Guaranteeing Performance through Fairness in Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing and Streaming Systems. Alex Sherman
|
|
- Byron Baldwin Ross
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Guaranteeing Performance through Fairness in Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing and Streaming Systems Alex Sherman Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2010
2 c 2010 Alex Sherman All Rights Reserved
3 ABSTRACT Guaranteeing Performance through Fairness in Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing and Streaming Systems Alex Sherman Over the past decade, Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file-sharing and streaming systems have evolved as a cheap and effective technology in distributing content to users. Guaranteeing a level of performance in P2P systems is, therefore, of utmost importance. However, P2P file-sharing and streaming applications suffer from a fundamental problem of unfairness, where many users have a tendency to free-ride by contributing little or no upload bandwidth while consuming much download bandwidth. By taking away an unfair share of resources, free-riders deteriorate the quality of service experienced by other users, by causing slower download times in P2P file-sharing networks and higher stream updates miss rates in P2P streaming networks. Previous attempts at addressing fair bandwidth allocation in P2P, such as BitTorrent-like systems, suffer from slow peer discovery, inaccurate predictions of neighboring peers bandwidth allocations, under-utilization of bandwidth, and complex parameter tuning. We present FairTorrent, a new deficit-based distributed algorithm that accurately rewards peers in accordance with their contribution in a file-sharing P2P system. In a nutshell, a FairTorrent peer uploads the next data block to a peer to whom it owes the most data. FairTorrent is resilient to exploitation by free-riders and strategic peers, is simple to implement, requires no bandwidth over-allocation, no prediction of peers
4 rates, no centralized control, and no parameter tuning. We implemented FairTorrent in a BitTorrent client without modifications to the BitTorrent protocol, and evaluated its performance against other widely-used BitTorrent clients using various scenarios including live BitTorrent swarms. Our results show that FairTorrent provides up to two orders of magnitude better fairness, up to five times better download performance for contributing peers, and % better performance on average in live BitTorrent swarms. We show analytically that for a number of upload capacity distributions, in an n-node FairTorrent network, no peer is ever owed more than O(log n) data blocks with high probability. Achieving fair bandwidth allocation in a P2P streaming scenario is even more difficult, as it comes with an additional constraint: each stream update must be received before its playback deadline. P2P live streaming systems require global resource over-provisioning to deliver adequate streaming performance. When there is not enough bandwidth to accommodate all users for a particular stream, such as due to free-riders or low-contributing peers, all users, including high-contributing peers, observe poor performance. We present FairStream, a new P2P streaming system that delivers a good quality stream to peers that upload data at a rate above the stream rate, even in the presence of free-riders or malicious users. FairStream achieves this with three mechanisms. First, it provides a new peer reply policy framework that enables file sharing incentive mechanisms to be adapted for streaming. Second, it uses this framework to incorporate a deficit-based peer reply policy that enables each peer to reply first to the neighbor to whom it owes the most data as measured by a deficit counter. Third, it introduces a collusion-resistant mechanism to ensure effective data distribution of a stream despite a large fraction of free-riders who do not forward received data. We prove that FairStream is resilient to free-riders and rewards peers with streaming performance correlated with their contributions. We
5 have also implemented FairStream as a BitTorrent client and evaluated its performance against other popular streaming systems. Our results on PlanetLab show that FairStream, similar to other systems, provides good quality streaming performance when resources are over-provisioned, but it also provides orders of magnitude better streaming performance for peers uploading above the stream rate when resources are constrained, in the presence of free-riders and low-contributing peers.
6 Contents Contents i List of Figures vi List of Tables xi 1 Introduction Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing and FairTorrent Peer-to-Peer Streaming and FairStream Novel Contributions Background and Related Work Overview of BitTorrent Fairness in BitTorrent-like Systems Reputation and Credit-based Systems Fairness in Packet Flow Allocation Structured vs Unstructured Streaming Systems Fairness in P2P Streaming Streaming Server FairTorrent Algorithm for Peer-to-Peer File-sharing 26 i
7 3.1 Definition of Fairness Algorithm Leecher Behavior Seed Behavior Exchanging Data Unchoking Peers Reaching Rate Convergence Data Availability Bootstrapping TCP friendliness FairTorrent Properties Measure of Fairness Fast Rate Convergence High Utilization and Incentives Resilience to Strategic Peers Analysis, Modeling and Simulation of the FairTorrent Algorithm Problem Specifications, Terminology and Assumptions Problem Specification and Terminology Assumptions Objective A Simple Distribution Uniform Distribution Modeling a Load Queue as a Markov Chain Modeling the Arrival Rate ii
8 4.3.3 Steady-State Behavior Completing The Model Working with the Model Verifying the Model Bounds on the Maximum Deficit General Distribution and Bounds Bounds on the Maximum Deficit Steady-State Behavior Simulation Results Network Size Peer s Upload Capacity Experiment Duration Network Delay Comparison with Fair Scheduling Fair Scheduling Algorithms FairTorrent Applied to Scheduling Evaluation Methodology Node Selection Generating a List of High Capacity Machines Selecting Machines for an Experiment Running the Experiments Ensuring Synchronization via Phased Deployment Detecting Stale Clients via White List Distribution Test Monitoring, Termination and Log Collection iii
9 5.3 BitTorrent-specific Deployment Features Using Local Torrents Cleaning Dot Files Configuration of the Experiments Analyzing Experimental Results TestDeploy Components FairTorrent Evaluation Uniform Distribution Skewed Distribution Dynamic Live Distribution Live Swarms FairStream: Peer-to-Peer Live Streaming with Resilience to Free- Riders and Low-Contributing Peers Introduction System Design Request and Buffering Policy FairStream Reply Policy Preemptive Re-requests Streaming Server Best-Peers Optimization Additional Parameters FairStream Properties The Case of No Excess Bandwidth iv
10 7.3.2 Assuming Excess Capacity Resilience to Strategic peers assuming Excess Bandwidth FairStream Evaluation Global Overprovisioning Two Upload Classes Flash Crowd and Dynamic Arrivals A Large Range of Upload Classes Free-Riding Conclusions and Future Work Our Results Implications Reliable Services Open Streaming Future Work Fairness of P2P Data-Exchange Application of FairTorrent Bibliography 182 v
11 List of Figures 3.1 FairTorrent algorithm for leechers L 1, L 2 and L 3 with upload capacities of 3, 2 and Peers L 1, L 2 and L 3 with upload capacities of 3, 2, and 2. The figure shows bandwidth allocations in blocks/s between these peers over the first four 10-second intervals under four different systems: (a) Fair- Torrent, (b) BitTorrent s equal-split, (c) Block-based TFT and (d) PropShare. For Block-based TFT we assume a threshold limit of 2 data blocks Markov chain modeling the size of the load queue for peer L i Progress made by peer L i in sending load packets to the peers on its randomized list. The figure captures a possible progression in time from top to bottom Deficit lists of several peers: L i, L u, L v, L w, L x captured at a point in time. Existing holes are annotated with peers they correspond to. L m is responsible for the largest number of holes Expected Load on Peers with Upload Capacities between 1 and vi
12 4.5 Expected Load on Peers with Upload Capacities between 1 and Expected Load on Peers with Upload Capacities between 1 and SameRate upload capacity distribution: Maximum positive and negative deficits across all peers in a SameRate distribution for networks of size 50, 100, 200 and 400. The error bars capture the minimum, average and the maximum values of the max deficits recorded across 20 experiments Uniform upload capacity distribution: Maximum positive and negative deficits across all peers in a uniform distribution for networks of size 50, 100, 200, and 400. The error bars capture the minimum, average and the maximum values of the max deficits recorded across 20 experiments Exp upload capacity distribution: Maximum positive and negative deficits across all peers in a Exp distribution for networks of size 50, 100, 200, and 400. The error bars capture the minimum, average and the maximum values of the max deficits recorded across 20 experiments Maximum Deficit observed by nodes of a given upload capacity over 20 experiments in a network of 200 nodes with a uniform distribution of upload capacities Maximum deficit observed over time in three different experiments under the SameRate, the Uniform and the Exp distributions of the upload capacities Maximum deficit over time for a network of 200 nodes under the Uniform upload capacity distribution for 4 different network delay values of 0, 100, 200 and 300 milliseconds vii
13 4.13 GPS: scheduling packets for flow S1 of weight 10 and S2 through S11 of weight 1 under GPS. Each flow is allocated its proportional bandwidth WFQ: scheduling packets for flow S1 of weight 10 and S2 through S11 of weight 1 under WFQ. Flow S1 gets ahead by 10 packets before any packets from other flows are scheduled. p 10 1 and p 11 1 mark the 10th and the 11th packets sent to the flow S WF2Q: scheduling packets for flow S1 of weight 10 and S2 through S11 of weight 1 under WF2Q. Flow S1 gets ahead by at most 1 packet ahead of the GPS-based allocation Uniform: FairTorrent fairness Uniform: BitTorrent fairness Uniform: Azureus fairness Uniform: PropShare fairness Uniform: BitTyrant fairness Uniform: rate convergence to 90% capacity for 40-50KB/s leechers Uniform: rate convergence to 90% capacity for all leechers Uniform: E max + and Emax Uniform: High-uploaders download time Uniform: Download time of all the leechers Uniform: FairTorrent download time Uniform: BitTorrent download time Uniform: Azureus download time Uniform: PropShare download time Uniform: BitTyrant download time viii
14 6.16 Uniform: FairTorrent utilization Uniform: BitTorrent utilization Uniform: Azureus utilization Uniform: PropShare utilization Uniform: BitTyrant utilization Uniform: Standard deviation of the download rate Skewed: Download time Skewed: high uploader E max +, Emax Dynamic: high uploaders average download times Dynamic: high uploaders E max Live download rate Miss Rate for well-provisioned networks Miss rate with two upload classes Median miss rate vs buffer time th percentile miss rate vs buffer time FlashCrowd: initial high-uploaders FlashCrowd: high-uploaders that arrive Dynamic arrivals: initial high-uploaders Dynamic Arrivals: high-uploaders that arrive PL: Delivery Rate vs. Upload Capacity GM: Delivery Rate vs. Upload Capacity BT: Delivery Rate vs. Upload Capacity PS: Delivery Rate vs. Upload Capacity FS: Delivery Rate vs. Upload Capacity ix
15 8.14 Miss rate of high-uploaders mixed with 33% low-uploaders and 33% free-riders x
16 List of Tables 3.1 FairTorrent terminology Values computed by the model for the expected load: N, and the expected number of holes: H on a network with 200 nodes with upload capacities chosen from the uniform distribution Maximum positive and negative service errors for different scheduling algorithms, and run-time per packet in terms of the number of flows: n Packets sent by and received by FairTorrent peer S0 from its peers through time. Each cell (Si, DF 0i (t )) indicates the deficit value, DF 0i (t ), observed by S0 from peer Si right before the start of the time unit t. A cell may contain letters r or s, corresponding to a packet that was received by or sent by S0 to a given peer right before the start of a time unit xi
17 Acknowledgments This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Marina and Boris Sherman, who encouraged me throughout the program. I thank my adviser Jason Nieh who encouraged me to work on a problem of interest to me, helped me formulate the problem and supported me throughout the doctoral program. I also thank Cliff Stein for many discussions related to the theoretical analysis of the problem. xii
18 Chapter 1 Introduction Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file-sharing and streaming systems have evolved as a cheap and effective way to distribute content to users. In the past decade, the usage of P2P file-sharing applications on the Internet has experienced explosive growth. Many individuals and businesses now rely on P2P file-sharing for distributing videos, software, and documents. More recently, P2P video streaming systems have also been growing in popularity. Many P2P streaming systems [52, 69, 32] boast hundreds of thousands of concurrent users and transmit sport games, concerts, and other events. While leveraging individual users upload bandwidth allows P2P systems to deliver content in a cheap and scalable manner, these systems often suffer from poor performance. In particular, free-riders, users who contribute little or no bandwidth, are prevalent in file-sharing systems and take away significant resources from the systems, causing slow downloads for other users. Even a high-contributing peer cannot guarantee its own performance in the presence of free-riders. Similarly, in a P2P streaming system, a high-contributing user that may be contributing bandwidth many
19 Chapter 1. Introduction 2 times above the rate of the stream, can observe a poor streaming quality with high miss rate, or high percentage of missed stream updates, in the presence of users that contribute little bandwidth. This dissertation addresses the problem of the vulnerability of P2P systems in the presence of free-riding and low-contributing users. We develop algorithms that allow users to receive fair reciprocation from the system. By fair reciprocation we refer to a scenario where a peer receives the download bandwidth from its neighbors that closely matches the peer s own upload bandwidth contribution. Because of the fair reciprocation, we demonstrate that, both in P2P file-sharing and P2P streaming, a high-contributing user can be guaranteed a high quality performance despite the presence of a large number of free-riding and low-contributing users in the system. 1.1 Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing and FairTorrent Although P2P file-sharing is now an integral part of our computing experience, filesharing applications are plagued by a fundamental problem of unfairness in how bandwidth among peers is used and allocated: peers do not receive service commensurate with what they contribute to the system. Unfairness causes many performance problems. Peers are disincentivized from contributing more upload bandwidth. A growing number of free riders, peers who cap their upload bandwidth to zero or a small value, take as much as possible from the system while contributing little resources. On the other hand, high-contributing peers often observe slow download times in the presence of free-riders. Thus, a peer cannot guarantee their own performance by increasing contribution. While there has been much research in fair bandwidth allocation to a set of network flows by a router [16, 47, 20, 7, 58], fair bandwidth allocation in P2P systems can
20 Chapter 1. Introduction 3 be difficult to achieve for several reasons. First, bandwidth resources are distributed and belong to a number of peers, rather than a single entity such as a router. Unlike a router or a server, no central entity controls and arbitrates access to all resources. Second, the amount of bandwidth resources available is not known in advance and peers cannot be relied upon to specify their own resources honestly. Third, bandwidth resources may vary over time for several reasons, including changing network conditions, peers joining and leaving the system, mobile peers connecting at different access points, and users using available bandwidth for other activities. Finally, some peers, such as free-riders who intentionally cap their bandwidth to zero or a very small value, may try to take advantage of the system, Any fair allocation mechanism must be strong enough to withstand attempts by free-riders and strategic peers to manipulate the system. Many approaches have attempted to address the problem of fair bandwidth exchange in file-sharing systems. There are three main approaches. The most common approach, employed by the popular file-sharing system BitTorrent [13], splits a peer s upload bandwidth equally among a subset of neighboring peers and adjusts this subset based on estimates of their bandwidth rates. This approach is commonly referred to at the tit-for-tat (TFT) heuristic. A second approach is block-based TFT [9, 27, 63], used by BitTyrant [49] peers among one another, which augments TFT with hard limits on the amount of data one peer can owe another. A third approach is embodied by PropShare [31] in which a peer s upload bandwidth is split among its neighbors in proportion to past estimates of its neighbors bandwidth contributions. All of these approaches are rate-based and suffer from a fundamental flaw. They assume that neighboring peers rates measured over some arbitrary period of time provide accurate capacity estimates and are indicators of future bandwidth contributions. In practice, this assumption is problematic as both P2P bandwidth availability and
21 Chapter 1. Introduction 4 consumption can vary substantially from one time interval to another. This results in significant problems with existing approaches, including unfairness, exploitation by strategic clients [59, 49, 39], bandwidth underutilization [9, 27], ad-hoc parameter tuning requirements, and poor performance. We present FairTorrent, a new deficit-based distributed P2P algorithm that solves the problem of fair bandwidth exchange in the presence of free-riders and strategic peers. FairTorrent accurately rewards peers in accordance with their contribution. In its simplest form, FairTorrent, which runs locally at each peer, maintains a deficit counter for each neighbor which represents the difference between bytes sent and bytes received from that neighbor. When it is ready to upload a data block it sends it to the peer with the lowest deficit, or simply the peer to whom it owes the most data. Unlike other approaches, FairTorrent uses a completely different mechanism that does not rely on any explicit estimates of peer bandwidth, thereby avoiding the bandwidth rate estimation problem that has plagued other approaches. By selecting the destination of the next block to go to the neighbor with the smallest deficit, FairTorrent always acts to minimize the difference between bytes sent and bytes received, thereby minimizing unfairness at each step. The result is a high degree of fairness, and performance for each peer closely correlated with its contribution. FairTorrent provides several key advantages over other approaches: (1) It provides fair bandwidth allocation, operating only at individual peers, in a distributed manner that does not require any centralized control of peers or other P2P resources. (2) It is provably resilient to free riders and other strategic clients. (3) It allows a peer to maximize its upload capacity utilization. (4) It avoids long peer discovery and reaches a fast rate convergence; i.e. it quickly obtains a bandwidth reciprocation rate from its neighbors equal to its own contribution. (5) It does not need to estimate and predict peers allocations, allocate precise upload or download rates for any peers,
22 Chapter 1. Introduction 5 or rely on advanced knowledge of available bandwidth of other peers. (6) It has no magic parameters, requires no tuning, and is simple to implement. A FairTorrent client requires no changes to the BitTorrent protocol, making it compatible and easy to use with existing BitTorrent clients. We have implemented FairTorrent inside a BitTorrent client and evaluated its fairness and performance on the PlanetLab [51]. We compared against four other widely used open-source BitTorrent implementations, the original BitTorrent Python client by Bram Cohen [13], the popular Azureus Java BitTorrent client [6], the Prop- Share [31] client that claims to provide proportional bandwidth allocation, and the strategic BitTyrant [49] client. Our results show that FairTorrent outperforms the other clients across a wide range of different client bandwidth distributions, static and dynamic scenarios, as well as in live swarms. 1.2 Peer-to-Peer Streaming and FairStream Peer-to-Peer (P2P) video streaming systems have been growing in popularity. Many P2P streaming systems, including PPlive [52], GridMedia [69], and CoolStreaming [32], boast hundreds of thousands of users and transmit sport games, concerts, and other events including the US President s Inauguration [26]. However, while commercially-sponsored events such as the Inauguration, that was streamed from the CNN s website, typically provide good streaming quality due to additionallyprovisioned server bandwidth, unsponsored streams often have spotty performance for all users. The problem is that none of the P2P live streaming systems contain incentives mechanisms, that either prevent free-riders (i.e. users that contributing little or no bandwidth) from deteriorating performance of contributing users or mechanisms that reward users that contribute more bandwidth with a better quality stream. As
23 Chapter 1. Introduction 6 a result, when there is insufficient bandwidth to accommodate everyone all users observe poor streaming quality regardless of their bandwidth contribution. To make matters worse, all of the aforementioned streaming clients are closed-source and do not provide an easy way for a user to limit their upload bandwidth contribution. Thus, when the bandwidth provisioning for a stream is low, the streaming client can easily take all of the available upload bandwidth from the users who already contribute a lot, and cripple other network-bound processes running on the users machines. Of course, on the other extreme, if the software were to allow the users to configure their bandwidth contribution, without any incentives mechanism, the P2P streaming systems would invite a lot of free-riding and degrade performance even further. Free-riding, which is a common problem in P2P file-sharing systems, would be even more disastrous in P2P streaming. While in most file-sharing systems users would prefer faster downloads they would sometimes be satisfied with eventual download completion. When a user watches a stream in real-time any drop in the download rate results in missed packets and decreased quality of the stream. Thus, for a system without incentives, increase in free-riding means higher likelihood of poor quality for all users. In addition to the drop in the average per-peer capacity, free-riding significantly limits the effectiveness of a streaming server in distributing the stream. Since the server does not know apriori who the free-riding peers are, even if it is provisioned with ample upload capacity it may distribute some updates exclusively to free-riding peers. Since the free-riders do not forward stream updates they receive, some updates may never get distributed to contributing peers in time. This problem, is especially difficult in the streaming scenario. While in file-sharing, the peers can always request missing file blocks at a later time, in streaming, each update has to be distributed to the users prior to its playback deadline.
24 Chapter 1. Introduction 7 We show, in Chapter 6, that all prior file-sharing incentives mechanisms, including BitTorrent s TFT, PropShare [31], that implements proportional response, and blockbased TFT [9], provide weak incentives mechanisms even in the context of file-sharing, where a steady reciprocation rate needs not be maintained. Because of the more stringent constraints for streaming, the mechanisms such as BitTorrent s tit-for-tat, are even less suitable for streaming than they are for file-sharing. In streaming, a user must be guaranteed a steady reciprocation rate at least equal to the rate of the stream. Even a temporary drop in the download rate may cause missed stream updates and, thus, poor stream quality. The slow and imperfect peer discovery of BitTorrent s tit-for-tat [49] make it a poor candidate for a reliable mechanism to guarantee a steady reciprocation rate. As a result of the added difficulty, the existing proposals in P2P streaming fail to guarantee a fair reciprocation rate. Some proposals, along the lines of Substream- Trading [38] attempt to evaluate peer s reciprocation rates over timed rounds and suffer from similar shortcomings as BitTorrent s TFT. Other proposals, such as BAR Gossip [34] and its successor, FlightPath [33] enforce pseudo-random peer pairings over short rounds. However, an unlucky peer may require many additional pairings to obtain necessary data and the bandwidth usage may spike as much as 100%, requiring a significant room for the overhead. To address these problems, we introduce FairStream, a new P2P streaming system that delivers a good quality stream to peers that upload data at a rate above the stream rate, even in the presence of free-riders or malicious users. FairStream achieves this with three key mechanisms. First, it provides a framework that introduces the notion of a peer reply policy, enabling incentive mechanisms from P2P file sharing to be applied to streaming for the first time. A reply policy determines the order in which a peer replies to pending requests, while a request policy determines the order
25 Chapter 1. Introduction 8 in which a peer requests data. Previous work has largely ignored reply policies and instead has focused on request policies. Our framework combines reply policy incentive mechanisms with existing streaming optimizations for effective dissemination of stream updates, ensuring that peers have data to exchange with one another so that they can effectively utilize their upload bandwidth. Second, FairStream demonstrates the critical importance of a fair reply policy as an incentive mechanism for streaming. It leverages the FairTorrent deficit-based algorithm used for P2P file-sharing in its peer reply policy. Just like in FairTorrent, in FairStream, a peer keeps track of its deficit with each neighbor, which is the bytes sent to minus bytes received from each neighbor. For its reply policy, a FairStream peer replies to the peer with the smallest deficit, which is the peer to whom it owes the most data. This deficit mechanism fosters very precise data exchange rates even with streaming playback deadline constraints. The new reply policy is resilient to free-riders and strategic peers, and ensures that a peer uploading at a rate above the stream rate will receive an adequate stream download rate from the system. Each peer makes its decisions locally, resulting in a fully-distributed fairness mechanism. Third, FairStream introduces a collusion-resistant mechanism to ensure effective data distribution of a stream by a streaming server despite a large fraction of freeriders who do not forward received data. A peer does not just request from the server data that it is missing, but instead it requests data that is also missing from among its best quality peers, where quality is measured based on how quickly it can download data from these peers. This mechanism enables the server to effectively distribute data chunks missing in the peer s neighborhood, even in the presence of free-riders. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to tackle this problem that presents a particularly acute threat in P2P streaming systems. We implemented our FairStream client on top of the existing BitTorrent client. We
26 Chapter 1. Introduction 9 evaluated FairStream on the PlanetLab and compared it against the heuristics used by popular P2P streaming systems, PPlive [24] and GridMedia [69], as well as incentive mechanisms used in common file-sharing P2P systems, including BitTorrent s tit-fortat and ProportionalResponse [31]. We show a number of scenarios where FairStream allows peers contributing at just above the stream rate to view the stream with a minimal miss rate despite the presence of a large number of free-riders and lowcontributing peers. 1.3 Novel Contributions This dissertation considers the challenge of implementing strong real-time fairness in P2P file-sharing and streaming systems, a problem that has long existed in unmanaged, P2P systems. A system that could fairly reward a peer would also guarantee a high quality of performance to a high-contributing peer. In this dissertation we propose a novel fair algorithm, its analysis, evaluation, and application to both, filesharing and streaming scenarios. Novel contributions of this dissertation include the following: 1. The Introduction of a Novel P2P Algorithm, FairTorrent. We introduce a new distributed algorithm, FairTorrent, that guarantees a high degree of real-time fairness of bandwidth exchange among peers in a P2P file-sharing network, and thus, guarantees a fast download rate for high-contributing peers. FairTorrent runs a simple and elegant algorithm where it always sends the next data block to a peer to whom it owes the most data. FairTorrent avoids the pitfalls of rate-based allocation approaches as it does not need to explicitly estimate neighbors rates or explicitly allocate rates to its neighbors. As a result, FairTorrent is able to obtain a very fast and much more precise convergence of
27 Chapter 1. Introduction 10 its upload rate to the reciprocation rate that it receives from its peers. FairTorrent runs in a fully distributed manner, and requires no central coordinator to regulate bandwidth exchange, and no third party service to maintain or store virtual credit as in credit-based systems. 2. FairTorrent Implementation. We implement a FairTorrent BitTorrent client on top of both, the original python-based BitTorrent client, and the popular java-based Azureus client. The algorithm requires no changes to the BitTorrent protocol. We demonstrate the efficacy and compatibility of FairTorrent by evaluating it both inside a closed network as well as joining live BitTorrent swarms. 3. Analysis of FairTorrent. We analyze the fairness of a n-node FairTorrent network, where the upload capacities of the peers are selected from various distributions. We analyze the fairness in terms of the worst-case number of data blocks that could be owed to or owed by a peer at a given time. We show for a number of upload capacity distributions that no peer owes or is owed more than O(log n) data blocks at any time with high probability. We show that for a general case, even including a highly-skewed distribution of upload capacities there is a bound of 2(n 1) on the blocks owed to or owed by a peer. 4. Evaluation Methodology. We present the deployment and evaluation methodology of FairTorrent on the PlanetLab [51]. In particular, we present a deployment process that uses staged deployment, and white lists and guarantees a high-degree of robustness of our experiments despite the irregularities and variable uptime of the underlying PlanetLab nodes. Unlike prior work, we also show that it is important to normalize live network results by the peer degree, or number of peer connections parameter, in order to differentiate the effect of
28 Chapter 1. Introduction 11 a given bandwidth exchange algorithm. 5. Comparison and Evaluation of FairTorrent We evaluate and compare the performance and fairness of the FairTorrent client against other commonly-used open-source BitTorrent implementations on both the PlanetLab, and in public BitTorrent swarms. We compare against four BitTorrent implementations: the original BitTorrent Python client by Bram Cohen [13], the popular Azureus Java BitTorrent client [6], the PropShare client [31] that implements the proportional bandwidth allocation [68], and the strategic BitTyrant [49] client that implements a k-tft heuristic between BitTyrant clients. We evaluate these clients in static networks under various distributions of peer upload capacities, dynamic settings with joins and departures of peers, and by joining live BitTorrent networks. We also evaluate a skewed distribution where a high-uploading peer contends with free-riders and low-contributing peers. Finally we evaluate the performance of high-uploading clients of one type inside networks running other types of clients. Our results show that FairTorrent provides up to two orders of magnitude better fairness, up to five times better download times for contributing peers, and 60% to 100% better performance on average in live BitTorrent swarms. 6. The Use of a Reply Policy as a Method to Introduce Incentive Mechanisms in P2P Streaming We introduce the use of the peer reply policy, or the algorithm used by a peer to handle request queues from neighboring peers, as a mechanism to implement alternative incentives mechanism in a P2P streaming system. While state-of-the-art P2P systems largely ignore the peer reply policy, and by default reply to requests in first come first served (FCFS) order, we implement incentives mechanisms by varying the algorithm used to
29 Chapter 1. Introduction 12 handle requests from peers. Varying the reply policy also allows us to compare various incentives schemes. 7. Design of a Resilient P2P Live Streaming Client We design and implement a P2P live streaming system, FairStream, that provides good performance to high-contributing peers in a streaming scenario despite the presence of many low-contributing and free-riding peers. Our design achieves this property by modifying the reply policy to implement an incentives mechanism based on FairTorrent, where a peer handles pending streaming requests in the order of increasing deficits. 8. Collusion-Resistant Algorithm to Deal with Free-riders We introduce a collusion-resistant mechanism inside FairStream to ensure effective data distribution of a stream by a streaming server despite a large fraction of free-riders who do not forward received data. 9. Comparison and Evaluation of FairStream. We evaluate FairStream on the PlanetLab under a number of distributions of peer upload capacities and scenarios that include many free-riding and low-contributing peers. We compare the evaluation of FairStream with other documented P2P streaming solutions as well as other incentives mechanisms used in P2P file-sharing. We show that for peers who upload at a rate slightly above the rate of the stream, FairStream limits the stream updates miss rate to two orders of magnitude smaller as compared to other streaming systems and incentives mechanisms despite the presence of many free-riding and low-contributing peers.
30 Chapter 2 Background and Related Work This chapter describes prior work that has been done in the area of fair bandwidth exchange in P2P file-sharing and streaming systems. We begin with the overview of Bit- Torrent, the most popular P2P file-sharing application. Then, we review some works that have studied the effectiveness of BitTorrent s so called Tit-for-Tat (TFT) mechanism, that attempts to address fair bandwidth exchange. We review BitTorrent-based derivatives, including block-based TFT and proportional rate allocation, that attempt to improve the fairness characteristics of BitTorrent. We also review other approaches that have proposed to address fairness in P2P file-sharing such as reputation-based and credit-based systems. We then comment on the similarities between fair bandwidth allocation problems in P2P file-sharing and fair flow allocation in routers, a very well-studied problem in the research community. Finally, we turn to P2P streaming. We review both the widely-used P2P streaming systems and research-based systems. While most widely-used P2P streaming systems focus on overall performance, rather than fairness, some recent research has proposed the use of techniques like substreamtrading and proof-of-misbehavior messages to address fairness in P2P streaming. We also review the bandwidth provisioning requirements placed on the streaming servers
31 Chapter 2. Background and Related Work 14 by the P2P streaming systems. 2.1 Overview of BitTorrent In BitTorrent [13], peers participating in the download of the same target file form a swarm. The target file is conceptually broken up into pieces (typically 256 KB). Peers tell one another which pieces of the target file they already have and request missing pieces from one another. Requests are typically made for 16 KB sub-pieces. Peers that already have the entire file are called seeds. Peers that are still downloading pieces of the file are called leechers. Upon joining a network a peer contacts a tracker, that maintains a list of peers participating the the swarm. The tracker returns a set of up to 50 randomly selected peer addresses (or <IP, port> pairs). After joining the swarm a peer contacts the tracker periodically, every minutes. Each peer tries to maintain a set of max peers TCP connections with other peers in the swarm. (50 in Azureus, 80 in BitTorrent). This set represents the neighbors of the peer. Each peer exchanges certain protocol information with her neighbors. For instance, when a peer downloads a new file piece it sends a HAVE message to all of its neighbors with the index number of the piece it downloaded. BitTorrent employs a tit-for-tat (TFT) heuristic to incentivize peers to upload and attempts to provide fair exchange of bandwidth between peers. In each second round BitTorrent selects up to N peers from among its neighbors to upload blocks to. N k of the peers have provided the best download rate during the most recent round, and k peers are randomly selected to help discover other peers with better upload rates. (N is typically between 4 and 10, and k is typically between 1 and 2). Thus, the active set of peers, or the peers to which a client currently
32 Chapter 2. Background and Related Work 15 uploads, is updated in each round based on measurements of their download rates. BitTorrent refers to the selection and deselection of a peer for uploading as unchoking and choking, respectively. During each the round a peer serves requests for sub-pieces to the N unchoked neighbors in a round-robin fashion. The pieces of a file are indexed, and leechers request pieces based on a rarest-first heuristic. Under this heuristic a peer always requests a piece that is least-commonly available (or has the fewest copies) among its neighbors. Because the peer always tries to get pieces that are least-commonly available, this policy is very effective in making sure that a peer always has some pieces that are of interest to its neighbors. Since the peers almost always have something to push to their neighbors, their upload capacity is utilized very effectively. 2.2 Fairness in BitTorrent-like Systems Because of its popularity, much work has been done in studying BitTorrent s behavior. BitTorrent peers tend to exchange data with other peers with similar upload rates over a large file download [30]. Under some bandwidth distributions, the system has been shown to eventually converge to a Nash equilibrium [53]. However, there is no evidence that this behavior extends to shorter file downloads, dynamic environments, skewed distributions of users, or modified but compatible BitTorrent clients. In fact, several modified BitTorrent clients [39, 59, 49] have been developed which exploit different strategies to achieve better performance at the expense of users running unmodified BitTorrent. For example, BitTyrant [49] exploits the fact that BitTorrent will reciprocate at a higher rate even when receiving much smaller bandwidth from BitTyrant in return. The previous studies demonstrate that BitTorrent s TFT heuristic does not result
33 Chapter 2. Background and Related Work 16 in fair bandwidth exchange. Because TFT only identifies and exchanges data with a small number of peers at a time, a BitTorrent client may waste much time and bandwidth while discovering peers with similar upload rates in a large network [49]. Further waste occurs because relationships with discovered peers may be unstable, as the other peers are also always searching for better peers. Even after discovering peers with good upload rates, BitTorrent continues to blindly donate a portion of bandwidth by randomly uploading to new peers in hopes of reciprocation. Block-based TFT [9] (BB-TFT) attempts to improve on BitTorrent by changing TFT to allow a client to upload to a larger set of neighbors at the same time, but stopping the upload to a peer once its deficit, the difference between what it uploaded to the peer and what it downloaded from that peer, exceeds a certain threshold. While FairTorrent [55] and BB-TFT appear similar in that both use peerwise deficits, their usage of deficits is fundamentally different. FairTorrent uses deficits to decide deterministically where to send the next data block. By sending the next block to a peer to whom FairTorrent owes the most data, it always acts to minimize unfairness and thereby converges quickly to fair bandwidth exchange with its peers. BB-TFT uses deficits only to impose a threshold, but still uses TFT for scheduling. Merely stopping one peer from uploading to another when a threshold is reached does not by itself help peers reach fair rate reciprocation. The hard threshold causes underutilization of the peers upload capacities [9], as high-uploading peers may stop uploading to other peers once they reach the limit. To compensate, a tracker could attempt to match peers with similar bandwidth by trusting peers to report their capacities honestly [9]. This is problematic in practice as peers could game the system by lying about their bandwidth. While a limited simulation study shows that BB- TFT can improve the fairness of BitTorrent [9], another study shows that BB-TFT has poor performance and bandwidth utilization compared to BitTorrent [27]. Our
34 Chapter 2. Background and Related Work 17 experiments with BitTyrant [49] peers, which use BB-TFT when exchanging data with each other, also show that BitTyrant clients do not receive a fair exchange rate and suffer from underutilization. SWIFT [63] augments BB-TFT with a heuristic to have peers donate a small fraction of their bandwidth, but it is not clear how to tune their highly-parametrized algorithm in a realistic deployment scenario. PropShare [31] attempts to achieve fair bandwidth allocation by implementing the Proportional Response algorithm [68] on top of the Azureus client. Using the algorithm, a peer splits its upload rate to its neighbors for a given round in proportion to the contributions received from them in the previous round. Under simplistic assumptions, the theoretical work in [68] shows that the algorithm converges to a market equilibrium, and a peer receives fair reciprocation after O(log n) rounds, in a n-node network. The algorithm assumes that each peer can accurately estimate all of its neighbors upload rate allocations towards it in each round; peers require these estimates to readjust their own allocations correctly in the next round. This assumption is problematic in practice. Very long rounds would be required to allow each peer to exchange enough data with all of its neighbors to obtain estimates. However, estimates over long rounds would be of limited usefulness for determining allocations under dynamic conditions that occur in practice. PropShare attempts to address this problem by estimating allocations over four exponentially-weighted 10-second rounds. Because peers allocations change and PropShare uploads to and estimates rates of only a small subset of neighbors in each round, PropShare fails to create an accurate view of the current rate allocations of a larger neighborhood. Moreover, the peerwise convergence process is often interrupted and reset because PropShare clients divert 20% of their bandwidth in each round to explore new peers, much like BitTorrent. Our experimental results, in Chapter 6, show that PropShare demonstrates poor rate convergence and does not reward contributing peers fairly.
35 Chapter 2. Background and Related Work 18 In contrast, FairTorrent s new deficit-based approach does not need to explicitly set upload rates and avoids the pitfalls associated with having to estimate peers changing rate allocations, dealing with insufficient and ad-hoc round durations, and needing to explore a peer s entire neighborhood. It may be possible to tune PropShare to use very small blocks in order to help it explore a larger neighborhood faster, as required by [68]. However, using small blocks would significantly increase the overhead associated with BitTorrent and IP protocols. Some work has explored tradeoffs between performance and fairness in BitTorrent. Based on the assumption that leechers leave the system upon completion of download, one model proposes to optimize average performance by lowering the download rate for high uploaders to keep them in the system longer [18]. However, this assumption is not realistic as many leechers remain in the system as seeds in many BitTorrent systems [11]. Furthermore, other work suggests that fairness does not need to come at the expense of performance [64]. 2.3 Reputation and Credit-based Systems Other approaches have explored different aspects of improving fairness in non-bittorrent P2P systems. Reputation-based systems [28, 35, 8, 14] attempt to separate good contributors and free riders by associating reputations with peers to make it less likely that peers with good reputations will exchange data with free riders. Such systems suffer from problems with bootstrapping and collusion [54], where malicious peers can hype one another s reputation. Even if a perfect reputation metric can be established, such systems do not provide a mechanism for translating reputation into a highly-fair bandwidth-sharing service. BAR [1], BAR Gossip [34], and FlightPath [33] propose to stem out selfish users by relying on signed proof-of-misbehavior messages. BAR
Lecture 6 Content Distribution and BitTorrent
ID2210 - Distributed Computing, Peer-to-Peer and GRIDS Lecture 6 Content Distribution and BitTorrent [Based on slides by Cosmin Arad] Today The problem of content distribution A popular solution: BitTorrent
More informationThe BitTorrent Protocol
The BitTorrent Protocol Taken from http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~ghosh/bittorrent.ppt What is BitTorrent? Efficient content distribution system using file swarming. Usually does not perform all the functions
More informationJava Bit Torrent Client
Java Bit Torrent Client Hemapani Perera, Eran Chinthaka {hperera, echintha}@cs.indiana.edu Computer Science Department Indiana University Introduction World-wide-web, WWW, is designed to access and download
More informationBitTorrent Peer To Peer File Sharing
BitTorrent Peer To Peer File Sharing CS290F: Networking for Multimedia Mini PhD Major Area Exam I) Introduction Content distribution is an important topic in networking and has been evolving from the start
More informationPeer-to-Peer Networks. Chapter 2: Initial (real world) systems Thorsten Strufe
Chapter 2: Initial (real world) systems Thorsten Strufe 1 Chapter Outline Overview of (previously) deployed P2P systems in 3 areas P2P file sharing and content distribution: Napster, Gnutella, KaZaA, BitTorrent
More informationCS5412: TORRENTS AND TIT-FOR-TAT
1 CS5412: TORRENTS AND TIT-FOR-TAT Lecture VI Ken Birman BitTorrent 2 Today we ll be focusing on BitTorrent The technology really has three aspects A standard tht BitTorrent client systems follow Some
More informationP2P File Sharing: BitTorrent in Detail
ELT-53206 Peer-to-Peer Networks P2P File Sharing: BitTorrent in Detail Mathieu Devos Tampere University of Technology Department of Electronics & Communications Engineering mathieu.devos@tut.fi TG406 2
More informationModeling and Analysis of Bandwidth-Inhomogeneous Swarms in BitTorrent
IEEE P2P'9 - Sept. 9-, 29 Modeling and Analysis of Bandwidth-Inhomogeneous Swarms in BitTorrent M. Meulpolder, J.A. Pouwelse, D.H.J. Epema, H.J. Sips Parallel and Distributed Systems Group Department of
More informationP2P File Sharing - A Model For Fairness Versus Performance
1 The Design Trade-offs of BitTorrent-like File Sharing Protocols Bin Fan John C.S. Lui Dah-Ming Chiu Abstract The BitTorrent (BT) file sharing protocol is very popular due to its scalability property
More informationA Comparison of Mobile Peer-to-peer File-sharing Clients
1. ABSTRACT A Comparison of Mobile Peer-to-peer File-sharing Clients Imre Kelényi 1, Péter Ekler 1, Bertalan Forstner 2 PHD Students 1, Assistant Professor 2 Budapest University of Technology and Economics
More informationEvaluating the Effectiveness of a BitTorrent-driven DDoS Attack
Evaluating the Effectiveness of a BitTorrent-driven DDoS Attack Jurand Nogiec University of Illinois Fausto Paredes University of Illinois Joana Trindade University of Illinois 1. Introduction BitTorrent
More informationComputation and Economics - Spring 2012 Assignment #3: File Sharing
Computation and Economics - Spring 2012 Assignment #3: File Sharing Professor Sven Seuken Department of Informatics, University of Zurich Out Thursday, March 8, 2012 Due 14:00 sharp: Monday, March 19,
More informationAttacking a Swarm with a Band of Liars evaluating the impact of attacks on BitTorrent
Attacking a Swarm with a Band of Liars evaluating the impact of attacks on BitTorrent Marlom A. Konrath, Marinho P. Barcellos, Rodrigo B. Mansilha PIPCA Programa de Pós-Graduação em Computação Aplicada
More informationSeminar RVS MC-FTP (Multicast File Transfer Protocol): Simulation and Comparison with BitTorrent
Seminar RVS MC-FTP (Multicast File Transfer Protocol): Simulation and Comparison with BitTorrent Dominic Papritz Universität Bern Overview > Related work > MC-FTP > BitTorrent > Future work > References
More informationA Measurement of NAT & Firewall Characteristics in Peer to Peer Systems
A Measurement of NAT & Firewall Characteristics in Peer to Peer Systems L. D Acunto, J.A. Pouwelse, and H.J. Sips Department of Computer Science Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands l.dacunto@tudelft.nl
More informationIncentives Build Robustness in BitTorrent
Incentives Build Robustness in BitTorrent Bram Cohen bram@bitconjurer.org May 22, 2003 Abstract The BitTorrent file distribution system uses tit-fortat as a method of seeking pareto efficiency. It achieves
More informationCONTRACTS: PRACTICAL CONTRIBUTION INCENTIVES FOR P2P LIVE STREAMING. An Overview by Alex Loeb
CONTRACTS: PRACTICAL CONTRIBUTION INCENTIVES FOR P2P LIVE STREAMING An Overview by Alex Loeb DISTRIBUTING LIVE CONTENT Why it s different What s been done What s wrong with what s been done What Contracts
More informationThe Algorithm of Sharing Incomplete Data in Decentralized P2P
IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL.7 No.8, August 2007 149 The Algorithm of Sharing Incomplete Data in Decentralized P2P Jin-Wook Seo, Dong-Kyun Kim, Hyun-Chul Kim,
More informationRevisiting P2P content sharing in wireless ad hoc networks
Revisiting P2P content sharing in wireless ad hoc networks Mohamed Karim SBAI, Chadi BARAKAT EPI Planète, INRIA, France Email: {mksbai, cbarakat}@sophia.inria.fr Abstract. Classical content sharing applications
More informationModeling and Performance Analysis of Telephony Gateway REgistration Protocol
Modeling and Performance Analysis of Telephony Gateway REgistration Protocol Kushal Kumaran and Anirudha Sahoo Kanwal Rekhi School of Information Technology Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Powai,
More informationThe Internet is Flat: A brief history of networking over the next ten years. Don Towsley UMass - Amherst
The Internet is Flat: A brief history of networking over the next ten years Don Towsley UMass - Amherst 1 What does flat mean? The World Is Flat. A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Friedman
More informationShould Internet Service Providers Fear Peer-Assisted Content Distribution?
Should Internet Service Providers Fear Peer-Assisted Content Distribution? Thomas Karagiannis, UC Riverside Pablo Rodriguez, Microsoft Research Cambridge Konstantina Papagiannaki, Intel Research Cambridge
More informationNetwork Coding for Large Scale Content Distribution
Network Coding for Large Scale Content Distribution Christos Gkantsidis College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA Email: gantsich@cc.gatech.edu IEEE Infocom 2005 Pablo
More informationPer-Flow Queuing Allot's Approach to Bandwidth Management
White Paper Per-Flow Queuing Allot's Approach to Bandwidth Management Allot Communications, July 2006. All Rights Reserved. Table of Contents Executive Overview... 3 Understanding TCP/IP... 4 What is Bandwidth
More informationSE4C03: Computer Networks and Computer Security Last revised: April 03 2005 Name: Nicholas Lake Student Number: 0046314 For: S.
BitTorrent Technology How and why it works SE4C03: Computer Networks and Computer Security Last revised: April 03 2005 Name: Nicholas Lake Student Number: 0046314 For: S. Kartik Krishnan 1 Abstract BitTorrent
More information(Refer Slide Time: 02:17)
Internet Technology Prof. Indranil Sengupta Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur Lecture No #06 IP Subnetting and Addressing (Not audible: (00:46)) Now,
More informationPeer-to-peer filetransfer protocols and IPv6. János Mohácsi NIIF/HUNGARNET TF-NGN meeting, 1/Oct/2004
-to-peer filetransfer protocols and IPv6 János Mohácsi NIIF/HUNGARNET TF-NGN meeting, 1/Oct/2004 Motivation IPv6 traffic is
More informationDelft University of Technology Parallel and Distributed Systems Report Series. The Peer-to-Peer Trace Archive: Design and Comparative Trace Analysis
Delft University of Technology Parallel and Distributed Systems Report Series The Peer-to-Peer Trace Archive: Design and Comparative Trace Analysis Boxun Zhang, Alexandru Iosup, and Dick Epema {B.Zhang,A.Iosup,D.H.J.Epema}@tudelft.nl
More informationA Scalable Network Monitoring and Bandwidth Throttling System for Cloud Computing
A Scalable Network Monitoring and Bandwidth Throttling System for Cloud Computing N.F. Huysamen and A.E. Krzesinski Department of Mathematical Sciences University of Stellenbosch 7600 Stellenbosch, South
More informationOne hop Reputations for Peer to Peer File Sharing Workloads
One hop Reputations for Peer to Peer File Sharing Workloads Michael Piatek Tomas Isdal Arvind Krishnamurthy Thomas Anderson University of Washington Abstract An emerging paradigm in peer-to-peer (P2P)
More informationRatFish: A File Sharing Protocol Provably Secure Against Rational Users
RatFish: A File Sharing Protocol Provably Secure Against Rational Users Michael Backes 1,2, Oana Ciobotaru 1, and Anton Krohmer 1 1 Saarland University 2 MPI-SWS Abstract. The proliferation of P2P computing
More informationMulti-service Load Balancing in a Heterogeneous Network with Vertical Handover
1 Multi-service Load Balancing in a Heterogeneous Network with Vertical Handover Jie Xu, Member, IEEE, Yuming Jiang, Member, IEEE, and Andrew Perkis, Member, IEEE Abstract In this paper we investigate
More informationThe Role and uses of Peer-to-Peer in file-sharing. Computer Communication & Distributed Systems EDA 390
The Role and uses of Peer-to-Peer in file-sharing Computer Communication & Distributed Systems EDA 390 Jenny Bengtsson Prarthanaa Khokar jenben@dtek.chalmers.se prarthan@dtek.chalmers.se Gothenburg, May
More informationQuality of Service versus Fairness. Inelastic Applications. QoS Analogy: Surface Mail. How to Provide QoS?
18-345: Introduction to Telecommunication Networks Lectures 20: Quality of Service Peter Steenkiste Spring 2015 www.cs.cmu.edu/~prs/nets-ece Overview What is QoS? Queuing discipline and scheduling Traffic
More informationDDoS Vulnerability Analysis of Bittorrent Protocol
DDoS Vulnerability Analysis of Bittorrent Protocol Ka Cheung Sia kcsia@cs.ucla.edu Abstract Bittorrent (BT) traffic had been reported to contribute to 3% of the Internet traffic nowadays and the number
More informationN6Lookup( title ) Client
CS 640: Introduction Networks AdityaAkella Peer-to-Peer Lecture 24 -to Computer p2p Uses Downloading: Searching Centralized Flooding Smarter Routing file of sharing p2p The (Freenet, (Gnutella, flooding
More informationAn Active Packet can be classified as
Mobile Agents for Active Network Management By Rumeel Kazi and Patricia Morreale Stevens Institute of Technology Contact: rkazi,pat@ati.stevens-tech.edu Abstract-Traditionally, network management systems
More informationQuantifying the Performance Degradation of IPv6 for TCP in Windows and Linux Networking
Quantifying the Performance Degradation of IPv6 for TCP in Windows and Linux Networking Burjiz Soorty School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences Auckland University of Technology Auckland, New Zealand
More informationSimulating a File-Sharing P2P Network
Simulating a File-Sharing P2P Network Mario T. Schlosser, Tyson E. Condie, and Sepandar D. Kamvar Department of Computer Science Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA Abstract. Assessing the performance
More informationScheduling for QoS Management
Scheduling for QoS Management Domenico Massimo Parrucci Condello isti information science Facoltà and di Scienze technology e Tecnologie institute 1/number 1 Outline What is Queue Management and Scheduling?
More informationA Case for Dynamic Selection of Replication and Caching Strategies
A Case for Dynamic Selection of Replication and Caching Strategies Swaminathan Sivasubramanian Guillaume Pierre Maarten van Steen Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam,
More informationLiveSwarms: Adapting BitTorrent for end host multicast
LiveSwarms: Adapting BitTorrent for end host multicast Michael Piatek, Colin Dixon, Arvind Krishnamurthy, and Thomas Anderson University of Washington Technical Report TR 2006-11-01 Abstract The lack of
More informationEXTENDING NETWORK KNOWLEDGE: MAKING OLSR A QUALITY OF SERVICE CONDUCIVE PROTOCOL
EXTENDING NETWORK KNOWLEDGE: MAKING OLSR A QUALITY OF SERVICE CONDUCIVE PROTOCOL by Pedro Eduardo Villanueva-Pena, Thomas Kunz Carleton University January, 2006 This report examines mechanisms to gradually
More informationFrom Centralization to Distribution: A Comparison of File Sharing Protocols
From Centralization to Distribution: A Comparison of File Sharing Protocols Xu Wang, Teng Long and Alan Sussman Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742 August, 2015
More informationPeer-to-Peer Data Management
Peer-to-Peer Data Management Wolf-Tilo Balke Sascha Tönnies Institut für Informationssysteme Technische Universität Braunschweig http://www.ifis.cs.tu-bs.de 11. Content Distribution 1. Reliability in Distributed
More informationHow To Make A Game Of Gnutella A Cooperative Game
CS 186 Lecture 3 P2P File-Sharing David C. Parkes Sven Seuken September 1, 2011 Imagine you need to distribute a software patch to 10 Million users. What s an efficient way for doing so? If you are using
More informationAdaptive Tolerance Algorithm for Distributed Top-K Monitoring with Bandwidth Constraints
Adaptive Tolerance Algorithm for Distributed Top-K Monitoring with Bandwidth Constraints Michael Bauer, Srinivasan Ravichandran University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Computer Sciences {bauer, srini}@cs.wisc.edu
More informationPRIORITY-BASED NETWORK QUALITY OF SERVICE
PRIORITY-BASED NETWORK QUALITY OF SERVICE ANIMESH DALAKOTI, NINA PICONE, BEHROOZ A. SHIRAZ School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Washington State University, WA, USA 99163 WEN-ZHAN SONG
More information1. Comments on reviews a. Need to avoid just summarizing web page asks you for:
1. Comments on reviews a. Need to avoid just summarizing web page asks you for: i. A one or two sentence summary of the paper ii. A description of the problem they were trying to solve iii. A summary of
More informationThe State of Cloud Storage
205 Industry Report A Benchmark Comparison of Speed, Availability and Scalability Executive Summary Both 203 and 204 were record-setting years for adoption of cloud services in the enterprise. More than
More informationOn the feasibility of exploiting P2P systems to launch DDoS attacks
DOI 10.1007/s12083-009-0046-6 On the feasibility of exploiting P2P systems to launch DDoS attacks Xin Sun Ruben Torres Sanjay G. Rao Received: 7 November 2008 / Accepted: 25 March 2009 Springer Science
More informationControlling the Internet in the era of Software Defined and Virtualized Networks. Fernando Paganini Universidad ORT Uruguay
Controlling the Internet in the era of Software Defined and Virtualized Networks Fernando Paganini Universidad ORT Uruguay CDS@20, Caltech 2014 Motivation 1. The Internet grew in its first 30 years with
More information3. Some of the technical measures presently under consideration are methods of traffic shaping, namely bandwidth capping and bandwidth shaping 2.
THE IDENTIFIED EMERGING POLICY RESPONSES 1. INSERT Traffic shaping 2. The UK Parliament is presently considering introducing technical measures to tackle the problem of unlawful peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing.
More informationThe network we see so far. Internet Best Effort Service. Is best-effort good enough? An Audio Example. Network Support for Playback
The network we see so far CSE56 - Lecture 08 QoS Network Xiaowei Yang TCP saw-tooth FIFO w/ droptail or red Best-effort service Web-surfing, email, ftp, file-sharing Internet Best Effort Service Our network
More informationCNT5106C Project Description
Last Updated: 1/30/2015 12:48 PM CNT5106C Project Description Project Overview In this project, you are asked to write a P2P file sharing software similar to BitTorrent. You can complete the project in
More informationDoS: Attack and Defense
DoS: Attack and Defense Vincent Tai Sayantan Sengupta COEN 233 Term Project Prof. M. Wang 1 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 4 1.1. Objective 1.2. Problem 1.3. Relation to the class 1.4. Other approaches
More informationVDI Solutions - Advantages of Virtual Desktop Infrastructure
VDI s Fatal Flaw V3 Solves the Latency Bottleneck A V3 Systems White Paper Table of Contents Executive Summary... 2 Section 1: Traditional VDI vs. V3 Systems VDI... 3 1a) Components of a Traditional VDI
More informationChallenges of Sending Large Files Over Public Internet
Challenges of Sending Large Files Over Public Internet CLICK TO EDIT MASTER TITLE STYLE JONATHAN SOLOMON SENIOR SALES & SYSTEM ENGINEER, ASPERA, INC. CLICK TO EDIT MASTER SUBTITLE STYLE OUTLINE Ø Setting
More informationAPPENDIX 1 USER LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION OF PPATPAN IN LINUX SYSTEM
152 APPENDIX 1 USER LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION OF PPATPAN IN LINUX SYSTEM A1.1 INTRODUCTION PPATPAN is implemented in a test bed with five Linux system arranged in a multihop topology. The system is implemented
More informationA Measurement Study of Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Systems
CSF641 P2P Computing 點 對 點 計 算 A Measurement Study of Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Systems Stefan Saroiu, P. Krishna Gummadi, and Steven D. Gribble Department of Computer Science and Engineering University
More informationP2P@Clouds Converging P2P with clouds towards advanced real time media distribution architectures.
Building service testbeds on FIRE P2P@Clouds Converging P2P with clouds towards advanced real time media distribution architectures. Nikolaos Efthymiopoulos, Athanasios Christakidis, Loris Corazza, Spyros
More informationA Modelling BitTorrent-like systems with many classes of users
A Modelling BitTorrent-like systems with many classes of users Wei-Cherng Liao, Netflame Technology Co., Ltd. Fragkiskos Papadopoulos, Department of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering and Informatics,
More informationProviding Video-on-Demand using Peer-to-Peer Networks
Providing Video-on-Demand using Peer-to-Peer Networks S. Annapureddy New York University C. Gkantsidis, P. Rodriguez, and L. Massoulie Microsoft Research, Cambridge Abstract Digital media companies have
More informationMigrating Large Swarms in a Torrent
Efficient and Highly Available Peer Discovery: A Case for Independent Trackers and Gossipping György Dán, Niklas Carlsson, Ilias Chatzidrossos School of Electrical Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology,
More informationTCP over Multi-hop Wireless Networks * Overview of Transmission Control Protocol / Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) Internet Protocol (IP)
TCP over Multi-hop Wireless Networks * Overview of Transmission Control Protocol / Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) *Slides adapted from a talk given by Nitin Vaidya. Wireless Computing and Network Systems Page
More informationMeasurements on the Spotify Peer-Assisted Music-on-Demand Streaming System
The Spotify Protocol on the Spotify Peer-Assisted Music-on-Demand Streaming System Mikael Goldmann KTH Royal nstitute of Technology Spotify gkreitz@spotify.com P2P 11, September 1 2011 on Spotify Spotify
More information6.6 Scheduling and Policing Mechanisms
02-068 C06 pp4 6/14/02 3:11 PM Page 572 572 CHAPTER 6 Multimedia Networking 6.6 Scheduling and Policing Mechanisms In the previous section, we identified the important underlying principles in providing
More informationEffects of Filler Traffic In IP Networks. Adam Feldman April 5, 2001 Master s Project
Effects of Filler Traffic In IP Networks Adam Feldman April 5, 2001 Master s Project Abstract On the Internet, there is a well-documented requirement that much more bandwidth be available than is used
More informationarxiv:1011.1892v1 [cs.ni] 8 Nov 2010
Pushing Locality to the Limit Stevens Le Blond a, Arnaud Legout a,, Walid Dabbous a a INRIA, EPI Planete, 004 route des lucioles, B.P. 93, 0690 Sophia Antipolis CEDEX, France arxiv:0.89v [cs.ni] 8 Nov
More informationOptimizing Congestion in Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Based on Network Coding
International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering Research (IJETER), Vol. 3 No.6, Pages : 151-156 (2015) ABSTRACT Optimizing Congestion in Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Based on Network Coding E.ShyamSundhar
More informationPerformance of networks containing both MaxNet and SumNet links
Performance of networks containing both MaxNet and SumNet links Lachlan L. H. Andrew and Bartek P. Wydrowski Abstract Both MaxNet and SumNet are distributed congestion control architectures suitable for
More informationPerformance Evaluation of AODV, OLSR Routing Protocol in VOIP Over Ad Hoc
(International Journal of Computer Science & Management Studies) Vol. 17, Issue 01 Performance Evaluation of AODV, OLSR Routing Protocol in VOIP Over Ad Hoc Dr. Khalid Hamid Bilal Khartoum, Sudan dr.khalidbilal@hotmail.com
More informationOn the Interaction and Competition among Internet Service Providers
On the Interaction and Competition among Internet Service Providers Sam C.M. Lee John C.S. Lui + Abstract The current Internet architecture comprises of different privately owned Internet service providers
More informationHow To Solve A Network Communication Problem
A White Paper by NEC Unified Solutions, Inc. What VoIP Requires From a Data Network Introduction Here is a very common story. A customer has a data network based on TCP/IP that is working well. He can
More informationFrequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions 1. Q: What is the Network Data Tunnel? A: Network Data Tunnel (NDT) is a software-based solution that accelerates data transfer in point-to-point or point-to-multipoint network
More informationExecutive Brief for Sharing Sites & Digital Content Providers. Leveraging Hybrid P2P Technology to Enhance the Customer Experience and Grow Profits
Executive Brief for Sharing Sites & Digital Content Providers Leveraging Hybrid P2P Technology to Enhance the Customer Experience and Grow Profits Executive Summary The Opportunity/Challenge The revenue
More informationLatency on a Switched Ethernet Network
Application Note 8 Latency on a Switched Ethernet Network Introduction: This document serves to explain the sources of latency on a switched Ethernet network and describe how to calculate cumulative latency
More informationTivoli IBM Tivoli Web Response Monitor and IBM Tivoli Web Segment Analyzer
Tivoli IBM Tivoli Web Response Monitor and IBM Tivoli Web Segment Analyzer Version 2.0.0 Notes for Fixpack 1.2.0-TIV-W3_Analyzer-IF0003 Tivoli IBM Tivoli Web Response Monitor and IBM Tivoli Web Segment
More informationINTRUSION PREVENTION AND EXPERT SYSTEMS
INTRUSION PREVENTION AND EXPERT SYSTEMS By Avi Chesla avic@v-secure.com Introduction Over the past few years, the market has developed new expectations from the security industry, especially from the intrusion
More informationA NETWORK CONSTRUCTION METHOD FOR A SCALABLE P2P VIDEO CONFERENCING SYSTEM
A NETWORK CONSTRUCTION METHOD FOR A SCALABLE P2P VIDEO CONFERENCING SYSTEM Hideto Horiuchi, Naoki Wakamiya and Masayuki Murata Graduate School of Information Science and Technology, Osaka University 1
More informationBroadband Networks. Prof. Dr. Abhay Karandikar. Electrical Engineering Department. Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay. Lecture - 29.
Broadband Networks Prof. Dr. Abhay Karandikar Electrical Engineering Department Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay Lecture - 29 Voice over IP So, today we will discuss about voice over IP and internet
More informationBest Practices - Monitoring and Controlling Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Applications
Best Practices - Monitoring and Controlling Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Applications APPLICATION Peer-to-Peer (P2P) EXAMPLES AudioGalaxy, edonkey, BitTorrent, KaZaA, etc. USAGE Locate and exchange (swap) files.
More informationChapter 4. Distance Vector Routing Protocols
Chapter 4 Distance Vector Routing Protocols CCNA2-1 Chapter 4 Note for Instructors These presentations are the result of a collaboration among the instructors at St. Clair College in Windsor, Ontario.
More informationCommunication Protocol
Analysis of the NXT Bluetooth Communication Protocol By Sivan Toledo September 2006 The NXT supports Bluetooth communication between a program running on the NXT and a program running on some other Bluetooth
More informationIP Addressing A Simplified Tutorial
Application Note IP Addressing A Simplified Tutorial July 2002 COMPAS ID 92962 Avaya Labs 1 All information in this document is subject to change without notice. Although the information is believed to
More informationThe Impact of Background Network Traffic on Foreground Network Traffic
The Impact of Background Network Traffic on Foreground Network Traffic George Nychis Information Networking Institute Carnegie Mellon University gnychis@cmu.edu Daniel R. Licata Computer Science Department
More informationCarrier Grade NAT. Requirements and Challenges in the Real World. Amir Tabdili Cypress Consulting amir@cypressconsult.net
Carrier Grade NAT Requirements and Challenges in the Real World Amir Tabdili Cypress Consulting amir@cypressconsult.net Agenda 1 NAT, CG-NAT: Functionality Highlights 2 CPE NAT vs. CG-NAT 3 CGN Requirements
More informationEnergy Adaptive Mechanism for P2P File Sharing Protocols
Energy Adaptive Mechanism for P2P File Sharing Protocols Mayank Raj 1, Krishna Kant 2, and Sajal K. Das 1 1 Center for Research in Wireless Mobility and Networking (CReWMaN), Department of Computer Science
More informationPeer-to-Peer Multimedia Streaming Using BitTorrent
Peer-to-Peer Multimedia Streaming Using BitTorrent Purvi Shah Jehan-François Pâris Department of Computer Science University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204-3010 {purvi, paris}@cs.uh.edu Abstract We propose
More informationA Slow-sTart Exponential and Linear Algorithm for Energy Saving in Wireless Networks
1 A Slow-sTart Exponential and Linear Algorithm for Energy Saving in Wireless Networks Yang Song, Bogdan Ciubotaru, Member, IEEE, and Gabriel-Miro Muntean, Member, IEEE Abstract Limited battery capacity
More informationLTE BACKHAUL REQUIREMENTS: A REALITY CHECK
By: Peter Croy, Sr. Network Architect, Aviat Networks INTRODUCTION LTE mobile broadband technology is now being launched across the world with more than 140 service providers committed to implement it
More informationLeveraging the Clouds for improving P2P Content Distribution Networks Performance
Leveraging the Clouds for improving P2P Content Distribution Networks Performance amir@sics.se 1 Big Picture 2 Big Picture Client Server Peer to Peer Server Farm 3 Big Picture How to leverage the cloud
More informationEXPERIMENTAL STUDY FOR QUALITY OF SERVICE IN VOICE OVER IP
Scientific Bulletin of the Electrical Engineering Faculty Year 11 No. 2 (16) ISSN 1843-6188 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY FOR QUALITY OF SERVICE IN VOICE OVER IP Emil DIACONU 1, Gabriel PREDUŞCĂ 2, Denisa CÎRCIUMĂRESCU
More informationHow To Predict Bittorrent Eta
University of Warsaw Faculty of Mathematics, Computer Science and Mechanics VU University Amsterdam Faculty of Sciences Joint Master of Science Programme Piotr Powałowski Student no. 209403 (UW), 1735543
More informationIs Your Network Ready for VoIP? > White Paper
> White Paper Tough Questions, Honest Answers For many years, voice over IP (VoIP) has held the promise of enabling the next generation of voice communications within the enterprise. Unfortunately, its
More informationDepartment of Computer Science Institute for System Architecture, Chair for Computer Networks. File Sharing
Department of Computer Science Institute for System Architecture, Chair for Computer Networks File Sharing What is file sharing? File sharing is the practice of making files available for other users to
More informationMaster s Thesis. A Study on Active Queue Management Mechanisms for. Internet Routers: Design, Performance Analysis, and.
Master s Thesis Title A Study on Active Queue Management Mechanisms for Internet Routers: Design, Performance Analysis, and Parameter Tuning Supervisor Prof. Masayuki Murata Author Tomoya Eguchi February
More informationP2P Node Setup Guide Authored by: Unitsa Sungket, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand Darran Nathan, APBioNet
Automatic Synchronization and Distribution of Biological Databases and Software over Low-Bandwidth Networks among Developing Countries P2P Node Setup Guide Authored by: Unitsa Sungket, Prince of Songkla
More informationContent Distribution Network (CDN)
Content Distribution Network (CDN) Amir H. Payberah (amir@sics.se) Fatemeh Rahimian (fatemeh@sics.se) 1 GOAL What is Content Distribution Network (CDN)? The solutions for CDN. CDN applications File Sharing
More informationEnergy Constrained Resource Scheduling for Cloud Environment
Energy Constrained Resource Scheduling for Cloud Environment 1 R.Selvi, 2 S.Russia, 3 V.K.Anitha 1 2 nd Year M.E.(Software Engineering), 2 Assistant Professor Department of IT KSR Institute for Engineering
More information