Controlling the Cost of Reliability in Peer-to-Peer Overlays

  • Ratul Mahajan
  • Miguel Castro
  • Antony Rowstron
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2735)


Structured peer-to-peer overlay networks provide a useful substrate for building distributed applications but there are general concerns over the cost of maintaining these overlays. The current approach is to configure the overlays statically and conservatively to achieve the desired reliability even under uncommon adverse conditions. This results in high cost in the common case, or poor reliability in worse than expected conditions. We analyze the cost of overlay maintenance in realistic dynamic environments and design novel techniques to reduce this cost by adapting to the operating conditions. With our techniques, the concerns over the overlay maintenance cost are no longer warranted. Simulations using real traces show that they enable high reliability and performance even in very adverse conditions with low maintenance cost.


Loss Rate Overlay Network Faulty Node Network Partition Massive Failure 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bolosky, W.J., Douceur, J.R., Ely, D., Theimer, M.: Feasibility of a serverless distributed file system deployed on an existing set of desktop PCs. In: ACM SIGMETRICS (June 2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Castro, M., Druschel, P., Hu, Y.C., Rowstron, A.: Exploiting network proximity in peer-to-peer overlay networks. Technical Report MSR-TR-2002-82, Microsoft Research (May 2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ledlie, J., Taylor, J., Serban, L., Seltzer, M.: Selforganization in peer-to-peer systems. In: ACM SIGOPS European Workshop (September 2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liben-Nowell, D., Balakrishnan, H., Karger, D.: Analysis of the evolution of peer-to-peer systems. In: ACM Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC (July 2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pandurangan, G., Raghavan, P., Upfal, E.: Building low-diameter peer-to-peer networks. In: IEEE FOCS (October 2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ratnasamy, S., Francis, P., Handley, M., Karp, R., Shenker, S.: A scalable content-addressable network. In: SIGCOMM (August 2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rowstron, A., Druschel, P.: Pastry: Scalable, distributed object location and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems. In: Guerraoui, R. (ed.) Middleware 2001. LNCS, vol. 2218, p. 329. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saia, J., Fiat, A., Gribble, S., Karlin, A., Saroiu, S.: Dynamically fault-tolerant content addressable networks. In: IPTPS (March 2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saltzer, J., Reed, D., Clarke, D.: End-to-end arguments in system design. ACM TOCS 2(4) (November 1984)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saroiu, S., Gummadi, K., Gribble, S.: A measurement study of peer-to-peer file sharing systems. In: MMCN (January 2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sen, S., Wang, J.: Analyzing Peer-to-Peer Traffic Across Large Networks. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop, Marseille, France (November 2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stoica, I., Morris, R., Karger, D., Frans Kaashoek, M., Balakrishnan, H.: Chord: A scalable peer-to-peer lookup service for Internet applications. In: ACM SIGCOMM (August 2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weatherspoon, H., Kubiatowicz, J.: Efficient heartbeats and repair of softstate in decentralized object location and routing systems. In: ACM SIGOPS European Workshop (September 2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhao, B.Y., Kubiatowicz, J.D., Joseph, A.D.: Tapestry: An infrastructure for fault-resilient wide-area location and routing. Technical Report UCB-CSD-01-1141, U. C. Berkeley (April 2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ratul Mahajan
    • 1
  • Miguel Castro
    • 2
  • Antony Rowstron
    • 2
  1. 1.University of WashingtonSeattle
  2. 2.Microsoft ResearchCambridgeUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations