Evaluation of P2P Systems under Different Churn Models: Why We Should Bother

  • Marc Sànchez-Artigas
  • Enrique Férnandez-Casado
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6852)

Abstract

Research on peer–to–peer (P2P) systems has been hampered by the fact that few systems are actually in use, and the space of possible applications is still under scrutiny. As a consequence, new ideas have been mostly evaluated using synthetic data, traces from a few existing systems and simulators, with a poor characterization of churn. This void has lead to the formulation of a variety of models, with implications that have not yet been made altogether clear to the community. In this work, we discuss the question whether it pays off to evaluate P2P applications using more than one churn model. Although an affirmative response could appear to be obvious at first glance, we show that depending on the aspects under consideration, models can yield equivalent results, saving implementation time but leading to spurious generalizations if proper care is not taken.

Keywords

Probability Density Function Arrival Process Cosine Similarity Interarrival Time Distribute Hash Table 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bhagwan, R., Tati, K., Cheng, Y.-C., Savage, S., Voelker, G.M.: Total recall: System support for automated availability management. In: NSDI 2004, pp. 337–350 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bustamante, F.E., Qiao, Y.: Friendships that last: peer lifespan and its role in p2p protocols. In: Web Content Caching and Distribution, pp. 233–246 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duminuco, A., Biersack, E., En-Najjary, T.: Proactive replication in distributed storage systems using machine availability estimation. In: CoNext, pp. 27–41 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fernández-Casado, E., Sànchez-Artigas, M., García-López, P.: Affluenza: Towards universal churn generation. In: IEEE P2P 2010, pp. 1–2 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haeberlen, A., Mislove, A., Druschel, P.: Glacier: highly durable, decentralized storage despite massive correlated failures. In: NSDI 2005, pp. 143–158 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kong, J.S., Roychowdhury, V.P.: Price of structured routing and its mitigation in p2p systems under churn. In: IEEE P2P 2007, pp. 97–104 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krishnamurthy, S., et al.: An analytical study of a structured overlay in the presence of dynamic membership. IEEE/ACM TON 16(4), 814–825 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leonard, D., Rai, V., Loguinov, D.: On lifetime-based node failure and stochastic resilience of decentralized peer-to-peer networks. In: ACM SIGMETRICS, pp. 26–37 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li, J., Stribling, J., Gil, T.M., Morris, R., Kaashoek, M.F.: Comparing the performance of distributed hash tables under churn. In: Voelker, G.M., Shenker, S. (eds.) IPTPS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3279, pp. 87–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li, J., et. al.: A performance vs. cost framework for evaluating dht design tradeoffs under churn. In: INFOCOM’05. pp. 225–236 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mahajan, R., Castro, M., Rowstron, A.: Controlling the cost of reliability in peer-to-peer overlays. In: Kaashoek, M.F., Stoica, I. (eds.) IPTPS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2735, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pandurangan, G., Raghavan, P., Upfal, E.: Building low-diameter p2p networks. In: FOCS, pp. 492–499 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rhea, S., Geels, D., Roscoe, T., Kubiatowicz, J.: Handling churn in a DHT. In: USENIX 2004, pp. 127–140 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Saroiu, S., Gummadi, P.K., Gribble, S.D.: A measurement study of peer-to-peer file sharing systems. In: SPIE/ACM MCN 2002, pp. 156–170 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Siewiorek, D.P., Swarz, R.S.: Reliable computer systems (3rd ed.): design and evaluation. A.K. Peters, Ltd., Wellesley (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sriram, K., Whitt, W.: Characterizing superposition arrival processes in packet multiplexers for voice and data. IEEE JSAC 4(6), 833–846 (1986)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang, X., et al.: Robust lifetime measurement in large-scale p2p systems with non-stationary arrivals. In: IEEE P2P 2009, pp. 101–110 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wu, D., Tian, Y., Ng, K.W., Datta, A.: Stochastic analysis of the interplay between object maintenance and churn. Comput. Commun. 31, 220–239 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yao, Z., Leonard, D., Wang, X., Loguinov, D.: Modeling heterogeneous user churn and local resilience of unstructured p2p networks. In: ICNP, pp. 32–41 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Sànchez-Artigas
    • 1
  • Enrique Férnandez-Casado
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Engineering and MathematicsUniversitat Rovira i VirgiliCataloniaSpain

Personalised recommendations