factors experiencing limitations.