An Introduction To Peer-to-Peer Networks: Presentation For CSE620:Advanced Networking Anh Le Nov. 4

An Introduction to
Peer-to-Peer networks
Presentation for
CSE620:Advanced networking
Anh Le
Nov. 4

Anh Le + Tuong Nguyen 2
Oct. 4
Outline
Overview of P2P
Classification of P2P
Unstructured P2P systems
Napster (Centralized)
Gnutella (Distributed)
Kazaa/Fasttrack (Super-node)
Structured P2P systems (DHTs):
Chord
YAPPERS (hybrid)
Conclusions
Oct. 4
What is P2P systems?
Clay Shirkey:
P2P refers to applications that take advantage of resources
(storage, cycles, content, human presence) available at the
edges of the internet
The litmus test:
Does it allow for variable connectivity and temporary network
addresses?
Does it give the nodes at the edges of the network significant
autonomy?
P2P Working Group (A Standardization Effort):
P2P computing is:
The sharing of computer resources and services by direct
exchange between systems.
Peer-to-peer computing takes advantage of existing computing
power and networking connectivity, allowing economical clients
to leverage their collective power to benefit the entire enterprise.
Oct. 4
What is P2P systems?
Multiple sites (at edge)
Distributed resources
Sites are autonomous (different owners)
Sites are both clients and servers
(servent)
Sites have equal functionality
Oct. 4
P2P benefits
Efficient use of resources
Scalability:
Consumers of resources also donate resources
Aggregate resources grow naturally with utilization
Reliability
Replicas
Geographic distribution
No single point of failure
Ease of administration
Nodes self organize
No need to deploy servers to satisfy demand
Built-in fault tolerance, replication, and load balancing

Oct. 4
Napster
was used primarily for file sharing
NOT a pure P2P network=> hybrid system
Ways of action:
Client sends server the query, server ask everyone
and responds to client
Client gets list of clients from server
All Clients send IDs of the data they hold to the
server and when client asks for data, server responds
with specific addresses
peer downloads directly from other peer(s)
Oct. 4
Napster
Further services:
Chat program, instant messaging service, tracking
program,
Centralized system
Single point of failure => limited fault tolerance
Limited scalability (server farms with load balancing)
Query is fast and upper bound for duration can
be given
Oct. 4
Napster

central DB
6
5
1 2
4
3
1. Query
2. Response
3. Download
Request
4. File
Peer
Oct. 4
Gnutella
pure peer-to-peer
very simple protocol
no routing "intelligence"
Constrained broadcast
Life-time of packets limited by TTL (typically
set to 7)
Packets have unique ids to detect loops

Oct. 4
Gnutella - PING/PONG

1
5
2
4
3
6
7
8
Ping 1
Ping 1
Ping 1
Ping 1
Ping 1
Ping 1
Ping 1
Known Hosts:
2
3,4,5
6,7,8
Pong 2
Pong 4
Pong 3
Pong 5 Pong 3,4,5
Pong 6,7,8
Pong 6
Pong 7
Pong 8
Pong 6,7,8
Query/Response
analogous
Oct. 4
Free riding
File sharing networks rely on users sharing data
Two types of free riding
Downloading but not sharing any data
Not sharing any interesting data
On Gnutella
15% of users contribute 94% of content
63% of users never responded to a query
Didnt have interesting data

Oct. 4
Gnutella:summary
Hit rates are high
High fault tolerance
Adopts well and dynamically to changing peer
populations
High network traffic
No estimates on duration of queries
No probability for successful queries
Topology is unknown => algorithm cannot exploit it
Free riding is a problem
A significant portion of Gnutella peers are free riders
Free riders are distributed evenly across domains
Often hosts share files nobody is interested in
Oct. 4
Gnutella discussion
Search types:
Any possible string comparison
Scalability
Search very poor with respect to number of messages
Probably search time O(logn) due to small world property
Updates excellent: nothing to do
Routing information: low cost
Robustness
High, since many paths are explored
Autonomy:
Storage: no restriction, peers store the keys of their files
Routing: peers are target of all kind of requests
Global knowledge
None required
Oct. 4
iMesh, Kazaa
Hybrid of centralized Napster and
decentralized Gnutella
Super-peers act as local search
hubs
Each super-peer is similar to a
Napster server for a small portion of
the network
Super-peers are automatically
chosen by the system based on
their capacities (storage,
bandwidth, etc.) and availability
(connection time)
Users upload their list of files to a
super-peer
Super-peers periodically exchange
file lists
Queries are sent to a super-peer for
files of interest
Oct. 4
Structured Overlay Networks / DHTs

Keys of Values

Keys of Values

Keys of Nodes

Set of Nodes

Chord, Pastry, Tapestry, CAN,
Kademlia, P-Grid, Viceroy
Node Identifier
Value Identifier
Common Identifier
Space

Connect
The nodes
Smartly
Oct. 4
The Principle Of Distributed Hash Tables

A dynamic distribution of a hash table onto a set of cooperating
nodes
Key Value
1 Algorithms
9 Routing
11 DS
12 Peer-to-Peer
21 Networks
22 Grids
Basic service: lookup operation
Key resolution from any node
Each node has a routing table
Pointers to some other nodes
Typically, a constant or a logarithmic number of pointers
node A
node D
node B
node C
Node D : lookup(9)
Oct. 4
DHT Desirable Properties
Keys mapped evenly to all nodes in the network
Each node maintains information about only a
few other nodes
Messages can be routed to a node efficiently
Node arrival/departures only affect a few nodes
Oct. 4
Chord [MIT]
consistent hashing (SHA-1) assigns each
node and object an m-bit ID
IDs are ordered in an ID circle ranging from
0 (2
m
-1).
New nodes assume slots in ID circle
according to their ID
Key k is assigned to first node whose ID k
successor(k)
Oct. 4
Consistent Hashing - Successor Nodes
6
1
2
6
0
4
2 6
5
1
3
7
2
identifier
circle
identifier
node
X
key
successor(1) = 1
successor(2) = 3 successor(6) = 0
Oct. 4
Consistent Hashing Join and
Departure
When a node n joins the network, certain
keys previously assigned to ns successor
now become assigned to n.
When node n leaves the network, all of its
assigned keys are reassigned to ns
successor.
Oct. 4
Consistent Hashing Node Join

0
4
2 6
5
1
3
7
keys
1
keys
2
keys
keys
7
5
Oct. 4
Consistent Hashing Node Dep.

0
4
2 6
5
1
3
7
keys
1
keys
2
keys
keys
6
7
Oct. 4
Scalable Key Location Finger Tables
To accelerate lookups, Chord maintains additional
routing information.
This additional information is not essential for
correctness, which is achieved as long as each node
knows its correct successor.
Each node n maintains a routing table with up to m
entries (which is in fact the number of bits in identifiers),
called finger table.
The i
th
entry in the table at node n contains the identity of
the first node s that succeeds n by at least 2
i-1
on the
identifier circle.
s = successor(n+2
i-1
).
s is called the i
th
finger of node n, denoted by n.finger(i)
Oct. 4
Scalable Key Location Finger Tables

0
4
2 6
5
1
3
7
1
2
4
1
3
0
finger table
start succ.
keys
1
2
3
5
3
3
0
finger table
start succ.
keys
2
4
5
7
0
0
0
finger table
start succ.
keys
6

0+2
0
0+2
1
0+2
2
For.

1+2
0
1+2
1
1+2
2
For.

3+2
0
3+2
1
3+2
2
For.

Oct. 4
Chord key location
Lookup in finger
table the furthest
node that
precedes key
-> O(log n) hops
Oct. 4
Node Joins and Stabilizations
The most important thing is the successor
pointer.
If the successor pointer is ensured to be
up to date, which is sufficient to guarantee
correctness of lookups, then finger table
can always be verified.
Each node runs a stabilization protocol
periodically in the background to update
successor pointer and finger table.
Oct. 4
Node Joins and Stabilizations
Stabilization protocol contains 6 functions:
create()
join()
stabilize()
notify()
fix_fingers()
check_predecessor()
When node n first starts, it calls n.join(n), where
n is any known Chord node.
The join() function asks n to find the immediate
successor of n.
Oct. 4
Node Joins stabilize()
Each time node n runs stabilize(), it asks its
successor for the its predecessor p, and
decides whether p should be ns successor
instead.
stabilize() notifies node ns successor of ns
existence, giving the successor the chance to
change its predecessor to n.
The successor does this only if it knows of no
closer predecessor than n.
Oct. 4
Node Joins Join and Stabilization

n
p
s
u
c
c
(
n
p
)

=

n
s

n
s
n

p
r
e
d
(
n
s
)

=

n
p

n joins
predecessor = nil
n acquires n
s
as successor via some
n
n runs stabilize
n notifies n
s
being the new
predecessor
n
s
acquires n as its predecessor
n
p
runs stabilize
n
p
asks n
s
for its predecessor (now n)
n
p
acquires n as its successor
n
p
notifies n
n will acquire n
p
as its predecessor
all predecessor and successor
pointers are now correct
fingers still need to be fixed, but old
fingers will still work
nil
p
r
e
d
(
n
s
)

=

n

s
u
c
c
(
n
p
)

=

n

Oct. 4
Node Failures
Key step in failure recovery is maintaining correct successor
pointers
To help achieve this, each node maintains a successor-list of its r
nearest successors on the ring
If node n notices that its successor has failed, it replaces it with
the first live entry in the list
Successor lists are stabilized as follows:
node n reconciles its list with its successor s by copying ss
successor list, removing its last entry, and prepending s to
it.
If node n notices that its successor has failed, it replaces it
with the first live entry in its successor list and reconciles
its successor list with its new successor.
Oct. 4
Handling failures: redundancy
Each node knows IP addresses of next r
nodes.
Each key is replicated at next r nodes
Oct. 4
Chord simulation result
[Stoica et al. Sigcomm2001]
Oct. 4
The fraction of lookups that fail as a function
of the fraction of nodes that fail.
[Stoica et al. Sigcomm2001]
Chord failure experiment
Oct. 4
Chord discussion
Search types
Only equality, exact keys need to be known
Scalability
Search O(logn)
Update requires search, thus O(logn)
Construction: O(log^2 n) if a new node joins
Robustness
Replication might be used by storing replicas at successor nodes
Autonomy
Storage and routing: none
Global knowledge
Mapping of IP addresses and data keys to key common key
space
Oct. 4
YAPPERS: a P2P lookup service
over arbitrary topology
Motivation:
Gnutella-style Systems
work on arbitrary topology, flood for query
Robust but inefficient
Support for partial query, good for popular resources
DHT-based Systems
Efficient lookup but expensive maintenance
By nature, no support for partial query
Solution: Hybrid System
Operate on arbitrary topology
Provide DHT-like search efficiency
Oct. 4
Design Goals
Impose no constraints on topology
No underlying structure for the overlay network
Optimize for partial lookups for popular keys
Observation: Many users are satisfied with partial
lookup
Contact only nodes that can contribute to the
search results
no blind flooding
Minimize the effect of topology changes
Maintenance overhead is independent of system size
Oct. 4
Basic Idea:
Keyspace is partitioned into a small
number of buckets. Each bucket
corresponds to a color.
Each node is assigned a color.
# of buckets = # of colors
Each node sends the <key, value>
pairs to the node with the same color
as the key within its Immediate
Neighborhood.
IN(N): All nodes within h hops from Node
N.
Oct. 4
Partition Nodes
Given any overlay, first partition nodes into
buckets (colors) based on hash of IP

Oct. 4
Partition Nodes (2)
Around each node, there is at least one
node of each color

May require backup color assignments

X Y
Oct. 4
Register Content
Partition content space into buckets (colors)
and register pointer at nearby nodes.

Z
register red
content locally
register yellow
content at a
yellow node
Nodes around
Z form a small
hash table!
Oct. 4
Searching Content
Start at a nearby colored node, search
other nodes of the same color.

V
U
X Y
Z
W
Oct. 4
Searching Content (2)
A smaller overlay for each color and use
Gnutella-style flood

Fan-out = degree of nodes in the smaller overlay
Oct. 4
More
When node X is inserting <key, value>
Multiple nodes in IN(X) have the same color?
No node in IN(X) has the same color as key k?
Solution:
P1: randomly select one
P2: Backup scheme: Node with next color
Primary color (unique) & Secondary color (zero or
more)
Problems coming with this solution:
No longer consistent and stable
The effect is isolated within the Immediate
neighborhood
Oct. 4
Extended Neighborhood
IN(A): Immediate Neighborhood
F(A): Frontier of Node A
All nodes that are directly connected to IN(A), but not in
IN(A)
EN(A): Extended Neighborhood
The union of IN(v) where v is in F(A)
Actually EN(A) includes all nodes within 2h + 1 hops
Each node needs to maintain these three set of
nodes for query.
Oct. 4
The network state information for node A (h = 2)
Oct. 4
Searching with Extended
Neighborhood
Node A wants to look up a key k of color C(k), it
picks a node B with C(k) in IN(A)
If multiple nodes, randomly pick one
If none, pick the backup node
B, using its EN(B), sends the request to all
nodes which are in color C(k).
The other nodes do the same thing as B.
Duplicate Message problem:
Each node caches the unique query identifier.
Oct. 4
More on Extended
Neighborhood
All <key, value> pairs are stored among
IN(X). (h hops from node X)
Why each node needs to keep an EN(X)?
Advantage:
The forwarding node is chosen based on
local knowledge
Completeness: a query (C(k)) message can
reach all nodes in C(k) without touching any
nodes in other colors (Not including backup
node)
Oct. 4
Maintaining Topology
Edge Deletion: X-Y
Deletion message needs to be propagated to all
nodes that have X and Y in their EN set
Necessary Adjustment:
Change IN, F, EN sets
Move <key, value> pairs if X/Y is in IN(A)
Edge Insertion:
Insertion message needs to include the neighbor info
So other nodes can update their IN and EN sets

Oct. 4
Maintaining Topology
Node Departure:
a node X with w edges is leaving
Just like w edge deletion
Neighbors of X initiates the propagation
Node Arrival: X joins the network
Ask its new neighbors for their current
topology view
Build its own extended neighborhood
Insert w edges.
Oct. 4
Problems with basic design
Fringe node:
Those low connectivity node allocates a
large number of secondary colors to its
high-connectivity neighbors.
Large fan-out:
The forwarding fan-out degree at A is
proportional to the size of F(A)
This is desirable for partial lookup, but not
good for full lookup
Oct. 4
A is overloaded by secondary
colors from B, C, D, E
Oct. 4
Solutions:
Prune Fringe Nodes:
If the degree of a node is too small, find a proxy node.
Biased Backup Node Assignment:
X assigns a secondary color to y only when
a * |IN(x)| > |IN(y)|
Reducing Forward Fan-out:
Basic idea:
try backup node,
try common nodes
Oct. 4
Experiment:
H = 2 (1 too small, >2 EN too large)
Topology: Gnutella snapshot
Exp1: Search Efficiency
Oct. 4
Distribution of colors per node
Oct. 4
Fan-out:
Oct. 4
Num of colors: effect on Search
Oct. 4
Num of colors: effect on Fan-out
Oct. 4
Conclusion and discussion
Each search only disturbs a small fraction of the
nodes in the overlay.
No restructure the overlay
Each node has only local knowledge
scalable

Discussion:
Hybrid (unstructured and local DHT) system

ZIGZAG and CAN
ZIGZAG: An Efficient Peer-to-Peer
Scheme for Media Streaming
CAN: Content-Addressable Network
TUONG NGUYEN
ZIGZAG: An Efficient
Peer-to-Peer Scheme for
Media Streaming
INFOCOM 2003
Oct. 4
Outline for ZIGZAG
Main problem
Sub Problem
Proposed Solution
Structure and protocol
Dynamic Issue ( node join/leave)
Performance Optimization
Performance Evaluation

Oct. 4
Main Problem

Streaming live bandwidth-intensive media from a single
source to a large quantity of receivers on the Internet.

Solution:

An individual connection to stream the content to
each receiver
IP multicast
A new technique P2P-based called ZIGZAG

Oct. 4
Main Idea of ZIGZAG
ZIGZAG distribute media content to many clients by
organizing them into an appropriate tree.
This tree routed at the server and including all and only
the receivers.
The subset of receivers get content directly from source
and others get it from the receivers in the upstream.

What s the problem with this technique??
Oct. 4
Sub-problem
High end-to-end delay: have to go through
intermediate nodes

Behavior of receivers are unpredictable:
dynamic nature of P2P network

Efficient use of network resources: nodes
have different bandwidth..

Oct. 4
Proposed Solution
Administrative organization
Logical relationships among the peers
The multicast tree
Physical relationships among the peers
The control protocol
Peers exchange state information
A client join/departure

Oct. 4
Administrative Design
Cluster divided rules:

Layer 0 contains all peers.

Peers in layer j < H 1 are
partitioned into clusters of sizes
in [k, 3k]. Layer H 1 has only one
cluster which has a size in [2, 3k].

A peer in a cluster at layer j < H is
selected to be the head of that cluster.
This head becomes a member of layer
j + 1 if j < H 1. The server S is the
head of any cluster it belongs to.

Oct. 4
Administrative design (cont.)
H = (log
k
N) where N = # of peers
Any peer at a layer j>0 must be the head of the
cluster it belongs to at every lower layer

Oct. 4
Connectivity Design
Some important terms:

Subordinate: Non-head peers of a cluster headed by a peer X are called
subordinate of X.
Foreign head: A non-head (or server) clustermate of a peer X at layer j > 0 is called a
foreign head of layer-(j-1) subordinates of X.
Foreign subordinate: Layer-(j-1) subordinates of X are called foreign subordinates of
any layer-j clustermate of X.
Foreign cluster: The layer-(j-1) cluster of X is called a foreign cluster any layer-j
clustermate of X.

Oct. 4
Multicast Tree
Rules which the multicast tree must be confined
(1) A peer, when not at its highest layer, cannot have any link to or from any
other peer. (peer 4 at layer 1)
(2) A peer, when at its highest layer, can only link to its foreign subordinates.
The only exception is the server; at the highest layer, the server links to
each of its subordinates (peer 4 in layer 2 )
(3) At layer j<H-1:non-head members of a cluster get the content directly from
a foreign head (peer 1 2 3 )
Oct. 4
Multicast Tree (cont.)
The worst-case node degree of the multicast tree is O(k
2
)

The height of the multicast tree is O(log
k
N) where N = # of peers
Oct. 4
Key idea of protocol

Using foreign head to connect instead of the head
(ZIGZAG).

Main Benefits:

Much better node degree: suppose the highest layer
of a node X is j, X would have links to its subordinates at
each layer, j-1, j-2, ..., 0, that it belongs to. Since j can be
H - 1, the worst-case node degree would be H (3k - 1)
= (log
k
N).
Oct. 4
Control protocol
Each node X in a layer-j cluster periodically communicates with its
layer-j clustermates, its children and parent on the multicast tree
For peers within a cluster, the exchanged information is just the peer
degree
If the recipient is the cluster head, X also sends a list L =
{[X
1
,d
1
],[X
2
,d
2
],..}, where [X
i
,d
i
] represents that X is currently
forwarding the content to d
i
peers in the foreign cluster whose head
is X
i
Oct. 4
Control protocol (cont.)
If the recipient is the parent, X instead sends the following
information:
A Boolean flag Reachable(X): true iff there exists a path from
X to a layer-0 peer (Reachable(7)=false Reachable(4)=true )
A Boolean flag Addable(X): true iff there exists a path from X
to a layer-0 peer whose clusters size is in [k,3k-1]

Although the worst-case control overhead of a node is O(k*log
k
N),
the amortized worst-case overhead is O(k)
Oct. 4
Client Join
If the administrative has one layer, new Client P connects to S
D(Y) denotes the currently end-to-end delay from the server
observed by a peer Y
d(Y,P) is the delay from Y to P measured during the contact
between Y to P measured
1. If X is a leaf
2. Add P to the only cluster of X
3. Make P a new child of the parent of X
4. Else
5. If Addable(X)
6. Select a child Y :
Addable(Y ) and D(Y )+d(Y , P) is min
7. Forward the join request to Y
8. Else
9. Select a child Y :
Reachable(Y ) and D(Y )+d(Y , P) is min
10. Forward the join request to Y

Oct. 4
Client Join (cont.)
The join overhead is O(log
k
N) in terms of
number of nodes to contact

If the number of node in a cluster is larger than 3k
then split
The worst-case split overhead is O(k
2
)
Oct. 4
Client Departure
A peer X who departs
If Xs highest layer is layer 0, no further overhead emerges.
Suppose that Xs highest layer is j>0
For each layer-(j-1) cluster whose non-head members are children
of X, the head Y of the cluster is responsible for finding a new
parent for them.
Y selects Z, a layer-j non-head clustermate, that has the minimum
degree
Oct. 4
Client Departure (cont.)
Furthermore, since X used to be the head of j clusters at layers
0, 1,,j-1
Let X be a random subordinate of X at layer 0
X will replace X as the new head for each of those clusters
Comment: In the
worst case, the
number of peers that
need to reconnect due
to a failure is O(k
2
)
Oct. 4
Client Departure - merge
If a cluster become undersize then we can
use merge procedure.
The merge procedure is called periodically
to reduce overhead
Oct. 4

If a peer X, in its highest-layer cluster j > 0, is busy
serving many children. It might consider switching its
parenthood of some children to another non-head
clustermate which is less busy.

Two main methods:
Degree-based Switch
Capacity-based Switch

Oct. 4
Performance Evaluation
Use the GT-ITM Generator to create a
3240-node transit-stub graph as our
underlying network topology
2000 clients located randomly
K=5
Oct. 4
Join Evaluation
Comment: The join-overhead curve would continue going up slowly as more
clients join until a constant point when it would fall down to a very low value). This
behavior would repeat, making the join algorithm scalable with the client population

Oct. 4
Degree and Control Overhead
Evaluation
Comments:

1.The node degrees in a ZIGZAG
multicast tree are small, but also they
are quite balanced. In the worst case,
a peer has to transmit the content to
22 others, which is tiny to the client
population of 2000 clients.

2.Most peers have to exchange
control states with only 12 others.
Those peers at high layers do not
have a heavy control overhead either;
most of them communicate with
around 30 peers, only 1.5% of the
population

Oct. 4
Failure and Merge Overhead
Evaluation
Comments:

1.Most failures do not affect the
system because they happen to layer-
0 peers (illustrated by a thick line at
the bottom of the graph)

2. For those failures happening to
higher layer peers, the overhead to
recover each of them is small and
mostly less than 20 reconnections (no
more than 2% of client population)

3. The overhead to recover a failure
does not depend on the number of
clients in the system.

4. In the worst case, only 17 peers
need to reconnect, which accounts for
no more than 1.7% of the client
population.

Oct. 4
Conclusions
The key in ZIGZAGs design is the use of a foreign head other than the head of a
cluster to forward the content to the other members of that cluster.

The benefit of creating algorithm with that idea in mind:

1.Short end-to-end delay: ZIGZAG keeps the end-to-end delay small because the
multicast tree height is at most logarithm of the client population and each client
needs to forward the content to at most a constant number of peers.

2.Low control overhead: Since a cluster is bounded in size and the client degree
bounded by a constant, the control overhead at a client is small. On average, the
overhead is a constant regardless of the client population.

3.Efficient join and failure recovery: A join can be accomplished without asking more
than O(logN) existing clients, where N is the client population. Especially, a failure
can be recovered quickly and regionally with a constant number of reconnections and
no affection on the server.

4. Low maintenance overhead: Maintenance procedures (merge, split, and
performance refinement) are invoked periodically with very low overhead.

Content-Addressable Network
(CAN)
Proc. ACM SIGCOMM (San
Diego, CA, August 2001)

Oct. 4
Motivation
Primary scalability issue in peer-to-peer
systems is the indexing scheme used to
locate the peer containing the desired
content
Content-Addressable Network (CAN) is a
scalable indexing mechanism
Also a central issue in large scale storage
management systems
Oct. 4
Basic Design
Basic Idea:
A virtual d-dimensional Coordinate space
Each node owns a Zone in the virtual space
Data is stored as (key, value) pair
Hash(key) --> a point P in the virtual space
(key, value) pair is stored on the node
within whose Zone the point P locates
Oct. 4
An Example of CAN

1
Oct. 4
An Example of CAN (cont)

1 2
Oct. 4

1
2
3
Oct. 4

1
2
3
4
Oct. 4

Oct. 4

I
Oct. 4

node I::insert(K,V)
I
Oct. 4
(1) a = h
x
(K)


x = a
node I::insert(K,V)
I
Oct. 4
(1) a = h
x
(K)
b = h
y
(K)

x = a
y = b
node I::insert(K,V)
I
Oct. 4
(1) a = h
x
(K)
b = h
y
(K)

(2) route(K,V) -> (a,b)

node I::insert(K,V)
I
Oct. 4

(2) route(K,V) -> (a,b)

(3) (a,b) stores (K,V)
(K,V)
node I::insert(K,V)
I (1) a = h
x
(K)
b = h
y
(K)
Oct. 4

(2) route retrieve(K) to (a,b)

(K,V)
(1) a = h
x
(K)
b = h
y
(K)
node J::retrieve(K)
J
Oct. 4
Important Thing.

Important note:

Data stored in CAN is addressable by name
(ie key) not by location (ie IP address.)
Oct. 4
Conclusion about CAN (part 1)
Support basic hash table operations on
key-value pairs (K,V): insert, search,
delete
CAN is composed of individual nodes
Each node stores a chunk (zone) of the
hash table
A subset of the (K,V) pairs in the table
Each node stores state information about
neighbor zones
Oct. 4
Routing in CAN

Oct. 4
Routing in CAN (cont)

(a,b)
(x,y)
Oct. 4
Routing in CAN (cont)
Important note:
A node only maintain state for its immediate neighboring
nodes.
Oct. 4
Node Insertion In CAN (cont)

I
new node
1) discover some node I already in CAN
Oct. 4

2) pick random
point in space
I
(p,q)
new node
Oct. 4

(p,q)
3) I routes to (p,q), discovers node J
I
J
new node
Oct. 4

new
J
4) split Js zone in half new owns one half
Oct. 4
Important note:
Inserting a new node affects only a single
other node and its immediate neighbors
Oct. 4
Review about CAN (part2)

Requests (insert, lookup, or delete) for a key are
routed by intermediate nodes using a greedy
routing algorithm
Requires no centralized control (completely
distributed)
Small per-node state is independent of the
number of nodes in the system (scalable)
Nodes can route around failures (fault-tolerant)

Oct. 4
CAN: node failures
Need to repair the space

recover database (weak point)
soft-state updates
use replication, rebuild database from replicas

repair routing
takeover algorithm
Oct. 4
CAN: takeover algorithm
Simple failures
know your neighbors neighbors
when a node fails, one of its neighbors takes over its
zone

More complex failure modes
simultaneous failure of multiple adjacent nodes
scoped flooding to discover neighbors
hopefully, a rare event
Oct. 4
CAN: node failures
Important note:
Only the failed nodes immediate neighbors
are required for recovery
Oct. 4
CAN Improvements
CAN provides tradeoff between per-node state, O(d), and
path length, O(dn
1/d
)
Path length is measured in application level hops
Neighbor nodes may be geographically distant
Want to achieve a lookup latency that is comparable to
underlying IP path latency
Several optimizations to reduce lookup latency also
improve robustness in terms of routing and data
availability
Approach: reduce the path length, reduce the per-hop
latency, and add load balancing
Simulated CAN design on Transit-Stub (TS) topologies
using the GT-ITM topology generator (Zegura, et. al.)
Oct. 4
Adding Dimensions
Increasing the dimensions of the coordinate space
reduces the routing path length (and latency)
Small increase in the size
of the routing table at
each node
Increase in number of
neighbors improves
routing fault-tolerance
More potential next hop
nodes
Simulated path lengths
follow O(dn
1/d
)
Oct. 4
Multiple independent coordinate
spaces (realities)
Nodes can maintain multiple independent coordinate spaces
(realities)
For a CAN with r realities:
a single node is assigned r zones
and holds r independent
neighbor sets
Contents of the hash table
are replicated for each reality
Example: for three realities, a
(K,V) mapping to P:(x,y,z) may
be stored at three different nodes
(K,V) is only unavailable when
all three copies are unavailable
Route using the neighbor on the reality closest to (x,y,z)
Oct. 4
Dimensions vs. Realities
Increasing the number of dimensions
and/or realities decreases path
length and increases per-node state
More dimensions has greater effect
on path length
More realities provides
stronger fault-tolerance and
increased data availability
Authors do not quantify the different
storage requirements
More realities requires replicating
(K,V) pairs
Oct. 4
RTT Ratio & Zone Overloading
Incorporate RTT in routing metric
Each node measures RTT to each neighbor
Forward messages to neighbor with maximum ratio of progress
to RTT
Overload coordinate zones
- Allow multiple nodes to share the same zone, bounded by a
threshold MAXPEERS
Nodes maintain peer state, but not additional neighbor state
Periodically poll neighbor for its list of peers, measure RTT to
each peer, retain lowest RTT node as neighbor
(K,V) pairs may be divided among peer nodes or replicated

Oct. 4
Multiple Hash Functions
Improve data availability by using k hash functions to
map a single key to k points in the coordinate space
Replicate (K,V) and store
at k distinct nodes
(K,V) is only unavailable
when all k replicas are
simultaneously
unavailable
Authors suggest querying
all k nodes in parallel to
reduce average lookup latency
Oct. 4
Topology sensitive
Use landmarks for topologically-sensitive construction
Assume the existence of well-known machines like DNS servers
Each node measures its RTT
to each landmark
Order each landmark in order of
increasing RTT
For m landmarks:
m! possible orderings
Partition coordinate space
into m! equal size partitions
Nodes join CAN at random
point in the partition corresponding
to its landmark ordering
Latency Stretch is the ratio of CAN
latency to IP network latency
Oct. 4
Other optimizations
Run a background load-balancing technique to offload
from densely populated bins to sparsely populated bins
(partitions of the space)
Volume balancing for more uniform partitioning
When a JOIN is received, examine zone volume and
neighbor zone volumes
Split zone with largest volume
Results in 90% of nodes of equal volume
Caching and replication for hot spot management
Oct. 4
Strengths
More resilient than flooding broadcast
networks
Efficient at locating information
Fault tolerant routing
Node & Data High Availability (w/
improvement)
Manageable routing table size & network
traffic

Oct. 4
Weaknesses
Impossible to perform a fuzzy search
Susceptible to malicious activity
Maintain coherence of all the indexed data
(Network overhead, Efficient distribution)
Still relatively higher routing latency
Poor performance w/o improvement

Oct. 4
Summary
CAN
an Internet-scale hash table
potential building block in Internet applications
Scalability
O(d) per-node state
Low-latency routing
simple heuristics help a lot
Robust
decentralized, can route around trouble

Oct. 4
Some Main Research Areas in P2P
Efficiency Search, queries and topologies
( Chord, CAN, YAPPER)
Data delivery (ZIGZAG..)
Resource Management
Security

Oct. 4
Resource Management
Problem:
Autonomous nature of peers: essentially selfish
peers must be given an incentive to contribute
resources.
The scale of the system: makes it hard to get a
complete picture of what resources are available
An approach:
Use concepts from economics to construct a
resource marketplace, where peers can buy and sell
or trade resources as necessary

Oct. 4
Security Problem
Problem:
- Malicious attacks: nodes in a P2P system
operate in an autonomous fashion, and any
node that speaks the system protocol may
participate in the system
An approach:
Mitigating attacks by nodes that abuse the P2P
network by exploiting the implicit trust peers
place on them. An realize by building some

Oct. 4
Reference
Kien A. Hua, Duc A. Tran, and Tai Do, ZIGZAG: An Efficient Peer-to-Peer Scheme
for Media Streaming, INFOCOM 2003.
RATNASAMY, S., FRANCIS, P., HANDLEY, M., KARP, R., AND SHENKER, S. A
scalable content-addressable network. In Proc. ACM SIGCOMM (San Diego, CA,
August 2001)
Mayank Bawa, Brian F. Cooper, Arturo Crespo, Neil Daswani, Prasanna Ganesan,
Hector Garcia-Molina, Sepandar Kamvar, Sergio Marti, Mario Schlosser, Qi Sun,
Patrick Vinograd, Beverly Yang Peer-to-Peer Research at Stanford
Ion Stoica, Robert Morris, David Karger, M. Frans Kaashoek, and Hari Balakrishnan,
Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-peer Lookup Service for Internet Applications, ACM
SIGCOMM 2001
Prasanna Ganesan, Qixiang Sun, and Hector Garcia-Molina, YAPPERS: A Peer-to-
Peer Lookup Service over Arbitrary Topology, INFOCOM 2003.

An Introduction To Peer-to-Peer Networks: Presentation For CSE620:Advanced Networking Anh Le Nov. 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Introduction To Peer-to-Peer Networks: Presentation For CSE620:Advanced Networking Anh Le Nov. 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Introduction to

You might also like