Encyclopedia of Database Systems

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

Updates and Transactions in Peer-to-Peer Systems

  • Zachary G. Ives
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_1222

Synonyms

Consistency in peer-to-peer systems; Update propagation in peer-to-peer systems

Definition

In recent years, work on peer-to-peer systems has started to consider settings in which data is updated, sometimes in the form of atomic transactions, and sometimes by parties other than the original author. This raises many of the issues related to enforcing consistency using concurrency control or other schemes. While such issues have been addressed in many ways in distributed systems and distributed databases, the challenge in the peer-to-peer context is in performing the tasks cooperatively, and potentially in tolerating some variation among the instances at different nodes.

Historical Background

Early peer-to-peer systems focused on sharing or querying immutable data and/or files. More modern uses of peer-to-peer technology consider settings in which dynamic data and updates are being made in a distributed, autonomous context. A question of significant interest is how to define...

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

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Fuxman A, Kolaitis PG, Miller RJ, Tan WC. Peer data exchange. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems; 2005.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Taylor NE, Ives ZG. Reconciling while tolerating disagreement in collaborative data sharing. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 2006.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balazinska M, Balakrishnan H, Stonebraker M. Demonstration: load management and high availability in the Medusa distributed stream processing system. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 2004.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diao Y, Rizvi S, Franklin MJ. Towards an internet-scale XML dissemination service. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 2004.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huebsch R., Hellerstein JM, Lanham N, Loo BT, Shenker S, Stoica I. Quering the internet with PIER. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 2003.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dabek F, Kaashoek MF, Karger D, Morris R, Stoica I. Wide-area cooperative storage with CFS. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles; 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Druschel P, Rowstron A. PAST: a large-scale, persistent peer-to-peer storage utility. In: Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems; 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kisler J, Satyanarayanan M. Disconnected operation in the coda file system. ACM Trans Comput Syst. 1992;10(1):3–25.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edwards WK, Mynatt ED, Petersen K, Spreitzer MJ, Terry DB, Theimer MM. Designing and implementing asynchronous collaborative applications with Bayou. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology; 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Datta A, Hauswirth M, Aberer K. Updates in highly unreliable, replicated peer-to-peer systems. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems; 2003.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cetintemel U, Keleher PJ, Bhattacharjee B, Franklin MJ. Deno: a decentralized, peer-to-peer object-replication system for weakly connected environments. IEEE Trans Comput. 2003;52(7):943–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parker DS Jr, Popek GJ, Rudisin G, Stoughton A, Walker BJ, Walton E, Chow JM, Edwards DA, Kiser S, Kline CS. Detection of mutual inconsistency in distributed systems. IEEE Trans Softw Eng. 1983;9(3):240–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Castro M, Liskov B. Practical byzantine fault tolerance and proactive recovery. ACM Trans Comput Syst. 2002;20(4):398–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kubiatowicz J, Bindel D, Chen Y, Czerwinski S, Eaton P, Geels D, Gummadi R, Rhea S, Weatherspoon H, Weimer W, Wells C, Zhao B. OceanStore: an architecture for global-scale persistent storage. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems; 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bolosky WJ, Douceur JR, Ely D, Theimer M. Feasibility of a serverless distributed file system deployed on an existing set of desktop PCs. In: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGMETRICS International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems; 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muthitacharoen A, Morris R, Gil TM, Chen B. Ivy: a read/write peer-to-peer file system. In: Proceedings of the 5th USENIX Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation; 2002.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer and Information Science DepartmentUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

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