High-Performance Peer-to-Peer Systems

  • Pethuru Raj
  • Anupama Raman
  • Dhivya Nagaraj
  • Siddhartha Duggirala
Part of the Computer Communications and Networks book series (CCN)


Decrease in bandwidths and increase in power of personal computing led way to voluntary computing. With ever increasing digital consumption popularized by then Napster and P2P distributed content distribution platforms like BitTorrent. This made the distributed systems with no central authority a major theme for high-performance computing. With goals of dynamism, ad hoc collaboration, and cost sharing, these platforms show the following distinguishing traits: decentralization, highly scalability, and low cost of ownership. In this chapter, we learn about the design goals and principles and various commercial and scientific systems available.


Central Server Work Unit Voluntary Computing Super Peer Column Family 
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.


  1. 1.
    BitTorrent Protocol. Retrieved July 5, 2014, from
  2. 2.
    Anderson DP (2004) BOINC: a system for public-resource computing and storage. In: 5th IEEE/ACM international workshop on grid computing. Pittsburgh, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vu QH, Lupu M, Ooi BC (2010) Architecture of peer-to-peer systems. In: Peerto-peer computing. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 11–37Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barkai.D. (2002). Peer to Peer computing: Technologies for sharing and collaborating on the net. Intel Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baz DE, Nguyen T (2010) A self-adaptive communication protocol with application to high-performance peer to peer distributed computing. In: The 18th Euromicro international conference on parallel, distributed and network-based computing, PisaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    BOINC (2014). Retrieved from BOINC:
  7. 7.
    Clarke I, Sandberg O, Wiley B, Hong T (2000) Freenet: a distributed anonymous information storage and retrieval. In: ICSI workshop on design issues in anonymity and unobservability. Berkley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crespo A, Garcia-Molina H (2002) Routing indices for peer-to-peer systems. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on distributed computing systems. IEEE, pp 23–32Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dean J, Ghemawat S (2008) Map reduce: simplified data processing on large clusters. Commun ACM 51(1):107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gnutella (n.d.) Development home page. Retrieved from
  11. 11.
    Gross C, Stingl D, Richerzhagen B, Hemel A, Steinmetz R, Hausheer D (2012) Geodemlia: a robust peer-to-peer overlay supporting location-based search. In: Peer-to-peer computing (P2P), 2012 IEEE 12th international conference on. IEEE, pp 25–36Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hiltunnen MA (2000) The catcus approach to building configurable middleware services. DSMGC2000, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stocia I, Morris R (2003) Chord: a scalable peer-to-peer lookup protocol for internet applications. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 11(1):17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Intel Ltd (2001) Peer to peer computing, p2p file sharing at work in the enterprise. USA. Retrieved from
  15. 15.
    Korpela EJ, Anderson DP, Bankay R, Cobb J, Howard A, Lebofsky M, … Werthimer D (2011) Status of the UC-Berkeley SETI efforts. In: SPIE optical engineering+applications. International Society for Optics and Photonics, p 815212Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Korpela E, Werthimer D, Anderson D, Cobb J, Lebofsky M (2001) SETI@Home-massively distributed computing for SETI. SETI – University of Berkeley. Retrieved from
  17. 17.
    Kovacevic A (2010) Peer-to-peer location-based search: engineering a novel peer-to-peer overlay network. ACM SIGMultimed Rec 2(1):16–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lakshman A, Malik P (2010) Cassandra: a decentralized structured storage system. ACM SIGOPS Oper Syst Rev 44(2):35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lakshman A, Malik P (2009) Cassandra – a decentralized structured storage system. LADISGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Luciani J (2012) Cassandra file system design. Retrieved from Datastax:
  21. 21.
    Yang M, Yang Y (2010) An efficient hybrid peer-to-peer system for distributed data sharing. Comput IEEE Trans 59(9):1158–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Napster (n.d.) Napster: protocol specification. Retrieved from opennap: Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ng WS, Ooi BC, Tan K-L (2002) BestPeer: a self-configurable peer-to-peer system. Data Engineering. IEEE, San JoseGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nguyen T, Baz DE, Spiteri P, Jourjon G, Chua M (2010) High performance peer-to-peer distributed computing with application to obstacle problemGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pfitzmann AW (1987) Networks without user observability. Comput Secur 6:158–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rabl T, Sadoghi M, Jacobsen H-A, Villamor SG, Mulero VM, Mankovskii S (2012) Solving big data challenges for enterprise application performance management. VLDB Endowment, Vol. 5, No. 12, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ratnasamy S, Francis P, Handley M, Karp R, Shenker S (2001) A scalable content-addressable network, vol 31, No. 4. ACM, pp 161–172Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rhea SWC (2001) Maintenance free global data storage. Internet comput 5(4):40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Saroiu S, Gummadi KP, Gribble SD (2003) Measuring and Analyzing the characteristics of Napster and Gnutella hosts. Multimedia Syst 1(2):170–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Introduction to SETI. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from
  31. 31.
    Spiteri P, Chau M (2002) Parallel asynchronous Richardson method for the solution of obstacle problem. In: 16th Annual International Symposium on High Performance Computing Systems and Applications, pp 133–138Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Triantafillow P, Xiruhaki C, Koubarakis M, Ntamos N (n.d.) Towards high performance peer to peer content and resource sharing system, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wong G, Hiltunen M, Schlichting R (2001) A configurable and extensible transport protocol. IEEE INFOCOM ‘01. Achorage, pp 319–328Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhao BK (2001) Tapestry: an infrastructure for fault tolerant wide area localization and routing. Computer Science Division, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Asaduzzaman S, Bochmann G (2009) GeoP2P: an adaptive and fault-tolerant peer-to-peer overlay for location-based search, ICDCS, 2009Google Scholar
  2. Boxun Zhang, Kreitz G, Isaksson M, Ubillos J, Urdaneta G, Pouwelse JA, Epema D (2013) Understanding user behavior in Spotify, INFOCOM. In: Proceedings of the IEEE, On page(s), pp 220–224Google Scholar
  3. Dominik Stingl, Christian Gross, Sebastian Kaune, Ralf Steinmetz (2012) Benchmarking decentralized monitoring mechanisms in peer-to-peer systems ICPE’12, April 22–25, 2012, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Tran D, Nguyen T (2008) Hierarchia multidimensional search in peer-to-peer networks. Comput Commun 31(2):346–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Mihai Capota, Johan Pouwelse, Dick Epema (2014) Towards a peer-to-peer bandwidth marketplace. Distributed computing and networking ICDCN 2014, LNCS 8314, pp 302–316Google Scholar
  6. Meulpolder M, Meester LE, Epema DHJ (2012) The problem of upload competition in peer-to-peer systems with incentive mechanisms. Article first published online: 2 MAY 2012 doi: 10.1002/cpe.2856
  7. Viswanath B, Post A, Gummadi KP, Mislove A (2010) An analysis of social network-based sybil defenses. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2010 conference applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communication. ACM, New York, pp 363–374. doi:

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pethuru Raj
    • 1
  • Anupama Raman
    • 1
  • Dhivya Nagaraj
    • 1
  • Siddhartha Duggirala
    • 2
  1. 1.IBM IndiaBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Indian Institute of TechnologyIndoreIndia

Personalised recommendations