Centralized Database – Napster • Query Flooding – Gnutella • Intelligent Query Flooding – Kazaa • Swarming – Bittorrent the Lookup Problem

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Centralized Database – Napster • Query Flooding – Gnutella • Intelligent Query Flooding – Kazaa • Swarming – Bittorrent the Lookup Problem Peer-to-Peer Credits: Slides adapted from J. Pang, B. Richardson, I. Stoica, M. Cuenca, B. Cohen, S. Ramesh, D. Qui, R. Shrikant, Xiaoyan Li and R. Martin. Reminders • HW1 due next class (9/14) • PA1 to be assigned next class. Intro • Quickly grown in popularity – Hundreds of file sharing applications – 35 million American adults use P2P networks -- 29% of all Internet users in US! – Audio/Video transfer now dominates traffic on the Internet • But what is P2P? – Searching or location? -- DNS, Google! – Computers “Peering”? -- Server Clusters, IRC Networks, Internet Routing! – Clients with no servers? -- Doom, Quake! Intro (2) • Fundamental difference: Take advantage of resources at the edges of the network • What’s changed: – End-host resources have increased dramatically – Broadband connectivity now common • What hasn’t: – Deploying infrastructure still expensive Overview • Centralized Database – Napster • Query Flooding – Gnutella • Intelligent Query Flooding – KaZaA • Swarming – BitTorrent The Lookup Problem N2 N1 N3 Key=“title” Internet Value=MP3 data… ? Client Publisher Lookup(“title”) N4 N6 N5 The Lookup Problem (2) • Common Primitives: – Join : how to I begin participating? – Publish : how do I advertise my file? – Search : how to I find a file? – Fetch : how to I retrieve a file? Next Topic... • Centralized Database – Napster • Query Flooding – Gnutella • Intelligent Query Flooding – KaZaA • Swarming – BitTorrent Napster: History • In 1999, S. Fanning launches Napster • Peaked at 1.5 million simultaneous users • Jul 2001, Napster shuts down Napster: Overiew • Centralized Database: – Join : on startup, client contacts central server – Publish : reports list of files to central server – Search : query the server => return someone that stores the requested file – Fetch : get the file directly from peer Napster: Publish insert(X, 123.2.21.23) ... Publish I have X, Y, and Z! 123.2.21.23 Napster: Search 123.2.0.18 search(A) --> Fetch 123.2.0.18 Query Reply Where is file A? Napster: Discussion • Pros: – Simple – Search scope is O(1) – Controllable (pro or con?) • Cons: – Server maintains O(N) State – Server does all processing – Single point of failure Next Topic... • Centralized Database – Napster • Query Flooding – Gnutella • Intelligent Query Flooding – KaZaA • Swarming – BitTorrent Gnutella: History • In 2000, J. Frankel and T. Pepper from Nullsoft released Gnutella • Soon many other clients: Bearshare, Morpheus, LimeWire, etc. • In 2001, many protocol enhancements including “ultrapeers” Gnutella: Overview • Query Flooding: – Join : on startup, client contacts a few other nodes; these become its “neighbors” – Publish : no need – Search : ask neighbors, who as their neighbors, and so on... when/if found, reply to sender. – Fetch : get the file directly from peer Gnutella: Search I have file A. I have file A. Reply Query Where is file A? Gnutella: Discussion • Pros: – Fully de-centralized – Search cost distributed • Cons: – Search scope is O( N) – Search time is O(???) – Nodes leave often, network unstable Aside: Search Time? Aside: All Peers Equal? 1.5Mbps DSL 1.5Mbps DSL QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. 56kbps Modem 1.5Mbps DSL 10Mbps LAN 1.5Mbps DSL 56kbps Modem 56kbps Modem Next Topic... • Centralized Database – Napster • Query Flooding – Gnutella • Intelligent Query Flooding – KaZaA • Swarming – BitTorrent • Unstructured Overlay Routing – Freenet • Structured Overlay Routing – Distributed Hash Tables KaZaA: History • In 2001, KaZaA created by Dutch company Kazaa BV • Single network called FastTrack used by other clients as well: Morpheus, giFT, etc. • Eventually protocol changed so other clients could no longer talk to it KaZaA: Overview • “Smart” Query Flooding: – Join : on startup, client contacts a “supernode” ... may at some point become one itself – Publish : send list of files to supernode – Search : send query to supernode, supernodes flood query amongst themselves. – Fetch : get the file directly from peer(s); can fetch simultaneously from multiple peers KaZaA: Network Design “Super Nodes” KaZaA: File Insert insert(X, 123.2.21.23) ... Publish I have X! 123.2.21.23 KaZaA: File Search search(A) --> 123.2.22.50 search(A) 123.2.22.50 --> Query Replies 123.2.0.18 Where is file A? 123.2.0.18 KaZaA: Fetching • More than one node may have requested file... • How to tell? – Must be able to distinguish identical files – Not necessarily same filename – Same filename not necessarily same file... • Use Hash of file – KaZaA uses UUHash: (MD5+CRC32 checksum of staggered blocks)---fast, but not secure – Alternatives: full MD5, SHA-1 • How to fetch? – Get bytes [0..1000] from A, [1001...2000] from B – Alternative: Erasure Codes for greater redundancy. KaZaA: Discussion • Pros: – Tries to take into account node heterogeneity: • Bandwidth • Host Computational Resources • Host Availability (?) – Rumored to take into account network locality (latency) • Cons: – Mechanisms easy to circumvent – Still no real guarantees on search scope or search time – Easy to intentionally corrupt content. Next Topic... • Centralized Database – Napster • Query Flooding – Gnutella • Intelligent Query Flooding – KaZaA • Swarming – BitTorrent BitTorrent: History • In 2002, B. Cohen debuted BitTorrent • Key Motivation: – Popularity exhibits temporal locality (Flash Crowds) – E.g., Slashdot effect, CNN on 9/11, new movie/game release • Focused on Efficient Fetching , not Searching : – Distribute the same file to all peers – Single publisher, multiple downloaders • Has some “real” publishers: – Blizzard Entertainment using it to distribute the beta of their new game - May 2006 deal with Warner Brothers for content distribution. BitTorrent Working BitTorrent: Publish/Join Tracker/Seed BitTorrent: Fetch BitTorrent: Overview • Swarming: – Join : contact centralized “tracker” server, get a list of peers. – Publish : Run a tracker server. – Search : Out-of-band. E.g., use Google to find a tracker for the file you want. – Fetch : Download chunks of the file from your peers. Upload chunks you have to them. Algorithms/Features in BT • Pipelining of requests – to avoid delay in pieces being sent • Piece Selection – Strict priority [within sub-pieces] – Rarest first – Random First piece – Endgame mode [for request of final subpieces] • Choking, Optimistic unchoking, Anti- snubbing, Upload only Free-Riding with Optimistic Unchoking • If a peer wants to free-ride in BT, the maximum download rate it will get is 1/(n u + 1) of the maximum rate • This is also a very powerful result showing why BT performs so much better when compared to other P2P networks like Gnutella and Kazaa. Notes on BitTorrent • The BT network graph is random. Other ‘clever’ peer assignment algorithms have resulted only in network partitions • Single point of failure (tracker) • Lots of magic numbers – how many peers should a peer upload to? – how long should a peer wait in optimistic unchoke before moving on to other peers? – how many requests should be pipelined? • “Starting multiple torrents at once is a bad idea” - Bram BitTorrent: Sharing Strategy • Employ “Tit-for-tat” sharing strategy – “I’ll share with you if you share with me” – Be optimistic: occasionally let freeloaders download • Otherwise no one would ever start! • Also allows you to discover better peers to download from when they reciprocate – Meant to counter Prisoner’s Dilemma problem. • Approximates Pareto Efficiency – Game Theory: “No change can make anyone better off without making others worse off” BitTorrent: Summary • Pros: – Works reasonably well in practice – Gives peers incentive to share resources; avoids freeloaders • Cons: – Pareto Efficiency relative weak condition – Central tracker server needed to bootstrap swarm (is this really necessary?) P2P: Summary • Many different styles; remember pros and cons of each – centralized, flooding, swarming Lessons learned: – Single points of failure are very bad – Flooding messages to everyone is bad – Underlying network topology is important – Not all nodes are equal – Need incentives to discourage freeloading – Privacy and security are important Demo of using Bittorent client against a .torrent file on http://www.legaltorrents.com/ and Video of Interview with Bittorrent’s Creator Bram Cohen http://24x7.com/blog/vlogs/bram_vlog.mov Extra Slides Only for Pirates and sharing home video? • Legal downloads tripled in the first half of 2005, reaching 186 million. • In May 2006, Warner Brother announced it would use bittorrent to distribute pay-for content. $1 per tv show $4 to $5 per full length movie. • Claims “[Users] will be prevented from copying and distributing files they purchase through two mechanisms: one that requires them to enter a password before watching a file, and another that allows the file to be viewed only on the computer to which it was downloaded." Allowing p2p a liability for ISPs? From TMCnet News: Unauthorized p2p file sharing banned in Spain. “It's a criminal offense for ISPs to facilitate unauthorized downloading.” “Spain's telco giant Telefonica reports 90% of usage on its broadband lines is Internet traffic, up from 15% five years ago. Of that 90%, a massive 71% is P2P traffic.” What can ISPs do? • tcp/udp port filtering? • Deep Packet Inspection (DPI): “From lightreading.com: Network operators worldwide spent US$96.8m on DPI in 2005, but the sector is poised to grow by more than 75 per cent this year, to about US$170m, and top US$586m in 2010.” KaZaA: Usage Patterns • KaZaA is more than one workload! – Many files < 10MB (e.g., Audio Files) – Many files > 100MB (e.g., Movies) from Gummadi et al ., SOSP 2003 KaZaA: Usage Patterns (2) • What we saw: – A few big files consume most of the bandwidth – Many files are fetched once per client but still very popular • Solution? – Caching! from Gummadi et al ., SOSP 2003.
Recommended publications
  • Uila Supported Apps
    Uila Supported Applications and Protocols updated Oct 2020 Application/Protocol Name Full Description 01net.com 01net website, a French high-tech news site. 050 plus is a Japanese embedded smartphone application dedicated to 050 plus audio-conferencing. 0zz0.com 0zz0 is an online solution to store, send and share files 10050.net China Railcom group web portal. This protocol plug-in classifies the http traffic to the host 10086.cn. It also 10086.cn classifies the ssl traffic to the Common Name 10086.cn. 104.com Web site dedicated to job research. 1111.com.tw Website dedicated to job research in Taiwan. 114la.com Chinese web portal operated by YLMF Computer Technology Co. Chinese cloud storing system of the 115 website. It is operated by YLMF 115.com Computer Technology Co. 118114.cn Chinese booking and reservation portal. 11st.co.kr Korean shopping website 11st. It is operated by SK Planet Co. 1337x.org Bittorrent tracker search engine 139mail 139mail is a chinese webmail powered by China Mobile. 15min.lt Lithuanian news portal Chinese web portal 163. It is operated by NetEase, a company which 163.com pioneered the development of Internet in China. 17173.com Website distributing Chinese games. 17u.com Chinese online travel booking website. 20 minutes is a free, daily newspaper available in France, Spain and 20minutes Switzerland. This plugin classifies websites. 24h.com.vn Vietnamese news portal 24ora.com Aruban news portal 24sata.hr Croatian news portal 24SevenOffice 24SevenOffice is a web-based Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. 24ur.com Slovenian news portal 2ch.net Japanese adult videos web site 2Shared 2shared is an online space for sharing and storage.
    [Show full text]
  • Simulacijski Alati I Njihova Ograničenja Pri Analizi I Unapređenju Rada Mreža Istovrsnih Entiteta
    SVEUČILIŠTE U ZAGREBU FAKULTET ORGANIZACIJE I INFORMATIKE VARAŽDIN Tedo Vrbanec SIMULACIJSKI ALATI I NJIHOVA OGRANIČENJA PRI ANALIZI I UNAPREĐENJU RADA MREŽA ISTOVRSNIH ENTITETA MAGISTARSKI RAD Varaždin, 2010. PODACI O MAGISTARSKOM RADU I. AUTOR Ime i prezime Tedo Vrbanec Datum i mjesto rođenja 7. travanj 1969., Čakovec Naziv fakulteta i datum diplomiranja Fakultet organizacije i informatike, 10. listopad 2001. Sadašnje zaposlenje Učiteljski fakultet Zagreb – Odsjek u Čakovcu II. MAGISTARSKI RAD Simulacijski alati i njihova ograničenja pri analizi i Naslov unapređenju rada mreža istovrsnih entiteta Broj stranica, slika, tablica, priloga, XIV + 181 + XXXVIII stranica, 53 slike, 18 tablica, 3 bibliografskih podataka priloga, 288 bibliografskih podataka Znanstveno područje, smjer i disciplina iz koje Područje: Informacijske znanosti je postignut akademski stupanj Smjer: Informacijski sustavi Mentor Prof. dr. sc. Željko Hutinski Sumentor Prof. dr. sc. Vesna Dušak Fakultet na kojem je rad obranjen Fakultet organizacije i informatike Varaždin Oznaka i redni broj rada III. OCJENA I OBRANA Datum prihvaćanja teme od Znanstveno- 17. lipanj 2008. nastavnog vijeća Datum predaje rada 9. travanj 2010. Datum sjednice ZNV-a na kojoj je prihvaćena 18. svibanj 2010. pozitivna ocjena rada Prof. dr. sc. Neven Vrček, predsjednik Sastav Povjerenstva koje je rad ocijenilo Prof. dr. sc. Željko Hutinski, mentor Prof. dr. sc. Vesna Dušak, sumentor Datum obrane rada 1. lipanj 2010. Prof. dr. sc. Neven Vrček, predsjednik Sastav Povjerenstva pred kojim je rad obranjen Prof. dr. sc. Željko Hutinski, mentor Prof. dr. sc. Vesna Dušak, sumentor Datum promocije SVEUČILIŠTE U ZAGREBU FAKULTET ORGANIZACIJE I INFORMATIKE VARAŽDIN POSLIJEDIPLOMSKI ZNANSTVENI STUDIJ INFORMACIJSKIH ZNANOSTI SMJER STUDIJA: INFORMACIJSKI SUSTAVI Tedo Vrbanec Broj indeksa: P-802/2001 SIMULACIJSKI ALATI I NJIHOVA OGRANIČENJA PRI ANALIZI I UNAPREĐENJU RADA MREŽA ISTOVRSNIH ENTITETA MAGISTARSKI RAD Mentor: Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Lookup: Part 1: Distributed Hash Tables
    CS 417 – DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS Week 9: Distributed Lookup: Part 1: Distributed Hash Tables © 2021 Paul Krzyzanowski. No part of this content, may be reproduced or reposted in Paul Krzyzanowski whole or in part in any manner without the permission of the copyright owner. Distributed Lookup • Store (key, value) data Object Storage • Look up a key to get the value • Cooperating set of nodes store data • Ideally: – No central coordinator • Peer-to-peer system: all systems have the same capabilities – Some nodes can be down CS 417 © 2021 Paul Krzyzanowski 2 Approaches 1. Central coordinator – Napster 2. Flooding – Gnutella 3. Distributed hash tables – CAN, Chord, Amazon Dynamo, Tapestry, … CS 417 © 2021 Paul Krzyzanowski 3 1. Central Coordinator • Example: Napster – Central directory – Identifies content (names) and the servers that host it – lookup(name) → {list of servers} – Download from any of available servers • Pick the best one by pinging and comparing response times • Another example: GFS – Controlled environment compared to Napster – Content for a given key is broken into chunks – Master handles all queries … but not the data CS 417 © 2021 Paul Krzyzanowski 4 1. Central Coordinator - Napster • Pros – Super simple – Search is handled by a single server (master) – The directory server is a single point of control • Provides definitive answers to a query • Cons – Master has to maintain state of all peers – Server gets all the queries – The directory server is a single point of control • No directory, no service! CS 417 © 2021 Paul Krzyzanowski 5 2. Query Flooding • Example: Gnutella distributed file sharing • Each node joins a group – but only knows about some group members – Well-known nodes act as anchors – New nodes with files inform an anchor about their existence – Nodes use other nodes they know about as peers CS 417 © 2021 Paul Krzyzanowski 6 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Title: P2P Networks for Content Sharing
    Title: P2P Networks for Content Sharing Authors: Choon Hoong Ding, Sarana Nutanong, and Rajkumar Buyya Grid Computing and Distributed Systems Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Australia (chd, sarana, raj)@cs.mu.oz.au ABSTRACT Peer-to-peer (P2P) technologies have been widely used for content sharing, popularly called “file-swapping” networks. This chapter gives a broad overview of content sharing P2P technologies. It starts with the fundamental concept of P2P computing followed by the analysis of network topologies used in peer-to-peer systems. Next, three milestone peer-to-peer technologies: Napster, Gnutella, and Fasttrack are explored in details, and they are finally concluded with the comparison table in the last section. 1. INTRODUCTION Peer-to-peer (P2P) content sharing has been an astonishingly successful P2P application on the Internet. P2P has gained tremendous public attention from Napster, the system supporting music sharing on the Web. It is a new emerging, interesting research technology and a promising product base. Intel P2P working group gave the definition of P2P as "The sharing of computer resources and services by direct exchange between systems". This thus gives P2P systems two main key characteristics: • Scalability: there is no algorithmic, or technical limitation of the size of the system, e.g. the complexity of the system should be somewhat constant regardless of number of nodes in the system. • Reliability: The malfunction on any given node will not effect the whole system (or maybe even any other nodes). File sharing network like Gnutella is a good example of scalability and reliability.
    [Show full text]
  • CS 417 29 October 2018 Paul Krzyzanowski 1
    CS 417 29 October 2018 Distributed Lookup • Look up (key, value) • Cooperating set of nodes Distributed Systems • Ideally: – No central coordinator 16. Distributed Lookup – Some nodes can be down Paul Krzyzanowski Rutgers University Fall 2018 October 29, 2018 © 2014-2018 Paul Krzyzanowski 1 October 29, 2018 © 2014-2018 Paul Krzyzanowski 2 Approaches 1. Central Coordinator 1. Central coordinator • Example: Napster – Napster – Central directory – Identifies content (names) and the servers that host it 2. Flooding – lookup(name) → {list of servers} – Download from any of available servers – Gnutella • Pick the best one by pinging and comparing response times 3. Distributed hash tables • Another example: GFS – CAN, Chord, Amazon Dynamo, Tapestry, … – Controlled environment compared to Napster – Content for a given key is broken into chunks – Master handles all queries … but not the data October 29, 2018 © 2014-2018 Paul Krzyzanowski 3 October 29, 2018 © 2014-2018 Paul Krzyzanowski 4 1. Central Coordinator - Napster 2. Query Flooding • Pros • Example: Gnutella distributed file sharing – Super simple – Search is handled by a single server (master) – The directory server is a single point of control • Well-known nodes act as anchors • Provides definitive answers to a query – Nodes with files inform an anchor about their existence – Nodes select other nodes as peers • Cons – Master has to maintain state of all peers – Server gets all the queries – The directory server is a single point of control • No directory, no service! October 29, 2018 ©
    [Show full text]
  • Download Times, Bandwidth and Energy Consumption in the Network, Internet Bandwidth Cost, and Traffic Load Imbalance in the Network
    Content Sharing and Distribution in Wireless Community Networks by Amr Alasaad B.Sc., King Saud University, 2000 M.Sc., The University of Southern California, 2005 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Electrical and Computer Engineering) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) April 2013 c Amr Alasaad 2013 Abstract We consider the problem of content sharing and distribution in a wireless mesh community network (WMCN). Due to the community oriented nature of such networks, and with the evolution of advanced mobile computing devices; it is projected that the demand for content sharing and distribution in wireless community networks will dramatically increase in the coming years. A popular scheme for content sharing and distribution is through the use of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) technology. This dissertation studies the technical challenges involved while deploying P2P applications over WMCNs. We advance the thesis that support from a number of infrastructure nodes in a wire- less community network to P2P applications running on top of the wireless community network such as P2P content sharing and P2P media streaming, results in significant performance enhancement. Such support from infrastructure nodes benefits from aware- ness of the underlying network topology (i.e., information available at relay nodes about the true physical connections between nodes in the network). Cross-layer information exchange between the P2P system and the WMCN opens the door to developing efficient algorithms and schemes for P2P communications that account for the specific features of WMCNs (e.g., contention for wireless medium between neighbouring nodes and traffic in- terference).
    [Show full text]
  • Gnutella Protocol
    A BRIEF INTRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE GNUTELLA PROTOCOL By Gayatri Tribhuvan University of Freiburg Masters in Applied Computer Science [email protected] ABSTRACT Peer to peer technology has certainly improved mechanisms of downloading files at a very high rate. Statistics and research show that as more number of peer to peer protocols developed, the number of nodes in the entire network increased. In this paper, we observe the structure and operation of Gnutella , a peer to peer protocol. The paper also focuses on some issues of this protocol and what improvements were further made to improve its scalability. We also have a look at some of the security issues of this protocol. Some statistics in the paper also reflect important changes that the protocol inflicted onto the entire network. PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com 1. INTRODUCTION Gnutella is a p2p protocol. This paper has tried to address some of the issues that have been faced by users of Gnutella, including that of scalability (increasing the scale of operation, i.e. the volume of operation with progressively larger number of users) and security. The Gnutella protocol is an open, decentralized group membership and search protocol, mainly used for file searching and sharing. Group membership is open and search protocol addresses searching and sharing of files. The term Gnutella represents the entire group of computers which have Gnutella speaking applications loaded in them forming a virtual network. Each node can function as both client as well as server. Thus they can issue queries to other nodes as well accept and respond to queries from other nodes, after matching the queries with the contents loaded in their own hard disks.
    [Show full text]
  • Index Images Download 2006 News Crack Serial Warez Full 12 Contact
    index images download 2006 news crack serial warez full 12 contact about search spacer privacy 11 logo blog new 10 cgi-bin faq rss home img default 2005 products sitemap archives 1 09 links 01 08 06 2 07 login articles support 05 keygen article 04 03 help events archive 02 register en forum software downloads 3 security 13 category 4 content 14 main 15 press media templates services icons resources info profile 16 2004 18 docs contactus files features html 20 21 5 22 page 6 misc 19 partners 24 terms 2007 23 17 i 27 top 26 9 legal 30 banners xml 29 28 7 tools projects 25 0 user feed themes linux forums jobs business 8 video email books banner reviews view graphics research feedback pdf print ads modules 2003 company blank pub games copyright common site comments people aboutus product sports logos buttons english story image uploads 31 subscribe blogs atom gallery newsletter stats careers music pages publications technology calendar stories photos papers community data history arrow submit www s web library wiki header education go internet b in advertise spam a nav mail users Images members topics disclaimer store clear feeds c awards 2002 Default general pics dir signup solutions map News public doc de weblog index2 shop contacts fr homepage travel button pixel list viewtopic documents overview tips adclick contact_us movies wp-content catalog us p staff hardware wireless global screenshots apps online version directory mobile other advertising tech welcome admin t policy faqs link 2001 training releases space member static join health
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Search and Replication Schemes in Unstructured P2p Networks
    SURVEY OF SEARCH AND REPLICATION SCHEMES IN UNSTRUCTURED P2P NETWORKS Sabu M. Thampi Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Rajagiri School of Engineering and Technology. Rajagiri Valley, Kakkanad, Kochi- 682039, Kerala (India) Tel: +91-484-2427835 E-mail: [email protected] Chandra Sekaran. K Department of Computer Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka. Surathkal-575025, Karnataka (India) Tel: +91-824-2474000 E-mail: [email protected] Abstract P2P computing lifts taxing issues in various areas of computer science. The largely used decentralized unstructured P2P systems are ad hoc in nature and present a number of research challenges. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive theoretical survey of various state-of-the-art search and replication schemes in unstructured P2P networks for file-sharing applications. The classifications of search and replication techniques and their advantages and disadvantages are briefly explained. Finally, the various issues on searching and replication for unstructured P2P networks are discussed. Keywords: Replication, Searching, Unstructured P2P network. 1 1. Introduction Computing has passed through many transformations since the birth of the first computing machines. A centralized solution has one component that is shared by users all the time. All resources are accessible, but there is a single point of control as well as a single point of failure. A distributed system is a group of autonomous computers connected to a computer network, which appears to the clients of the system as a single computer. Distributed system software allows computers to manage their activities and to share the resources of the system, so that clients recognize the system as a single, integrated computing facility.
    [Show full text]
  • Defending P2ps from Overlay Flooding-Based Ddos
    Defending P2Ps from Overlay Flooding-based DDoS Yunhao Liu1, Xiaomei Liu2, Chen Wang2, and Li Xiao2 1Department of Computer Science, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong 2Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA Abstract DDoS. In DD-POLICE, peers monitor the traffic from and to each of their neighbors. If a peer receives a large number of queries from one of its neighbors, it will mark this neighbor as a A flooding-based search mechanism is often used in un- suspicious DDoS peer. This peer will exchange query volume structured P2P systems. Although a flooding-based search information with the suspicious peer‘s neighbors so that it can mechanism is simple and easy to implement, it is vulnerable to figure out the number of queries originally issued by the suspi- overlay distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. Most pre- cious peer. Based on this number, this peer makes a final deci- vious security techniques protect networks from network-layer sion on whether the suspicious neighbor is a DDoS peer and DDoS attacks, but cannot be applied to overlay DDoS attacks. should be disconnected. Overlay flooding-based DDoS attacks can be more damaging in The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 that a small number of messages are inherently propagated to analyzes the characteristics of overlay DDoS. Section 3 presents consume a large amount of bandwidth and computation re- the design of DD-POLICE. Performance evaluation of sources. We propose a distributed and scalable method, DD-POLICE is presented in Section 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Advances in Peer-To-Peer Content Search
    J Sign Process Syst (2010) 59:309–318 DOI 10.1007/s11265-009-0343-6 Advances In Peer-To-Peer Content Search Madjid Merabti & Zhu Liu & Heather Yu & Deepa Kundur Received: 10 February 2008 /Revised: 12 December 2008 /Accepted: 19 January 2009 /Published online: 5 February 2009 # 2009 Springer Science + Business Media, LLC. Manufactured in The United States Abstract Peer-to-peer (P2P) computer networks have Keywords Peer-to-peer . Content search recently received tremendous attention due to their inherent scalability and flexibility, which facilitates a broad spectrum of innovative multimedia applications. Such networks rely 1 Introduction on the power of participant nodes of the network (called peers) for communications and computation. Traditional The power to access relevant and salient information in a applications of P2P multimedia include decentralized file timely and cost-effective manner is critical in today’s sharing and content distribution. Yet, the value of the information age. Models for information sharing between virtually unlimited amount of data distributed in the P2P ad hoc groups of users are currently being investigated for network will be sacrificed if effective and efficient ways to collaborative and cooperative multimedia sharing applica- locate the content are missing. This challenge has stimulated tions. The most common model to date is based on the extensive research in recent years, and many new P2P peer-to-peer (P2P) communication network model. Ideally, content search methods have been proposed. This paper a P2P network consists of equal peer nodes that can take on provides a timely review of influential work in the area of the roles of both client and server to other peer network peer-to-peer (P2P) content search.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Data Management
    Distributed Data Management Christoph Lofi José Pinto Institut für Informationssysteme Technische Universität Braunschweig http://www.ifis.cs.tu-bs.de 6 Structured P2P Networks 6.1 Hash Tables 6.2 Distributed Hash Tables 6.3 CHORD – Basics – Routing – Peer Management 6.4 Other DHTs – CAN – Pastry – Symphony Distributed Data Management – Christoph Lofi – IfIS – TU Braunschweig 2 6.0 Unstructured P2P Client-Server Peer-to-Peer 1. Server is the central 1. Resources are shared between the peers entity and only provider 2. Resources can be accessed directly from other peers of service and content. 3. Peer is provider and requestor (Servent concept) Network managed by the Server Unstructured P2P Structured P2P 2. Server as the higher performance system. Centralized P2P Pure P2P Hybrid P2P Pure P2P (DHT Based) 3. Clients as the lower performance system 1. All features of Peer-to- 1. All features of Peer-to-Peer 1. All features of Peer-to-Peer 1. All features of Peer-to-Peer Peer included included included included Example: WWW 2. Central entity is necessary 2. Any terminal entity can be 2. Any terminal entity can be 2. Any terminal entity can be removed to provide the service removed without loss of removed without loss of without loss of functionality 3. Central entity is some kind functionality functionality 3. No central entities of index/group database 3. No central entities 3. dynamic central entities 4. Connections in the overlay are Example: Napster Examples: Gnutella 0.4, Freenet Example: Gnutella 0.6, JXTA “fixed” Examples: Chord,
    [Show full text]