Encyclopedia of Database Systems

2018 Edition
| Editors: Ling Liu, M. Tamer Özsu

Load Balancing in Peer-to-Peer Overlay Networks

  • Anwitaman Datta
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_1043

Definition

Load balancing in peer-to-peer (P2P) overlay networks is a mechanism to spread various kinds of loads like storage, access and message forwarding among participating peers in order to achieve a fair or optimal utilization of contributed resources such as storage and bandwidth.

Historical Background

Load balancing is a general and critical requirement in distributed and parallel processing systems in order to make efficient and fair use of available resources. In the context of P2P systems, the early works on load-balancing heavily relied on consistent hashing [11], which was proposed in 1997 to originally deal with load-balancing in web caches with minimal movement of data even if new caches are added or if existing ones crash. Consistent hashing was used to achieve storage load-balancing in many early distributed hash table (DHT) P2P networks proposed around 2001.

When a new object is stored, uniform hashing (as used in consistent hashing) helps choosing a peer uniformly...

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

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Aberer K, Datta A, Hauswirth M, Schmidt R. Indexing data-oriented overlay networks. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 2005.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aberer K, Datta A, Hauswirth M. Multifaceted simultaneous load balancing in DHT-based P2P systems: a new game with old balls and bins. In: Self-properties in complex information systems. Berlin: Springer; 2005.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bharambe A, Agrawal M, Seshan S. Mercury: supporting scalable multi-attribute range queries. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communication; 2004.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brighten Godfrey P, Stoica I. Heterogeneity and load balance in distributed hash tables. In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies; 2005.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Byers J, Considine J, Mitzenmacher M. Simple load balancing for distributed hash tables. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dabek F, Kaashoek F, Karger D, Morris R, Stoica I. Wide-area cooperative storage with CFS. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles; 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Datta A, Schmidt R, Aberer K. Query-load balancing in structured overlays. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid; 2007.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ganesan P, Bawa M, Garcia-Molina H. Online balancing of range-partitioned data with applications to peer-to-peer systems. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Girdzijauskas S, Datta A, Aberer K. Oscar: Small-world overlay for realistic key distributions. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Databases, Information Systems and Peer-to-Peer Computing; 2006.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Godfrey B, Lakshminarayanan K, Surana S, Karp R, Stoica I. Load balancing in dynamic structured P2P systems. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies; 2004.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karger D, Lehman E, Leighton T, Levine M, Lewin D, Panigrahy R. Consistent hashing and random trees: tools for relieving hot spots on the world wide web. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing; 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kleinberg J. The small-world phenomenon: an algorithmic perspective. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing; 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitzenmacher M. The power of two choices in randomized load balancing. IEEE Trans Parall Distrib Syst. 2001;12(10):1094–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raab M, Steger A. Balls into bins – a simple and tight analysis. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Randomization and Approximation Techniques in Computer Science; 1998.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Steinmetz R, Wehrle K. Peer-to-peer systems and applications. Springer lecture notes in computer science, vol. 3485, Chapters 9 and 10; 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Section editors and affiliations

  • Karl Aberer
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)LausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Distributed Inf. Sys Lab.Inst. for Core Computing Science (IIF), EPFL-IC-IIF-LSIRLausanneSwitzerland