A Tree-Based Peer-to-Peer Network with Quality Guarantees

Peer-to-peer (P2P) networks often demand scalability, low communication latency among nodes, and low systemwide overhead. For scalability, a node maintains partial states of a P2P network and connects to a few nodes. For fast communication, a P2P network intends to reduce the communication latency between any two nodes as much as possible. With regard to a low systemwide overhead, a P2P network minimizes its traffic in maintaining its performance efficiency and functional correctness. In this paper, we present a novel tree-based P2P network with low communication delay and low systemwide overhead. The merits of our tree-based network include 1) a tree-shaped P2P network, which guarantees that the degree of a node is constant in probability, regardless of the system size (the network diameter in our tree-based network increases logarithmically with an increase in the system size, and in particular, given a physical network with a power-law latency expansion property, we show that the diameter of our tree network is constant), and 2) provable performance guarantees. We evaluate our proposal by a rigorous performance analysis, and we validate this by extensive simulations.

[1]  Sridhar Radhakrishnan,et al.  Multicast Routing with Delay and Delay Variation Constraints for Collaborative Applications on Overlay Networks , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems.

[2]  Sanjay Rao,et al.  Enabling contribution awareness in an overlay broadcasting system , 2006, SIGCOMM 2006.

[3]  Sudhakar Yalamanchili,et al.  Interconnection Networks: An Engineering Approach , 2002 .

[4]  Helen J. Wang,et al.  An evaluation of scalable application-level multicast built using peer-to-peer overlays , 2003, IEEE INFOCOM 2003. Twenty-second Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37428).

[5]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Measurement, modeling, and analysis of a peer-to-peer file-sharing workload , 2003, SOSP '03.

[6]  John Kubiatowicz,et al.  Handling churn in a DHT , 2004 .

[7]  Robert Tappan Morris,et al.  Comparing the Performance of Distributed Hash Tables Under Churn , 2004, IPTPS.

[8]  Hui Zhang,et al.  Predicting Internet network distance with coordinates-based approaches , 2002, Proceedings.Twenty-First Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies.

[9]  Yunhao Liu,et al.  AnySee: Peer-to-Peer Live Streaming , 2006, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2006. 25TH IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[10]  Bharadwaj Veeravalli,et al.  A Robust Spanning Tree Topology for Data Collection and Dissemination in Distributed Environments , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems.

[11]  Jacky C. Chu,et al.  Availability and locality measurements of peer-to-peer file systems , 2002, SPIE ITCom.

[12]  Miguel Castro,et al.  SplitStream: high-bandwidth multicast in cooperative environments , 2003, SOSP '03.

[13]  Ramesh Govindan,et al.  Improving lookup latency in distributed hash table systems using random sampling , 2005, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[14]  Kunwadee Sripanidkulchai,et al.  Considering Priority in Overlay Multicast Protocols Under Heterogeneous Environments , 2006, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2006. 25TH IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[15]  Bharat K. Bhargava,et al.  PROMISE: peer-to-peer media streaming using CollectCast , 2003, MULTIMEDIA '03.

[16]  Ben Y. Zhao,et al.  Tapestry: a resilient global-scale overlay for service deployment , 2004, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[17]  Srinivasan Seshan,et al.  A case for end system multicast , 2002, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun..

[18]  Kien A. Hua,et al.  ZIGZAG: an efficient peer-to-peer scheme for media streaming , 2003, IEEE INFOCOM 2003. Twenty-second Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37428).

[19]  Stefan Saroiu,et al.  A Measurement Study of Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Systems , 2001 .

[20]  David R. Karger,et al.  Chord: A scalable peer-to-peer lookup service for internet applications , 2001, SIGCOMM '01.

[21]  Ben Y. Zhao,et al.  OceanStore: an architecture for global-scale persistent storage , 2000, SIGP.

[22]  Peter Druschel,et al.  Pastry: Scalable, distributed object location and routing for large-scale peer-to- , 2001 .

[23]  Srinivasan Seshan,et al.  The Impact of Heterogeneous Bandwidth Constraints on DHT-Based Multicast Protocols , 2005, IPTPS.

[24]  Michalis Faloutsos,et al.  On power-law relationships of the Internet topology , 1999, SIGCOMM '99.

[25]  Rajmohan Rajaraman,et al.  Accessing Nearby Copies of Replicated Objects in a Distributed Environment , 1997, SPAA '97.

[26]  Bobby Bhattacharjee,et al.  Scalable application layer multicast , 2002, SIGCOMM '02.

[27]  Seif Haridi,et al.  Efficient Broadcast in Structured P2P Networks , 2003, IPTPS.

[28]  Tai-Yi Huang,et al.  SCALLOP: a scalable and load-balanced peer-to-peer lookup protocol , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems.

[29]  Paul Francis,et al.  Chunkyspread: Heterogeneous Unstructured Tree-Based Peer-to-Peer Multicast , 2006, Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols.

[30]  Antony I. T. Rowstron,et al.  Pastry: Scalable, Decentralized Object Location, and Routing for Large-Scale Peer-to-Peer Systems , 2001, Middleware.

[31]  Hui Zhang,et al.  A case for end system multicast (keynote address) , 2000, SIGMETRICS '00.

[32]  Ibrahim Matta,et al.  BRITE: an approach to universal topology generation , 2001, MASCOTS 2001, Proceedings Ninth International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems.

[33]  David R. Karger,et al.  Finding nearest neighbors in growth-restricted metrics , 2002, STOC '02.

[34]  Eli Upfal,et al.  Building low-diameter peer-to-peer networks , 2003, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun..