Simple Determination of Stabilization Bounds for Overlay Networks. are now smaller, faster, and near-omnipresent. Computer ownership has gone from one
|
|
- Cecil Charles
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Simple Determination of Stabilization Bounds for Overlay Networks A. Introduction The landscape of computing has changed dramatically in the past half-century. Computers are now smaller, faster, and near-omnipresent. Computer ownership has gone from one per major corporation to several per person. Technology has become so advanced that now smart phones allow continuous connections amongst individuals. The computing of today is nearly unrecognizable from the computing of the past. These changes have had a huge impact on distributed computation. Past work in distributed computing is mostly based upon a model of computer networks with fixed topologies and static process membership. Today, many networks have a very dynamic process membership and changing topologies, such as with peer-to-peer (P2P), sensor, or mobile social networks. While there are still a large number of static networks (for instance, the many large data centers sprouting up recently), an increasing number of these new dynamic networks have created the need for new distributed algorithms. One recent area of research that has been created for these new networks has been self-stabilizing overlay networks. Instead of fixed physical links, an overlay network uses logical links between processes for communication, where a single logical link is composed of one or more physical links. The use of logical links means processes can change the topology easily, allowing creation of any topology. This gives overlay networks the ability to have desirable properties like low diameter or low degree, even with very dynamic network membership. Self-stabilizing overlay networks promise that a group of processes can form a desired topology when starting from any arbitrary weakly-connected topology. As many overlay networks are deployed in hostile environments, the design of such systems is desirable for researchers and practitioners alike. Self-stabilizing overlay network research is still quite new and unexplored. To guide the exploration of these networks, we present in this paper several optimality bounds for self-stabilizing overlay network construction. Specifically, we define two measures (the fault- 1
2 detector distance and the detector diameter) that can be used to bound the optimal convergence time of any self-stabilizing overlay network algorithm. Furthermore, we show that all families of overlay networks have a fault-detector distance bounded below by the diameter of the network. We finish with the presentation of a special form of graphs for which the detector diameter is easily bounded. These results are the first of their kind in this field, and we believe they will be quite useful for guiding future research. B. Related Work Self-stabilization is an established area of distributed computing research, created in 1974 by Dijkstra [3]. Self-stabilization promises a program will always reach some desired state when starting from any arbitrary initial state. Many self-stabilizing algorithms for distributed systems have been created. An excellent exposition of self-stabilization can be found in Dolev s book, Self-stabilization[4]. Overlay networks have become popular in the past few decades, largely due to the rise in peer-to-peer networking. Overlay networks can be divided into two types - structured and unstructured. In an unstructured network, there are no restrictions on the neighborhood of each node. While maintenance of these networks is easy, performance (such as routing times or search success rates) usually suffers. One very popular example of an unstructured network is the P2P network Gnutella, which has thousands of connected computers[8]. Conversely, structured networks place restrictions on the links in the overlay network. These restrictions make maintenance more expensive, but allow desirable properties such as low diameter for efficient routing and low node degree for scalable state space requirements. Current structured P2P networks, such as Chord[9], are not self-stabilizing, however the legal topology can only be guaranteed when starting from a subset of possible states. Recently, a few researchers have begun exploring the combination of self-stabilization and overlay network construction. Self-stabilizing overlay networks promise that, regardless of the initial weakly-connected topology, a correct configuration will always be created. The few examples of self-stabilizing overlay networks are silent algorithms. A silent self-stabilizing 2
3 algorithm is one where the execution of the algorithm ceases for all processes after a legal configuration is reached. Silent self-stabilizing overlay networks are desirable in that they do not consume additional resources once a legal state is reached. A key requirement for the building of silent self-stabilizing overlay networks is local checkability[1]. Informally, a locally-checkable network is one where any configuration that does not match the correct configuration contains at least one process that can detect, using only local information, that the network is in an illegal configuration. If a network is not locally-checkable, then there exists at least one configuration such that the network is incorrect or faulty, but every process believes the topology is correct. In such a situation, the only means to guarantee stabilization is to continuously search the network, compiling global information which can be used to detect a fault. Clearly, this method is not silent, and requires maintenance overhead throughout the network s life. One of the first examples of a self-stabilizing overlay network was the simple problem of linearization arranging nodes in a line sorted by unique immutable identifiers[7]. Later, a more advanced topology was created in a self-stabilizing fashion the Skip+ graph[6]. The Skip+ graph is a locally-checkable version of the Skip graph. The Skip+ graph has low diameter (O(log n)) and low node degree (O(log n) w.h.p.), two major scalability concerns for overlay networks. Currently, the Skip+ graph is the only published self-stabilizing overlay network that has a scalable diameter and node degree. These two topologies currently are the only examples of self-stabilizing overlay networks, demonstrating how nascent the field is. C. Model As is done for other self-stabilizing overlay network research, we use a model that is a modified version of the traditional distributed system models. As with the traditional model, we represent the distributed system as a graph G = (V, E), with processes modeled as the nodes of the graph V and communication links modeled as the edges E. Process v is considered a neighbor of process u if and only if the edge (u, v) E. The set of all neighbors 3
4 of u is called u s neighborhood, and is represented N(u). The state of each process is the value of its local variables. A process may read and write to it s own state, and read the state of its neighbors. The collection of the states of all processes is called a configuration. Processes may also contain some immutable information, such as an identifier or random sequence. Each process executes a program, which consists of a set of guarded actions of the form <guard> <action>. The guard is a Boolean expression over a process s local state and the state of its neighbors. When the guard evaluates to true, the action can be executed. A process with a guard that evaluates to true is considered enabled. The system proceeds in synchronous rounds, with each enabled process executing an action in every round. A computation is a (potentially infinite) series of configurations, S 0, S 1,, S i, S i+1, such that S i+1 is reachable from S i by executing all enabled actions in S i. Overlay networks require a different model than traditional distributed systems, however, as overlay networks allow each process to change its communication links that is, E is actually a dynamic set that may change at every step of a computation. Process i s neighborhood N(i) is now part of process i s state. Therefore, not only can a process read the local state of all neighbors, it can also identify the neighbors of its neighbors. In other words, a process i is aware of it s 2-neighborhood, represented as N 2 (i). Each time a process changes its neighborhood, it also changes the states it is capable of reading. This unique aspect is what differentiates overlay network models from prior work in distributed computation. The goal of the computation in self-stabilizing overlay network construction is to create a specific network topology. We consider a family of overlay networks as a mapping ON : V G, where V is the set of all possible sets of processes and G is the set of all directed graphs. ON(V ), then, takes a specific set of processes V (and any immutable information associated with these processes) and returns a directed graph from the family of the overlay network. We consider this returned graph to be the ideal configuration. As a final part of defining our model, we present the following terms. Node i is considered 4
5 a detector if the calculated ideal 2-neighborhood ON(N 2 (i)) does not match the current subgraph induced by i s 2-neighborhood. Detectors can initiate corrective actions to move the network to an ideal configuration. Therefore, their location in the network is important for determining optimal convergence time. Besides detectors, convergence also depends upon the location of faulty nodes. A faulty node u V is a node whose current neighborhood N(u) does not match the ideal neighborhood of u from ON(V ). Note a faulty node need not be a detector, nor does a detector need to be faulty. D. Bounds To define the bounds of overlay network construction, we need several measures of detector distribution the detector diameter (first introduced in a prior result[2]), and the fault-detector distance (defined here in our work). Imagine some weakly-connected directed graph G consisting of all nodes in a set V, with V = n. The detector diameter of G is the maximum shortest path between any faulty node and its closest detector. The fault-detector distance of G is defined as the maximum shortest path between any faulty node and its closest detector. The detector diameter