Fast but economical: A simulative comparison of structured peer-to-peer systems

In the past many proposals for structured peer-to-peer protocols have been published. They differ in properties like overlay topology and routing table maintenance. Furthermore, each protocol exhibits various parameters e.g. to adjust the size of the routing table or stabilization intervals, making it difficult to choose an optimal protocol and parameter set for a given scenario (e.g. churn rate, number of nodes). For this purpose, we developed the overlay simulation framework OverSim and implemented six well known structured overlay protocols. In this paper we first compare these protocols among each other. Furthermore, we study several recursive and iterative routing variants and show the effect of routing table redundancy and lookup parallelism on routing latency and bandwidth costs. For each overlay protocol we identify an optimal parameter set for a typical peer-to-peer scenario. Finally, we show how overlay protocols adapt to variations in churn rate and network size. Our results show considerable advantages of the protocols Kademlia and Bamboo, while De Bruijn based protocols reveal a lack of stability under churn.

[1]  Dmitri Loguinov,et al.  Graph-theoretic analysis of structured peer-to-peer systems: routing distances and fault resilience , 2003, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[2]  S. Krause,et al.  OverSim: A Flexible Overlay Network Simulation Framework , 2007, 2007 IEEE Global Internet Symposium.

[3]  Daniel Stutzbach,et al.  Improving Lookup Performance Over a Widely-Deployed DHT , 2006, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2006. 25TH IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[4]  Peter Druschel,et al.  Exploiting Network Proximity in Distributed Hash Tables , 2002 .

[5]  Amos Brocco,et al.  OverArch: A common architecture for structured and unstructured overlay networks , 2012, 2012 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM Workshops.

[6]  Volker Turau,et al.  On Fluctuation Resilience of Second Generation Distributed Hash Tables , 2011 .

[7]  Taoufik En-Najjary,et al.  Long Term Study of Peer Behavior in the kad DHT , 2009, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[8]  Gade Krishna,et al.  A scalable peer-to-peer lookup protocol for Internet applications , 2012 .

[9]  Miguel Castro,et al.  Dynamic Lookup Networks , 2003, Future Directions in Distributed Computing.

[10]  Jon Crowcroft,et al.  A survey and comparison of peer-to-peer overlay network schemes , 2005, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[11]  Henning Schulzrinne,et al.  REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) , 2008 .

[12]  Laurent Viennot,et al.  Broose: a practical distributed hashtable based on the de-Bruijn topology , 2004, Proceedings. Fourth International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing, 2004. Proceedings..

[13]  Robert Tappan Morris,et al.  Designing a DHT for Low Latency and High Throughput , 2004, NSDI.

[14]  Robert Tappan Morris,et al.  A performance vs. cost framework for evaluating DHT design tradeoffs under churn , 2005, Proceedings IEEE 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies..

[15]  Daniel Stutzbach,et al.  Understanding churn in peer-to-peer networks , 2006, IMC '06.

[16]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  The impact of DHT routing geometry on resilience and proximity , 2003, SIGCOMM '03.

[17]  David Mazières,et al.  Kademlia: A Peer-to-Peer Information System Based on the XOR Metric , 2002, IPTPS.

[18]  David R. Karger,et al.  Koorde: A Simple Degree-Optimal Distributed Hash Table , 2003, IPTPS.

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

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