Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 279–291 | Cite as

File size models for shared content over the BitTorrent Peer-to-Peer network

  • Mohammed Hawa
  • Jamal S. Rahhal
  • Dia I. Abu-Al-Nadi


Peer-to-Peer (P2P) traffic has increased rapidly over the past few years, with file sharing providing the main drive behind such traffic. In this work we perform a measurement study of the content shared over the popular BitTorrent P2P file sharing network. We mathematically model the file size distributions of shared files after categorizing them into Audio, Video, Archive and CD image classes. For each of these categories we look into the most popular shared file formats and investigate their file size statistics. This provides an important milestone to building a realistic simulation framework for P2P systems, and for future analytical modeling of P2P networks.


Peer-to-Peer Shared content BitTorrent File size Measurement Model 


  1. 1.
    Zhang Y, Chen C, Wang X (2006) Recent advances in research on P2P networks. In: Proceedings of the international conference on parallel and distributed computing, applications and technologies, pp 278–284Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yang J, Ma H, Song W, Cui J, Zhou C (2006) Crawling the eDonkey network. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on grid and cooperative computing workshops, pp 133–136Google Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Schulze H, Mochalski K (2009) Internet study 2008/2009. Ipoque. Online report.
  5. 5.
    Saroiu S, Gummadi PK, Gribble SD (2002) A measurement study of peer-to-peer file sharing systems. In: Proceedings of multimedia computing and networkingGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sen S, Wang J (2002) Analyzing peer-to-peer traffic across large networks. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM workshop on internet measurement, pp 137–150Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tutschku K (2004) A measurement-based traffic profile of the eDonkey filesharing service. In: Proceedings of the annual passive and active measurement workshop, pp 12–21Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Handurukande SB, Kermarrec A-M, Le Fessant F, Massoulié L, Patarin S (2006) Peer sharing behaviour in the eDonkey network, and implications for the design of server-less file sharing systems. ACM SIGOPS Oper Syst Rev 40(4):359–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caviglionea L, Davolib F (2008) Traffic volume analysis of a nation-wide eMule community. Comput Commun 31(10):2485–2495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Izal M, Urvoy-Keller G, Biersack EW, Felber PA, Al Hambra A, Garcés-Erice L (2004) Dissecting BitTorrent: five months in a torrent’s lifetime. In: Proceedings of the passive and active measurement workshopGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meulpolder M, D’Acunto L, Capota M, Wojciechowski M, Pouwelse JA, Epema DHJ, Sips HJ (2010) Public and private BitTorrent communities: a measurement study. In: Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on peer-to-peer systemsGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pouwelse J, Garbacki P, Epema D, Sips H (2005) The BitTorrent P2P file-sharing system: measurements and analysis. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on peer-to-peer systemsGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guo L, Chen S, Xiao Z, Tan E, Ding X, Zhang X (2005) Measurements, analysis, and modeling of BitTorrent-like systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGCOMM conference on internet measurement, p 4Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pearson K (1895) Contributions to the mathematical theory of evolution, II: skew variation in homogeneous material. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A 186:343–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pearson K (1901) Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution, X: supplement to a memoir on skew variation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A 197:443–459zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Draper N, Smith H (1998) Applied regression analysis, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ernesto (2011) Top 10 most popular torrent sites of 2011.
  18. 18.
    Schlosser D, Hoßfeld T (2009) Mastering selfishness and heterogeneity in mobile P2P content distribution networks with multiple source download in cellular networks. In: Peer-to-peer networking and applications, pp 252–266Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xu J, Wang X, Zhao J, Lim AO (2011) I-swifter: improving chunked network coding for peer-to-peer content distribution. In: Peer-to-peer networking and applicationsGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ozkasap O, Çaglar M, Alagoz A (2009) Principles and performance analysis of second: a system for epidemic peer-to-peer content distribution. J Netw Comput Appl 32(3):666–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wei G, Gu Y, Ge Y (2009) Cluster: an effective solution to the problem of heavy-tailed distribution in P2P networks. In: Proceedings of the international conference on new trends in information and service science, pp 1397–1402Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carra D, Neglia G, Michiardi P, Albanese F (2011) On the robustness of BitTorrent swarms to greedy peers. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 22(12):2071–2078CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammed Hawa
    • 1
  • Jamal S. Rahhal
    • 1
  • Dia I. Abu-Al-Nadi
    • 1
  1. 1.Electrical Engineering DepartmentThe University of JordanAmmanJordan

Personalised recommendations