Pastry: Scalable, Decentralized Object Location, and Routing for Large-Scale Peer-to-Peer Systems

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2218)


This paper presents the design and evaluation of Pastry, a scalable, distributed object location and routing substrate for wide-area peer-to-peer applications. Pastry performs application-level routing and object location in a potentially very large overlay network of nodes connected via the Internet. It can be used to support a variety of peer-to-peer applications, including global data storage, data sharing, group communication and naming.

Each node in the Pastry network has a unique identifier (nodeId). When presented with a message and a key, a Pastry node efficiently routes the message to the node with a nodeId that is numerically closest to the key, among all currently live Pastry nodes. Each Pastry node keeps track of its immediate neighbors in the nodeId space, and notifies applications of new node arrivals, node failures and recoveries. Pastry takes into account network locality; it seeks to minimize the distance messages travel, according to a to scalar proximity metric like the number of IP routing hops

Pastry is completely decentralized, scalable, and self-organizing; it automatically adapts to the arrival, departure and failure of nodes. Experimental results obtained with a prototype implementation on an emulated network of up to 100,000 nodes confirm Pastry’s scalability and efficiency, its ability to self-organize and adapt to node failures, and its good network locality properties


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    The Gnutella protocol specification, 2000.
  3. 3.
    W. Adjie-Winoto, E. Schwartz, H. Balakrishnan, and J. Lilley. The design and implementation of an intentional naming system. In Proc. SOSP’99, Kiawah Island, SC, Dec. 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Y. Amir, A. Peterson, and D. Shaw. Seamlessly selecting the best copy from Internet-wide replicated web servers. In Proc. 12th Symposium on Distributed Computing, Andros, Greece, Sept. 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. J. Bolosky, J. R. Douceur, D. Ely, and M. Theimer. Feasibility of a serverless distributed file system deployed on an existing set of desktop PCs. In Proc. SIGMETRICS’2000, Santa Clara, CA, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Bowman, L.L. Peterson, and A. Yeatts. Univers: An attribute-based name server. Software — Practice and Experience, 20(4):403–424, Apr. 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. R. Cheriton and T. P. Mann. Decentralizing a global naming service for improved performance and fault tolerance. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., 7(2):147–183, May 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    I. Clarke, O. Sandberg, B. Wiley, and T. W. Hong. Freenet: A distributed anonymous information storage and retrieval system. In Workshop on Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability, pages 311–320, July 2000. ICSI, Berkeley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Dabek, M. F. Kaashoek, D. Karger, R. Morris, and I. Stoica. Wide-area cooperative storage with CFS. In Proc. ACM SOSP’01, Banff, Canada, Oct. 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Dingledine, M. J. Freedman, and D. Molnar. The Free Haven project: Distributed anonymous storage service. In Proc. Workshop on Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability, Berkeley, CA, July 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Druschel and A. Rowstron. PAST: A large-scale, persistent peer-to-peer storage utility. In Proc. HotOS VIII, Schloss Elmau, Germany, May 2001.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Jannotti, D. K. Gifford, K. L. Johnson, M. F. Kaashoek, and J. W. O’Toole. Overcast: Reliable multicasting with an overlay network. In Proc. OSDI 2000, San Diego, CA, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Kangasharju, J. W. Roberts, and K. W. Ross. Performance evaluation of redirection schemes in content distribution networks. In Proc. 4th Web Caching Workshop, San Diego, CA, Mar. 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Kangasharju and K. W. Ross. A replicated architecture for the domain name system. In Proc. IEEE Infocom 2000, Tel Aviv, Israel, Mar. 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Kubiatowicz, D. Bindel, Y. Chen, S. Czerwinski, P. Eaton, D. Geels, R. Gummadi, S. Rhea, H. Weatherspoon, W Weimer, C. Wells, and B. Zhao. Oceanstore: An architecture for globalscale persistent store. In Proc. ASPLOS’2000, Cambridge, MA, November 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. Lampson. Designing a global name service. In Proc. Fifth Symposium on the Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 1–10, Minaki, Canada, Aug. 1986.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Li, J. Jannotti, D. S. J. D. Couto, D. R. Karger, and R. Morris. A scalable location service for geographical ad hoc routing. In Proc. of ACM MOBICOM 2000, Boston, MA, 2000.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. G. Plaxton, R. Rajaraman, and A. W. Richa. Accessing nearby copies of replicated objects in a distributed environment. Theory of Computing Systems, 32:241–280, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Ratnasamy, P. Francis, M. Handley, R. Karp, and S. Shenker. A scalable content-addressable network. In Proc. ACM SIGCOMM’01, San Diego, CA, Aug. 2001.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Reynolds. RFC 1309: Technical overview of directory services using the X.500 protocol, Mar. 1992.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Rowstron and P. Druschel. Storage management and caching in PAST, a large-scale, persistent peer-to-peer storage utility. In Proc. ACM SOSP’01, Banff, Canada, Oct. 2001.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. Rowstron, A.-M. Kermarrec, P. Druschel, and M. Castro. Scribe: The design of a large-scale event notification infrastructure. Submitted for publication. June 2001.
  23. 23.
    M. A. Sheldon, A. Duda, R. Weiss, and D. K. Gifford. Discover: A resource discovery system based on content routing. In Proc. 3rd International World Wide Web Conference, Darmstadt, Germany, 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    I. Stoica, R. Morris, D. Karger, M. F. Kaashoek, and H. Balakrishnan. Chord: A scalable peer-to-peer lookup service for Internet applications. In Proc. ACM SIGCOMM’01, San Diego, CA, Aug. 2001.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    P. F. Tsuchiya. The landmark hierarchy: a new hierarchy for routing in very large networks. In SIGCOMM’88, Stanford, CA, 1988.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    E. Zegura, K. Calvert, and S. Bhattacharjee. How to model an internetwork. In INFOCOM’96, San Francisco, CA, 1996.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    B. Y. Zhao, J. D. Kubiatowicz, and A. D. Joseph. Tapestry: An infrastructure for fault-resilient wide-area location and routing. Technical Report UCB//CSD-01-1141, U. C. Berkeley, April 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Microsoft Research LtdCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Rice University MS-132HoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations