Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications

, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 1031–1046 | Cite as

Measuring the complexity of adaptive peer-to-peer systems



To improve the efficiency of peer-to-peer (P2P) systems while adapting to changing environmental conditions, static peer-to-peer protocols can be replaced by adaptive plans. The resulting systems are inherently complex, which makes their development and characterization a challenge for traditional methods. Here we propose the design and analysis of adaptive P2P systems using measures of complexity, emergence, self-organization, and homeostasis based on information theory. These measures allow the evaluation of adaptive P2P systems and thus can be used to guide their design. We evaluate the proposal with a P2P computing system provided with adaptation mechanisms. We show the evolution of the system with static and also changing workload, using different fitness functions. When the adaptive plan forces the system to converge to a predefined performance level, the nodes may result in highly unstable configurations, which correspond to a high variance in time of the measured complexity. Conversely, if the adaptive plan is less “aggressive”, the system may be more stable, but the optimal performance may not be achieved.


Adaptive peer-to-peer system Evolution Complexity Information theory 


  1. 1.
    Gershenson C, Heylighen F (2005) How can we think the complex? In: Richardson K. (ed) Managing organizational complexity: philosophy, theory and application. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, pp 47–61Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gershenson C (2013) The implications of interactions for science and philosophy. Found Sci 18(4):781–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gershenson C (2007) Design and control of self-organizing systems. CopIt Arxives, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Psaier H, Dustdar S (2011) A survey on self-healing systems: approaches and systems. Computing 91(1):43–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dobson S, Sterritt R, Nixon P, Hinchey M (2010) Fulfilling the vision of autonomic computing. IEEE Comput Mag 43(1): 35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gershenson C, Fernández N (2012) Complexity and information: measuring emergence, self-organization, and homeostasis at multiple scales. Complexity 18(2):29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fernández N, Maldonado C, Gershenson C (2014) Information measures of complexity, emergence, self-organization, homeostasis, and autopoiesis. In: Prokopenko M (ed) Guided self-organization: inception. Springer, Berlin, pp 19–51Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Amoretti M (2013) Introducing artificial evolution into peer-to-peer networks with the distributed remodeling framework. Genet Programm Evolvable Mach 14(2):127–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    IBM: An architectural blueprint for autonomic computing. (2003). Accessed 17 Jan 2015
  10. 10.
    Huebscher MC, McCann JA (2008) A survey of autonomic computing — degrees, models, and applications. ACM Comput Surv 40(3):7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Müller-Schloer C, Schmeck H (2011) Organic computing - quo vadis? In: Müller-Schloer C, Schmeck H, Ungerer T (eds) Organic computing — a paradigm shift for complex systems. Basel, Birkhäuser Verlag, pp 615–627Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bruni R, Corradini A, Gadducci F, Lluch Lafuente A, Vandin A (2012) A conceptual framework for adaptation. In: Proc. 15th int.’l conf. on the fundamentals of software engineering (FASE’12), pp 240–254Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nakano T, Suda T (2005) Self-organizing network services with evolutionary adaptation. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 16(5):1269–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hales D (2004) From selfish nodes to cooperative networks — emergent link-based incentives in peer-to-peer networks. In: Proceedings 4th IEEE international conference on peer-to-peer computing (P2P’04), pp 151–158Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tyson G, Grace P, Mauthe A, Kaune S (2008) The survival of the fittest: an evolutionary approach to deploying adaptive functionality in peer-to-peer systems. In: Proceedings 7th workshop on reflective and adaptive middleware (ARM’08), pp 23–28Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Amoretti M (2009) A survey of peer-to-peer overlay schemes: effectiveness, efficiency and security. Recent Patents Comput Sci 2(3):195–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cooper BF, Garcia-Molina H (2006) SIL: a model for analyzing scalable peer-to-peer search networks. Comput Netw 50(13):2380–2400CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karakaya M, Korpeoglu I, Ulusoy O (2008) Counteracting free riding in peer-to-peer networks. Comput Netw 52((3) 22):675–694CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Esposito F, Matta I, Bera D, Michiardi P (2011) On the impact of seed scheduling in peer-to-peer networks. Comput Netw 55(15):3303–3317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen Y, Le Merrer E, Li Z, Liu Y, Simon G (2012) OAZE: A network-friendly distributed zapping system for peer-to-peer IPTV. Comput Netw 56(1):365–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Onana Alima L, El-Ansary S, Brand P, Haridi S (2003) DKS(N,k,f): a family of low communication, scalable and fault-tolerant infrastructures for p2p communications. In: Proceedings 3rd IEEE/ACM inter symposium on cluster computing and the grid (CCGRID’03), pp 344–350Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paechter B, Back T, Schoenauer M, Sebag M, Eiben AE, Merelo JJ, Fogarty TC (2000) A distributed resource evolutionary algorithm machine (DREAM). In: Proceedings IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC 2000), pp 951–958Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prokopenko M, Boschetti F, Ryan AJ (2009) An information-theoretic primer on complexity, self-organisation and emergence. Complexity 15(1):11–28MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Langton C (1990) Computation at the edge of chaos: Phase transitions and emergent computation. Physica D 42:12–37MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kauffman SA (1993) The origins of order. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gershenson C (2007) The World as evolving information. In: Proceedings International conference on complex systems (ICCS), pp 100–115Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gershenson C, Heylighen F (2003) When can we call a system self-organizing? In: Proceedings 7th European conference on advances in artificial life (ECAL 2003), pp 606–614Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Eugster PT, Guerraoui R, Kermarrec A-M, Massoulie L (2004) From epidemics to distributed computing. IEEE Comput 37(5)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ahi E, Caglar M, Ozkasap O (2007) Stepwise fair-share buffering underneath bio-inspired P2P data dissemination. In: Proceedings 6th international symposium on parallel and distributed computing (ISPDC’07), pp 177–184Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    The Gnutella Developer Forum (GDF): the annotated gnutella protocol specification v0.4. (2003). Accessed 17 Jan 2015
  31. 31.
    Laredo JL, Eiben AE, Steen M, Merelo JJ (2010) EvAg: a scalable peer-to-peer evolutionary algorithm. Genet Programm Evolvable Mach 11(2):227–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Amoretti M (2009) A framework for evolutionary peer-to-peer overlay schemes. In: Proceedings European workshops on the applications of evolutionary computation (EvoWorkshops 2009), pp 61–70Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Amoretti M, Agosti M, Zanichelli F (March 2009) DEUS: a discrete event universal simulator. In: 2nd ICST/ACM International conference on simulation tools and techniques (SIMUTools 2009). RomaGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Amoretti M, Picone M, Zanichelli F, Ferrari G (2013) Simulating mobile and distributed systems with DEUS and ns-3. In: Proceedings international conference on high performance computing and simulation (HPCS 2013), pp 107–114Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Montresor A, Jelasity M (2009) PeerSim: a scalable P2P simulator. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on peer-to-peer (P2P’09), pp 99–100Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Barabasi A-L, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286:509–512MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zubillaga D, Cruz G, Aguilar LD, Zapotécatl J, Fernández N, Aguilar J, Rosenblueth DA, Gershenson C (2014) Measuring the complexity of self-organizing traffic lights. Entropy 16(5):2384–2407CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’InformazioneUniversità degli Studi di ParmaParmaItaly
  2. 2.Instituto de Investigaciones en Matemáticas Aplicadas y en SistemasUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México, A.P. 20-126MéxicoMéxico

Personalised recommendations