Encyclopedia of Parallel Computing

2011 Edition
| Editors: David Padua

Peer-to-Peer

  • Stefan Schmid
  • Roger Wattenhofer
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09766-4_278

Synonyms

Definition

The term peer-to-peer (p2p) is ambiguous, and is used in a variety of different contexts, such as:
  • In popular media coverage, p2p is often synonymous to software or protocols that allow users to “share” files (music, software, books, movies, etc.). p2p file sharing is very popular and a large fraction of the total Internet traffic is due to p2p.

  • In academia, the term p2p is used mostly in two ways. A narrow view essentially defines p2p as the “theory behind file-sharing protocols.” In other words, how do Internet hosts need to be organized in order to deliver a search engine to find (share) content (files) efficiently? A popular term is “distributed hash table” (DHT), a distributed data structure that implements such a content search engine. A DHT should support at least a search (for a key) and an insert(key, object) operation. A DHT has many...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. 1.
    Adar E, Huberman B (2000) Free riding on gnutella. First Monday 5(10):1–22Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aggarwal V, Feldmann A, Scheideler C (2007) Can ISPs and p2p users cooperate for improved performance? ACM Comput Commun Rev 37(3):29–40Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aspnes J, Shah G (2003) Skip graphs. In: Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms (SODA), Baltimore, 2003Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Awerbuch B, Peleg D (1990) Sparse partitions. In: Proceedings of the 31st annual symposium on foundations of computer science (SFCS), vol 2, pp 503–513, Washington, 1990Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Awerbuch B, Peleg D (1995) Online tracking of mobile users. JACM 42(5):1021–1058zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bagchi A, Bhargava A, Chaudhary A, Eppstein D, Scheideler C (2004) The effect of faults on network expansion. In: Proceedings of the 16th annual ACM symposium on parallelism in algorithms and architectures (SPAA), Barcelona, 2004Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baumgart M, Scheideler C, Schmid S. A DoSresilient information system for dynamic data management. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM symposium on parallelism in algorithms and architectures (SPAA), Calgary, Alberta, 2009Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buford J, Yu H, Lua EK (2008) P2P networking and applications. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 2008Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gummadi K, Dunn R, Saroiu S, Gribble SD, Levy HM, Zahorjan J (2003) Measurement, modeling, and analysis of a peer-to-peer file-sharing workload. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM symposium on operating systems principles (SOSP), Bolton Landing, 2003Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haeberlen A, Mislove A, Post A, Druschel P (2006) Fallacies in evaluating decentralized systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on peer-to-peer systems (IPTPS), Santa Barbara, 2006Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harvey NJA, Jones MB, Saroiu S, Theimer M, Wolman A. Skipnet: a scalable overlay network with practical locality properties. In: Proceedings of the 4th USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems (USITS), Seattle, 2003Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    IPOQUE (2009) Internet study 2008/2009. http://www.ipoque.com/resources/internet-studies/internet-study-2008-2009, pp 704–713 (accessed on October 31, 2010)
  13. 13.
    Jacob R, Richa A, Scheideler C, Schmid S, Täubig H (2009) A distributed polylogarithmic time algorithm for self-stabilizing skip graphs. In: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on principles of cistributed computing (PODC), New York, 2009Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jacob R, Ritscher S, Scheideler C, Schmid S (2009) A self-stabilizing and local delaunay graph construction. In: Proceedings of the 20th international symposium on algorithms and computation (ISAAC), Hawaii, 2009Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaashoek F, Karger DR (2003) Koorde: a simple degree-optimal distributed hash table. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on peer-to-peer systems (IPTPS), Berkeley, 2003Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karger D, Lehman E, Leighton T, Panigrahy R, Levine M, Lewin D (1997) Consistent hashing and random trees: distributed caching protocols for relieving hot spots on the world wide web. In: Proceedings of the 29th ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC), New York, pp 654–663, 1997Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khan J, Wierzbicki A (2008) Foundation of peer-to-peer computing. Elsevier Computer Communication, 2008Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuhn F, Moscibroda T, Wattenhofer R (2006) The price of being near-sighted. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms (SODA), Miami, 2006Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuhn F, Schmid S, Wattenhofer R (2010) Towards worstcase churn resistant peer-to-peer systems. J Distrib Comput (DIST) 22(4):249–267Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Larkin E (2007) Storm worm’s virulence may change tactics. British Computer Society (accessed on August 03, 2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Legout A, Urvoy-Keller G, Michiardi P (2006) Rarest first and choke algorithms are enough. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCOMM conference on internet measurement (IMC), pp 203–216, Rio de Janeriro, 2006Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Levin D, LaCurts K, Spring N, Bhattacharjee B (2008) Bittorrent is an auction: analyzing and improving bittorrent’s incentives. SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 38(4):243–254Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li H, Clement A, Marchetti M, Kapritsos M, Robinson L, Alvisi L, Dahlin M (2008) Flightpath: obedience vs choice in cooperative services. In: Proceedings of the symposium on operating systems design and implementation (OSDI), San Diego, 2008Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Locher T, Moor P, Schmid S, Wattenhofer R (2006) Free riding in bittorrent is cheap. In: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets), Irvine, 2006Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Malkhi D (2004) Locality-aware network solutions. Technical Report, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, HUJI-CSE-LTR-2004-6Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Malkhi D, Naor M, Ratajczak D (2002) Viceroy: a scalable and dynamic emulation of the buttery. In: Proceedings of the 21st annual symposium on principles of distributed computing (PODC), Monterey, 2002Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maymounkov P, Mazières D (2002) Kademlia: a peer-to-peer information system based on the xor metric. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on peer-to-peer systems (IPTPS), Cambridge, 2002Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moscibroda T, Schmid S, Wattenhofer R (2006) On the topologies formed by selfish peers. In: Proceedings of the 25th annual symposium on principles of distributed computing (PODC), Denver, 2006Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Naor M, Wieder U (2003) Novel architectures for p2p applications: the continuous-discrete approach. In: Proceedings of the 15th annual ACM symposium on parallel algorithms and architectures (SPAA), pp 50–59, San Diego, 2003Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nisan N, Roughgarden T, Tardos E, Vazirani VV (2007) Algorithmic game theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Peleg D, Upfal E (1988) A tradeoff between space and efficiency for routing tables. In: Proceedings of the 20th annual ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC), pp 43–52, Chicago, 1988Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Piatek M, Isdal T, Anderson T, Krishnamurthy A, Venkataramani A (2007) Do incentives build robustness in bittorrent? In: Proceedings of the 4th USENIX symposium on networked systems design and implementation, Cambridge, 2007Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Piatek M, Madhyastha HV, John JP, Krishnamurthy A, Anderson T (2009) Pitfalls for ISP-friendly p2p design. In: Proceedings of the hotnets, New York, 2009Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Plaxton C, Rajaraman R, Richa AW (1997) Accessing nearby copies of replicated objects in a distributed environment. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM symposium on parallel algorithms and architectures (SPAA), pp 311, 320, Newport, 1997Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Qiu D, Srikant R (2004) Modeling and performance analysis of bittorrent-like peer-to-peer networks. In: Proceedings of the conference on applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications (SIGCOMM), pp 367–378, New York, 2004Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ratnasamy S, Francis P, Handley M, Karp R, Schenker S (2001) A scalable content-addressable network. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIG-COMM conference on applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications, pp 161–172, New York, 2001Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rowstron AIT, Druschel P (2001) Pastry: scalable, decentralized object location, and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems. In: Proceedings of the IFIP/ACM international conference on distributed systems platforms (middleware), pp 329–350, Heibelberg, 2001Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Saroiu S, Gummadi PK, Gribble SD (2002) A measurement study of peer-to-peer file sharing systems. In: Proceedings of the multimedia computing and networking (MMCN), San Jose, 2002Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Scheideler C (2005) How to spread adversarial nodes?: rotate! In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC), pp 704–713, Baltimore, 2005Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Scheideler C, Schmid S (2009) A distributed and oblivious heap. In: Proceedings of the 36th international colloquium on automata, languages and programming (ICALP), Rhodes, 2009Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sen S, Wang J (2004) Analyzing peer-to-peer traffic across large networks. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 12(2):219–232Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shneidman J, Parkes DC (2003) Rationality and self-interest in peer to peer networks. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on peer-to-peer systems (IPTPS), Berkeley, 2003Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Steiner M, Biersack EW, Ennajjary T (2007) Actively monitoring peers in KAD. In: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on peer-to-peer systems (IPTPS), Bellevue, 2007Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Steiner M, En-Najjary T, Biersack EW (2007) Exploiting KAD: possible uses and misuses. Comput Commu Rev 37(5):65–69Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Steinmetz R, Wehrle K (2005) Peer-to-peer systems and applications. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stoica I, Morris R, Karger D, Kaashoek F, Balakrishnan H (2001) Chord: a scalable peer-to-peer lookup service for internet applications. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM conference on applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications, San Diego, 2001Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stutzbach D, Rejaie R (2006) Understanding churn in peer-to-peer networks. In: Proceedings of the 6th internet measurement conference (IMC), New York, 2006Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Subramanian R, Goodman B (2005) Peer-to-peer computing: the evolution of a disruptive technology. IGI, HersheyGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Thorup M, Zwick U (2001) Compact routing schemes. In: Proceedings of the annual ACM symposium on parallel algorithms and architectures (SPAA), pp 1–10, Crete, Greece, 2001Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zhao BY, Huang L, Stribling J, Rhea SC, Joseph AD, Kubiatowicz J (2004) Tapestry: a resilient global-scale overlay for Service deployment. IEEE journal on selected areas in commonuincations vol 22, No. 1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Schmid
    • 1
  • Roger Wattenhofer
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer ScienceTelekom Laboratories/TU BerlinBerlinGermany