DOCSLIB.ORG

D3.5 Design and Implementation of P2P Infrastructure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
D3.5 Design and Implementation of P2P Infrastructure INNOVATION ACTION H2020 GRANT AGREEMENT NUMBER: 825171 WP3 – Vision Materialisation and Technical Infrastructure D3.5 – Design and implementation of P2P infrastructure Document Info Contractual Delivery Date: 31/12/2019 Actual Delivery Date: 31/12/2019 Responsible Beneficiary: INOV Contributing Beneficiaries: UoG Dissemination Level: Public Version: 1.0 Type: Final This project has received funding from the European Union’s H2020 research and innovation programme under the grant agreement No 825171 ` DOCUMENT INFORMATION Document ID: D3.5: Design and implementation of P2P infrastructure Version Date: 31/12/2019 Total Number of Pages: 36 Abstract: This deliverable describes the EUNOMIA P2P infrastructure, its design, the EUNOMIA P2P APIs and a first implementation of the P2P infrastructure and the corresponding APIs made available for the remaining EUNOMIA modules to start integration (for the 1st phase). Keywords: P2P design, P2P infrastructure, IPFS AUTHORS Full Name Beneficiary / Organisation Role INOV INESC INOVAÇÃO INOV Overall Editor University of Greenwich UoG Contributor REVIEWERS Full Name Beneficiary / Organisation Date University of Nicosia UNIC 23/12/2019 VERSION HISTORY Version Date Comments 0.1 13/12/2019 First internal draft 0.6 22/12/2019 Complete draft for review 0.8 29/12/2019 Final draft following review 1.0 31/12/2019 Final version to be released to the EC Type of deliverable PUBLIC Page | ii H2020 Grant Agreement Number: 825171 Document ID: WP3 / D3.5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This deliverable describes the P2P infrastructure that has been implemented during the first phase of the EUNOMIA to provide decentralized support for storage, communication and security functions. It starts with a review of the main existing P2P technologies, where each one is analysed and a selection of candidates are selected to be used in the project. This set of technologies consolidated, are characterized, compared, and their features are matched with the project requirements, extracted from the user requirements (described in D2.4), the functional and non-functional technical requirements (described in D3.1), extended with additional non-functional support requirements. In the end it’s showed why IPFS is selected, among them, as the P2P shared stored solution selected for EUNOMIA. Given the selected technology, the anatomy of a EUNOMIA P2P node is also presented here, where the different layers are detailed and explained including the high-level storing API used by other node components and the low-level P2P components. Besides the description of the low- level P2P components that run a node, a global view is presented, explaining how nodes connect among them to form a global shared storage pool. Limitations and challenges stemming from the selection of technologies are also discussed, that impacts the design and implementation of security and privacy framework (described in D3.3). For some of the challenges described, some solutions are already presented in this document, while other ones will be solved along the duration of the Task 3.5. @Copyright of EUNOMIA Consortium Page iii ` TABLE OF CONTENTS DOCUMENT INFORMATION ........................................................................................................ ii AUTHORS......................................................................................................................................... ii REVIEWERS ...................................................................................................................................... ii VERSION HISTORY ......................................................................................................................... ii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... iv LIST of Figures ................................................................................................................................. v LIST of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................... vii 1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................8 1.1 Scope and objectives of the deliverable ................................................................................ 8 1.2 Structure of the deliverable ...................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Relation to Other Tasks and Deliverables .............................................................................. 9 2. P2P Goals............................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 EUNOMIA Data requirements ................................................................................................ 10 2.2 Goals ........................................................................................................................................... 12 3. P2P State of the art .............................................................................................................. 13 Unstructured P2P ........................................................................................................................................... 13 Structured P2P ................................................................................................................................................ 14 3.1 Existing technologies ............................................................................................................... 16 3.2 Comparison matrices ............................................................................................................... 17 3.3 Selected technologies ............................................................................................................. 21 4. P2p Infrastructure ............................................................................................................... 24 4.1 P2P Node ...................................................................................................................................24 4.2 P2P Network ............................................................................................................................. 26 5. P2P Node API ...................................................................................................................... 28 5.1 Operations ................................................................................................................................. 28 5.2 Overall integration ................................................................................................................... 28 Type of deliverable PUBLIC Page | iv H2020 Grant Agreement Number: 825171 Document ID: WP3 / D3.5 6. Limitations and challenges ................................................................................................ 30 6.1 Known limitations ..................................................................................................................... 30 6.2 Possible solutions ..................................................................................................................... 31 7. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 33 8. References ............................................................................................................................ 34 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 : Overview of the P2P network architecture. .................................................................................. 24 Figure 2: Anatomy of a P2P EUNOMIA node. ................................................................................................ 25 Figure 3: Content based addressing used in IPFS. ........................................................................................ 26 Figure 4: PSP Network with 3 blocks with a replication factor of 2......................................................... 27 Figure 5: EUNOMIA nodes. ................................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 6: Storage data flow. ................................................................................................................................. 29 @Copyright of EUNOMIA Consortium Page v ` LIST OF TABLES Table 1: EUNOMIA P2P requirements. .............................................................................................................. 10 Table 2: Additional technical requirements. ..................................................................................................... 11 Table 3: P2P Storage functions............................................................................................................................ 12 Table 4: Analysed P2P technologies. ................................................................................................................. 16 Table 5: P2P protocols classification. ................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Content-Addressable Network for Similarity Search in Metric Spaces Fabrizio Falchi
    University of Pisa Masaryk University Faculty of Informatics Department of Department of Information Engineering Information Technologies Doctoral Course in Doctoral Course in Information Engineering Informatics Ph.D. Thesis A Content-Addressable Network for Similarity Search in Metric Spaces Fabrizio Falchi Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Lanfranco Lopriore Fausto Rabitti Pavel Zezula 2007 Abstract Because of the ongoing digital data explosion, more advanced search paradigms than the traditional exact match are needed for content- based retrieval in huge and ever growing collections of data pro- duced in application areas such as multimedia, molecular biology, marketing, computer-aided design and purchasing assistance. As the variety of data types is fast going towards creating a database utilized by people, the computer systems must be able to model hu- man fundamental reasoning paradigms, which are naturally based on similarity. The ability to perceive similarities is crucial for recog- nition, classification, and learning, and it plays an important role in scientific discovery and creativity. Recently, the mathematical notion of metric space has become a useful abstraction of similarity and many similarity search indexes have been developed. In this thesis, we accept the metric space similarity paradigm and concentrate on the scalability issues. By exploiting computer networks and applying the Peer-to-Peer communication paradigms, we build a structured network of computers able to process similar- ity queries in parallel. Since no centralized entities are used, such architectures are fully scalable. Specifically, we propose a Peer- to-Peer system for similarity search in metric spaces called Met- ric Content-Addressable Network (MCAN) which is an extension of the well known Content-Addressable Network (CAN) used for hash lookup.
    [Show full text]
  • High Velocity Kernel File Systems with Bento
    High Velocity Kernel File Systems with Bento Samantha Miller, Kaiyuan Zhang, Mengqi Chen, and Ryan Jennings, University of Washington; Ang Chen, Rice University; Danyang Zhuo, Duke University; Thomas Anderson, University of Washington https://www.usenix.org/conference/fast21/presentation/miller This paper is included in the Proceedings of the 19th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies. February 23–25, 2021 978-1-939133-20-5 Open access to the Proceedings of the 19th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies is sponsored by USENIX. High Velocity Kernel File Systems with Bento Samantha Miller Kaiyuan Zhang Mengqi Chen Ryan Jennings Ang Chen‡ Danyang Zhuo† Thomas Anderson University of Washington †Duke University ‡Rice University Abstract kernel-level debuggers and kernel testing frameworks makes this worse. The restricted and different kernel programming High development velocity is critical for modern systems. environment also limits the number of trained developers. This is especially true for Linux file systems which are seeing Finally, upgrading a kernel module requires either rebooting increased pressure from new storage devices and new demands the machine or restarting the relevant module, either way on storage systems. However, high velocity Linux kernel rendering the machine unavailable during the upgrade. In the development is challenging due to the ease of introducing cloud setting, this forces kernel upgrades to be batched to meet bugs, the difficulty of testing and debugging, and the lack of cloud-level availability goals. support for redeployment without service disruption. Existing Slow development cycles are a particular problem for file approaches to high-velocity development of file systems for systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Tutorial on P2P Systems
    P2P Systems Keith W. Ross Dan Rubenstein Polytechnic University Columbia University http://cis.poly.edu/~ross http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~danr [email protected] [email protected] Thanks to: B. Bhattacharjee, A. Rowston, Don Towsley © Keith Ross and Dan Rubenstein 1 Defintion of P2P 1) Significant autonomy from central servers 2) Exploits resources at the edges of the Internet P storage and content P CPU cycles P human presence 3) Resources at edge have intermittent connectivity, being added & removed 2 It’s a broad definition: U P2P file sharing U DHTs & their apps P Napster, Gnutella, P Chord, CAN, Pastry, KaZaA, eDonkey, etc Tapestry U P2P communication U P Instant messaging P2P apps built over P Voice-over-IP: Skype emerging overlays P PlanetLab U P2P computation P seti@home Wireless ad-hoc networking not covered here 3 Tutorial Outline (1) U 1. Overview: overlay networks, P2P applications, copyright issues, worldwide computer vision U 2. Unstructured P2P file sharing: Napster, Gnutella, KaZaA, search theory, flashfloods U 3. Structured DHT systems: Chord, CAN, Pastry, Tapestry, etc. 4 Tutorial Outline (cont.) U 4. Applications of DHTs: persistent file storage, mobility management, etc. U 5. Security issues: vulnerabilities, solutions, anonymity U 6. Graphical structure: random graphs, fault tolerance U 7. Experimental observations: measurement studies U 8. Wrap up 5 1. Overview of P2P U overlay networks U P2P applications U worldwide computer vision 6 Overlay networks overlay edge 7 Overlay graph Virtual edge U TCP connection U or
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Kernel and User Space File Systems
    Comparison of kernel and user space file systems — Bachelor Thesis — Arbeitsbereich Wissenschaftliches Rechnen Fachbereich Informatik Fakultät für Mathematik, Informatik und Naturwissenschaften Universität Hamburg Vorgelegt von: Kira Isabel Duwe E-Mail-Adresse: [email protected] Matrikelnummer: 6225091 Studiengang: Informatik Erstgutachter: Professor Dr. Thomas Ludwig Zweitgutachter: Professor Dr. Norbert Ritter Betreuer: Michael Kuhn Hamburg, den 28. August 2014 Abstract A file system is part of the operating system and defines an interface between OS and the computer’s storage devices. It is used to control how the computer names, stores and basically organises the files and directories. Due to many different requirements, such as efficient usage of the storage, a grand variety of approaches arose. The most important ones are running in the kernel as this has been the only way for a long time. In 1994, developers came up with an idea which would allow mounting a file system in the user space. The FUSE (Filesystem in Userspace) project was started in 2004 and implemented in the Linux kernel by 2005. This provides the opportunity for a user to write an own file system without editing the kernel code and therefore avoid licence problems. Additionally, FUSE offers a stable library interface. It is originally implemented as a loadable kernel module. Due to its design, all operations have to pass through the kernel multiple times. The additional data transfer and the context switches are causing some overhead which will be analysed in this thesis. So, there will be a basic overview about on how exactly a file system operation takes place and which mount options for a FUSE-based system result in a better performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Hash Tables CS6450: Distributed Systems Lecture 12
    Distributed Hash Tables CS6450: Distributed Systems Lecture 12 Ryan Stutsman Material taken/derived from Princeton COS-418 materials created by Michael Freedman and Kyle Jamieson at Princeton University. Licensed for use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. 1 Some material taken/derived from MIT 6.824 by Robert Morris, Franz Kaashoek, and Nickolai Zeldovich. Consistency models Linearizability Causal Eventual Sequential 2 Recall use of logical clocks • Lamport clocks: C(a) < C(z) Conclusion: None • Vector clocks: V(a) < V(z) Conclusion: a → … → z • Distributed bulletin board application • Each post gets sent to all other users • Consistency goal: No user to see reply before the corresponding original message post • Conclusion: Deliver message only after all messages that causally precede it have been delivered 3 Causal Consistency 1. Writes that are potentially P1 P2 P3 causally related must be seen by a all machines in same order. f b c 2. Concurrent writes may be seen d in a different order on different e machines. g • Concurrent: Ops not causally related Physical time ↓ Causal Consistency Operations Concurrent? P1 P2 P3 a, b N a f b, f Y b c c, f Y d e, f Y e e, g N g a, c Y a, e N Physical time ↓ Causal Consistency: Quiz Causal Consistency: Quiz • Valid under causal consistency • Why? W(x)b and W(x)c are concurrent • So all processes don’t (need to) see them in same order • P3 and P4 read the values ‘a’ and ‘b’ in order as potentially causally related.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Defined Storage Overview
    Software Defined Storage Overview August 2019 Juan Jose Floristan Cloud Specialist Solution Architect 1 AGENDA 1. Why Red Hat Storage? 2. Red Hat Ceph Storage 3. Red Hat Gluster Storage 4. Red Hat Openshift Container Storage 2 Why Red Hat Storage? 3 Why Red Hat Storage? STORAGE IS EVOLVING TRADITIONAL STORAGE OPEN, SOFTWARE-DEFINED STORAGE Complex proprietary silos Standardized, unified, open platforms USER USER USER USER ADMIN Control Plane (API, GUI) ADMIN ADMIN ADMIN Software Ceph Gluster +++ Open Source Custom GUI Custom GUI Custom GUI Proprietary Hardware Proprietary Hardware Proprietary Hardware Standard Computers and Disks Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary Standard Hardware Software Software Software 4 Why Red Hat Storage? WHY THIS MATTERS PROPRIETARY Common, Lower cost, standardized supply chain HARDWARE off-the-shelf hardware SCALE-UP Scale-out Increased operational flexibility ARCHITECTURE architecture HARDWARE-BASED Software-based More programmability, agility, INTELLIGENCE intelligence and control CLOSED DEVELOPMENT Open development More flexible, well-integrated PROCESS process technology 5 Why Red Hat Storage? A RISING TIDE Software-Defined Storage is leading SDS-P MARKET SIZE BY SEGMENT $1,395M a shift in the global storage industry, Block Storage File Storage $1,195M with far-reaching effects. Object Storage $1,029M Hyperconverged “By 2020, between 70%-80% of unstructured $859M data will be held on lower-cost storage managed $705M $592M by SDS.” $475M Innovation Insight: Separating Hype From Hope for Software-Defined Storage “By 2019, 70% of existing storage array products will also be available as software-only versions.” 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Innovation Insight: Separating Hype From Hope for Software-Defined Storage 2019 Source: IDC 6 Why Red Hat Storage? THE RED HAT STORAGE MISSION To offer a unified, open software-defined storage portfolio that delivers a range of data services for next generation workloads, thereby accelerating the transition to modern IT infrastructures.
    [Show full text]
  • Lamassu: Storage-Efficient Host-Side Encryption
    Lamassu: Storage-Efficient Host-Side Encryption Peter Shah and Won So NetApp Inc. Abstract moves downstream through the stack. This strategy can Many storage customers are adopting encryption solu- take many forms, such as built-in application encryption, tions to protect critical data. Most existing encryption OS-based file system encryption or VM-level encryp- solutions sit in, or near, the application that is the source tion [3, 19, 22]. We term any encryption that runs on of critical data, upstream of the primary storage system. the same physical hardware as the primary application Placing encryption near the source ensures that data re- data-source encryption. mains encrypted throughout the storage stack, making it In general, existing data-source encryption solutions easier to use untrusted storage, such as public clouds. interfere with content-driven data management features Unfortunately, such a strategy also prevents down- provided by storage systems — in particular, deduplica- stream storage systems from applying content-based fea- tion. If a storage controller does not have access to the tures, such as deduplication, to the data. In this paper, we keys used to secure data, it cannot compare the contents present Lamassu, an encryption solution that uses block- of encrypted data to determine which sections, if any, are oriented, host-based, convergent encryption to secure duplicates. data, while preserving storage-based data deduplication. In this paper, we present an alternative encryption Unlike past convergent encryption systems, which typi- strategy that provides the benefits of upstream encryp- cally store encryption metadata in a dedicated store, our tion while preserving storage-based data deduplication system transparently inserts its metadata into each file’s on downstream storage.
    [Show full text]
  • Content Addressable Network (CAN) Is an Example of a DHT Based on a D-Dimensional Torus
    Overlay and P2P Networks Structured Networks and DHTs Prof. Sasu Tarkoma 6.2.2014 Contents • Today • Semantic free indexing • Consistent Hashing • Distributed Hash Tables (DHTs) • Thursday (Dr. Samu Varjonen) • DHTs continued • Discussion on geometries Rings Rings are a popular geometry for DHTs due to their simplicity. In a ring geometry, nodes are placed on a one- dimensional cyclic identifier space. The distance from an identifier A to B is defined as the clockwise numeric distance from A to B on the circle Rings are related with tori and hypercubes, and the 1- dimensional torus is a ring. Moreover, a k-ary 1-cube is a k-node ring The Chord DHT is a classic example of an overlay based on this geometry. Each node has a predecessor and a successor on the ring, and an additional routing table for pointers to increasingly far away nodes on the ring Chord • Chord is an overlay algorithm from MIT – Stoica et. al., SIGCOMM 2001 • Chord is a lookup structure (a directory) – Resembles binary search • Uses consistent hashing to map keys to nodes – Keys are hashed to m-bit identifiers – Nodes have m-bit identifiers • IP-address is hashed – SHA-1 is used as the baseline algorithm • Support for rapid joins and leaves – Churn – Maintains routing tables Chord routing I Identifiers are ordered on an identifier circle modulo 2m The Chord ring with m-bit identifiers A node has a well determined place within the ring A node has a predecessor and a successor A node stores the keys between its predecessor and itself The (key, value) is stored on the successor
    [Show full text]
  • Overlook: Scalable Name Service on an Overlay Network
    Overlook: Scalable Name Service on an Overlay Network Marvin Theimer and Michael B. Jones Microsoft Research, Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052, USA {theimer, mbj}@microsoft.com http://research.microsoft.com/~theimer/, http://research.microsoft.com/~mbj/ Keywords: Name Service, Scalability, Overlay Network, Adaptive System, Peer-to-Peer, Wide-Area Distributed System Abstract 1.1 Use of Overlay Networks This paper indicates that a scalable fault-tolerant name ser- Existing scalable name services, such as DNS, tend to rely vice can be provided utilizing an overlay network and that on fairly static sets of data replicas to handle queries that can- such a name service can scale along a number of dimensions: not be serviced out of caches on or near a client. Unfortu- it can be sized to support a large number of clients, it can al- nately, static designs don’t handle flash crowd workloads very low large numbers of concurrent lookups on the same name or well. We want a design that enables dynamic addition and sets of names, and it can provide name lookup latencies meas- deletion of data replicas in response to changing request loads. ured in seconds. Furthermore, it can enable updates to be Furthermore, in order to scale, we need a means by which the made pervasively visible in times typically measured in sec- changing set of data replicas can be discovered without requir- onds for update rates of up to hundreds per second. We ex- ing global changes in system routing knowledge. plain how many of these scaling properties for the name ser- Peer-to-peer overlay routing networks such as Tapestry vice are obtained by reusing some of the same mechanisms [24], Chord [22], Pastry [18], and CAN [15] provide an inter- that allowed the underlying overlay network to scale.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Manycast Messaging for Kademlia Network
    Effective Manycast Messaging for Kademlia Network Lubos Matl Tomas Cerny Michael J. Donahoo Czech Technical University Czech Technical University Baylor University Charles square 13, 121 35 Charles square 13, 121 35 Waco, TX, US Prague 2, CZ Prague 2, CZ [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT General Terms Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication plays an ever-expanding Measurement, Reliability, Performance, Experimentation role in critical applications with rapidly growing user bases. In addition to well-known P2P systems for data sharing Keywords (e.g., BitTorrent), P2P provides the core mechanisms in VoIP (e.g., Skype), distributed currency (e.g., BitCoin), etc. Distributed systems, performance, communication, P2P, There are many communication commonalities in P2P ap- DHT, key-based search plications; consequently, we can factor these communication primitives into overlay services. Such services greatly sim- 1. INTRODUCTION plify P2P application development and even allow P2P in- P2P networking is a widely-known architectural pattern frastructures to host multiple applications, instead of each for distributed systems. P2P has been applied to a variety of having its own network. Note well that such services must be applications, including file sharing (BitTorrent [10]), video both self-scaling and robust to meet the needs of large, ad- or audio streaming (SplitStream [5], Coolstream [22]), par- hoc user networks. One such service is Distributed Hash Ta- allel computation, online payment systems (Bitcoin [16]), ble (DHT) providing a dictionary-like location service, useful or voice-over-IP services (Skype). All these applications in many types of P2P applications. Building on the DHT demonstrate that the architecture is important and useful primitives for search and store, we can add even more power- for multiple domains.
    [Show full text]
  • Donut: a Robust Distributed Hash Table Based on Chord
    Donut: A Robust Distributed Hash Table based on Chord Amit Levy, Jeff Prouty, Rylan Hawkins CSE 490H Scalable Systems: Design, Implementation and Use of Large Scale Clusters University of Washington Seattle, WA Donut is an implementation of an available, replicated distributed hash table built on top of Chord. The design was built to support storage of common file sizes in a closed cluster of systems. This paper discusses the two layers of the implementation and a discussion of future development. First, we discuss the basics of Chord as an overlay network and our implementation details, second, Donut as a hash table providing availability and replication and thirdly how further development towards a distributed file system may proceed. Chord Introduction Chord is an overlay network that maps logical addresses to physical nodes in a Peer- to-Peer system. Chord associates a ranges of keys with a particular node using a variant of consistent hashing. While traditional consistent hashing schemes require nodes to maintain state of the the system as a whole, Chord only requires that nodes know of a fixed number of “finger” nodes, allowing both massive scalability while maintaining efficient lookup time (O(log n)). Terms Chord Chord works by arranging keys in a ring, such that when we reach the highest value in the key-space, the following key is zero. Nodes take on a particular key in this ring. Successor Node n is called the successor of a key k if and only if n is the closest node after or equal to k on the ring. Predecessor Node n is called the predecessor of a key k if and only n is the closest node before k in the ring.
    [Show full text]
  • Encrypted File System Based on Distributed Key-Value Stores and FUSE
    International Journal of Network Security & Its Applications (IJNSA) Vol.11, No.2, March 2019 KVEFS: Encrypted File System based on Distributed Key-Value Stores and FUSE Giau Ho Kim, Son Hai Le, Trung Manh Nguyen, Vu Thi Ly, Thanh Nguyen Kim, Nguyen Van Cuong, Thanh Nguyen Trung, and Ta Minh Thanh Le Quy Don Technical University No 236 Hoang Quoc Viet Street , Hanoi, Vietnam [email protected] Abstract. File System is an important component of a secure operating system. The need to build data protection systems is extremely important in open source operating systems, high mobility hardware systems, and miniaturization of storage devices that make systems available. It is clear that the value of the data is much larger than the value of the storage device. Computers access protection mechanism does not work if the thief retrieves the hard drive from the computer and reads data from it on another computer. Encrypted File System (EFS) is a secure level of operating system kernel. EFS uses cryptography to encrypt or decrypt files and folders when they are being saved or retrieved from a hard disk. EFS is often integrated transparently in operating system There are many encrypted filesystems commonly used in Linux operating systems. However, they have some limitations, which are the inability to hide the structure of the file system. This is a shortcoming targeted by the attacker, who will try to decrypt a file to find the key and then decrypt the entire file system. In this paper, we propose a new architecture of EFS called KVEFS which is based on cryptographic algorithms, FUSE library and key-value store.
    [Show full text]