D(n) (fault-detector distance F DD(n)) for the family of overlay networks ON is the largest detector diameter (fault-detector distance) taken over all weakly-connected graphs of V. In other words, regardless of the network configuration, all nodes are within distance D(n) of a detector, while every faulty node is within F DD(n) of a detector. We may now present the following theorem. Theorem 1. A silent self-stabilizing algorithm for constructing an overlay network ON(λ) cannot guarantee convergence in less than Ω(F DD(n)) rounds. Proof. Imagine a network with fault-detector distance F DD(n) = d f, and let node u be a faulty node of distance d f from its closest detector. In order for the faulty node u to repair itself, it must detect a fault and execute corrective actions. Consider the subgraph G df induced by all nodes of distance at most (d f 1) from node u. Note that no node in this subgraph is a detector. As the self-stabilizing algorithm is silent, there exists some setting of the local variables 5
6 of all nodes in G df such that no node in G df changes its neighborhood. At this point, G df contains no detectors, and has reached a silent state such that the neighborhoods of all nodes in G df will not change unless a fault is detected. For a fault to be detected in the silent G df, then, either the 2-neighborhood of a node in G df must change, or a node in G df must read a neighboring node s state and discover a detector exists in the system. In the first round, no node inside G df will execute an action. Therefore, a node outside of G df must execute in a faulty configuration, which may be detected by nodes that are distance (d f 1) from node u. Again, in the second round, only nodes outside of G df, as well as nodes of distance (d f 1) from node u will execute. Now nodes at distance (d f 2) from u may detect a fault. In general, nodes that are distance (d f i) from node u cannot become detectors until after i rounds. This implies at least d f rounds are required for node u to become a detector, and thus begin corrective action. Therefore, no silent self-stabilizing algorithm for an overlay network may converge in less than Ω(F DD(n)) rounds. Notice we can bound the fault-detector distance for overlay networks. Theorem 2. The fault-detector distance F DD(n) for a family of overlay networks ON is at least d, where d is the diameter of the ideal network ON(V ), for V = n. 2 Proof. We prove Theorem 2 by constructing an overlay network with fault-detector distance at least d. Imagine n nodes arranged in their ideal configuration G = ON(V ) and having 2 diameter d. There exists a shortest path consisting of distinct nodes p 0, p 1,, p d in the network. Let G = ON(V ) (where V = (V \ p 0 )) that is, G is the network that results from removing node p 0 and reconfiguring to a legal configuration. There are two cases concerning the distance between nodes p 1 and p d in G. Case 1: dist G (p 1, p d ) > d 2 - If the distance between nodes p 1 and p d remains at least d in 2 G, then we can insert node p 0 as a neighbor to node p d. The network is now faulty, as p 0 must be neighbors with p 1 in the ideal configuration. Furthermore, only p d and its 6
7 immediate neighbors have knowledge of node p 0, and these nodes are at least d away from 2 node p 1. Therefore, the only detectors (node p d and neighbors) are at least distance d from 2 p 1, and it holds that F DD(n) > d. 2 Case 2: dist G (p 1, p d ) < d 2 - Let nodes p 1 and p d be closer than d 2 in G. A node within d 2 of p d must have then changed its neighborhood from G to G, or else the set of nodes within d of p 2 d will not have changed, and p 1 remains at least d from p 2 d. Notice, too, that all nodes within d 2 of p d in G are also at least d 2 from p 1 in G. Therefore, if node p 0 is removed from G and the network is not reconfigured, only node p 1 and its immediate neighbors are detectors, and a faulty node exists at least d 2 away from p 1. Thus, removing p 0 from G results in a network with F DD(n) > d 2. Notice that this bound, the first of its kind, is significant in that it allows an easy method for evaluating overlay networks. For instance, it is now simple to show optimal convergence time simply by referencing the diameter of the network. Furthermore, it can help direct future research by focusing efforts on scalable convergence time to those networks with low diameter e.g. designing scalable algorithms for linearization is impossible, as it cannot converge faster than O(n) time. E. A Special Class of Networks Above, we provided a lower bound on the stabilization time of all overlay networks. It turns out that for a particular class of graphs we can provide a tight optimal convergence bound. Prior research has proven that any overlay network can be built in D(n) + log(n) rounds[2]. Therefore, if we can provide an upper bound on the detector diameter for some networks, we can tightly bound the optimal convergence time for these networks. To do this, we offer the following axioms. Axiom 1. Let G be an arbitrary network configuration, with desired configuration equal to G = ON(λ). Consider a subgraph G k of G induced by all nodes of distance k from some node u. If all nodes in this subgraph were not detectors in G, then the subgraph is a legal 7
8 overlay network (G k = ON(λ ), where λ is all nodes and associated identifiers and random sequences from G k ). Axiom 2. Let G λ = ON(λ) and G λ = ON(λ ) be two legal overlay networks such that the nodes in G λ are a subset of the nodes in G λ. The diameter of G λ is no larger than the diameter of G λ. We now bound the detector diameter from above. Theorem 3. Let d be the diameter of G λ = ON(λ). For all locally-checkable overlay networks satisfying Axioms 1 and 2, the detector diameter is no more than (d + 1). Proof. We prove Theorem 3 by contradiction. Imagine that D(n) > d + 1. This means in some configuration G there exists a node u whose closest detector is greater than distance d + 1 away. Let G u be the ball induced on G by all nodes of distance at most D(n) 1 from u. Notice that this ball contains no detectors. By Axiom 1, if all nodes except those in G u are removed, then G u forms a correct overlay network - that is, no new edges are introduced to G u that were not in G. Note also that G u has a diameter of at least d + 1, and contains at least one less node than G. However, by Axiom 2, this is impossible. Therefore, the detector diameter can be no more than d + 1. For networks satisfying Axioms 1 and 2, D(n) is at most (d + 1). Therefore, we have defined a set of overlay networks for which the tight bound on optimal convergence time is equal to the diameter of the ideal network (assuming the diameter is at least O(log n)). The following example shows the application of our results. We consider the seminal problem of silent self-stabilizing overlay networks linearization[7]. An example linearized graph is shown in Figure 1. In a linearized graph, every node u has a unique integer identifier, u.id. Furthermore, every node u has at most two neighbors, u.l and u.r. We use to represent the case where no neighbor exists. A linearized graph satisfies the following conditions. 8
9 1. u.l.id < u.id u.l = 2. u.r.id > u.id u.r = Several papers have been published investigating linearization and striving towards polylogarithmic convergence time[7, 5]. In the following paragraphs, we prove such a result cannot exist. Lemma 1. Linearization is locally-checkable. Proof. This result follows from the definition of a linearized graph. The conditions defining a linearized graph depend only upon a node u and it s immediate neighbors. If we assume the conditions are true for all nodes and represent these as a conjunction (p 0.L = p 0.R.id > p 0.id p n 1.R = ), it clearly represents the single correct configuration for linearization. Lemma 2. Linearization satisfies Axiom 1. Proof. Consider what happens when we have a subgraph of only non-detectors. At most two nodes have their neighborhoods changed. If previously these nodes satisfied the conditions above by having a left or right neighbor of, this condition still holds in our subgraph. If the nodes previously had left or right neighbors, they now have as the left or right neighbor, which still satisfies the above conditions. Therefore, a subgraph of non-detectors is a legal overlay network. Lemma 3. Linearization satisfies Axiom 2. Proof. Notice that a correct linearized graph has a diameter equivalent to the number of nodes in the graph. Therefore, as G λ has fewer nodes than G λ, it also has a smaller diameter, and Axiom 2 holds. Theorem 4. The optimal convergence time for linearization is Θ(n). 9
10 Proof. By Theorem 1, convergence time is bounded by F DD(n). Furthermore, by Theorem 2, the fault-detector distance of linearization must be at least d. The detector diameter for 2 linearization is no more than d + 1, which follows from Theorem 3 and Lemmas 2 and 3. By definition, F DD(n) D(n). Therefore, F DD(n) O(d). As known by the prior result[2], a linearized topology can be built in Θ(n) rounds, so our optimal convergence bound is tight. F. Conclusions In this paper, we have presented several bounds for self-stabilizing overlay network construction. Furthermore, we have introduced a special class of graphs for which optimal convergence time is easily bounded by the network diameter. These bounds are the first of their kind in this area of research. Using these bounds, researchers and practitioners can easily select topologies to begin investigating for self-stabilization. Likewise, they can rule out certain topologies as poor choices for scalable convergence (for instance, linearization). There are several open questions implied by our results. First, one can examine whether our presented axioms are the weakest possible, or if in fact networks that do not satisfy these axioms still have optimal convergence time equivalent to the diameter. Also, as local checkability is a requirement for silent self-stabilizing overlay network construction, examining how to prove a network is locally checkable is an open and meaningful problem (for instance, the Skip+ graph[6] does not have a proof of local checkability). Finally, an obvious area of future work is designing other self-stabilizing algorithms for different network topologies. Our framework will greatly assist this wide-open field by allowing easy calculation of convergence time, and by helping researchers select the desired topology. As the nature of distributed computation will continue to change in the future, our work in specific, and self-stabilizing overlay networks in general, will continue to grow and develop into an important area of computing. 10
11 References [1] B. Awerbuch, B. Patt-Shamir, and G. Varghese. Self-stabilization by local checking and correction (extended abstract). In Proceedings of the 32nd annual SFCS 91, pages , Washington, DC, USA, IEEE Computer Society. [2] A. Berns, S. Ghosh, and S. V. Pemmaraju. Brief announcement: a framework for building self-stabilizing overlay networks. In Proceeding of PODC 10, pages , New York, NY, USA, ACM. [3] E. W. Dijkstra. Self-stabilizing systems in spite of distributed control. Commun. ACM, 17(11): , [4] S. Dolev. Self-stabilization. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, [5] D. Gall, R. Jacob, A. Richa, C. Scheideler, S. Schmid, and H. Täubig. Modeling scalability in distributed self-stabilization: The case of graph linearization. Technical Report TUM-I0835, TU Munich, November [6] R. Jacob, A. Richa, C. Scheideler, S. Schmid, and H. Täubig. A distributed polylogarithmic time algorithm for self-stabilizing skip graphs. In Proceedings of PODC 09, pages , New York, NY, USA, ACM. [7] M. Onus, A. W. Richa, and C. Scheideler. Linearization: Locally self-stabilizing sorting in graphs. In ALENEX, [8] S. Saroiu, K. P. Gummadi, and S. D. Gribble. Measuring and analyzing the characteristics of napster and gnutella hosts. Multimedia Syst., 9(2): , [9] I. Stoica, R. Morris, D. Karger, M. F. Kaashoek, and H. Balakrishnan. Chord: A scalable peer-to-peer lookup service for internet applications. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., 31(4): ,
12 Figures Figure 1: An Example of Linearization with Eight (8) Nodes 12
Building Self-Stabilizing Overlay Networks with the Transitive Closure Framework
Building Self-Stabilizing Overlay Networks with the Transitive Closure Framework Andrew Berns, Sukumar Ghosh 1, Sriram V. Pemmaraju 2 Department of Computer Science The University of Iowa 14 MacLean Hall
More informationAvatar: A Time- and Space-Ecient Self-Stabilizing Overlay Network
Avatar: A Time- and Space-Ecient Self-Stabilizing Overlay Network Andrew Berns Department of Computer Science University of Wisconsin-La Crosse La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA aberns@uwlax.edu Abstract. Overlay
More informationSelf-stabilizing overlay networks
University of Iowa Iowa Research Online Theses and Dissertations Fall 2012 Self-stabilizing overlay networks Andrew David Berns University of Iowa Copyright 2012 Andrew David Berns This dissertation is
More informationScalability In Peer-to-Peer Systems. Presented by Stavros Nikolaou
Scalability In Peer-to-Peer Systems Presented by Stavros Nikolaou Background on Peer-to-Peer Systems Definition: Distributed systems/applications featuring: No centralized control, no hierarchical organization
More informationAll-to-All Communication
Network Algorithms All-to-All Communication Thanks to Thomas Locher from ABB Research for basis of slides! Stefan Schmid @ T-Labs, 2011 Repetition Tree: connected graph without cycles Spanning subgraph:
More informationAn Anonymous Self-Stabilizing Algorithm For 1-Maximal Matching in Trees
An Anonymous Self-Stabilizing Algorithm For 1-Maximal Matching in Trees Wayne Goddard, Stephen T. Hedetniemi Department of Computer Science, Clemson University {goddard,hedet}@cs.clemson.edu Zhengnan Shi
More informationA Note on the Parallel Runtime of Self-Stabilizing Graph Linearization
Theory of Computing Systems manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) A Note on the Parallel Runtime of Self-Stabilizing Graph Linearization Dominik Gall Riko Jacob Andrea Richa Christian Scheideler
More informationGraph Algorithms. Many problems in networks can be modeled as graph problems.
Graph Algorithms Graph Algorithms Many problems in networks can be modeled as graph problems. - The topology of a distributed system is a graph. - Routing table computation uses the shortest path algorithm
More information: Scalable Lookup
6.824 2006: Scalable Lookup Prior focus has been on traditional distributed systems e.g. NFS, DSM/Hypervisor, Harp Machine room: well maintained, centrally located. Relatively stable population: can be
More informationTowards Scalable and Robust Overlay Networks
Towards Scalable and Robust Overlay Networks Baruch Awerbuch Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD 21218, USA baruch@cs.jhu.edu Christian Scheideler Institute for Computer
More informationBuilding a low-latency, proximity-aware DHT-based P2P network
Building a low-latency, proximity-aware DHT-based P2P network Ngoc Ben DANG, Son Tung VU, Hoai Son NGUYEN Department of Computer network College of Technology, Vietnam National University, Hanoi 144 Xuan
More informationA Self-Stabilizing and Local Delaunay Graph Construction
A Self-Stabilizing and Local Delaunay Graph Construction Riko Jacob 1, Stephan Ritscher 1, Christian Scheideler 2, Stefan Schmid 2 1 Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München, D-85748 Garching,
More informationECS 253 / MAE 253, Lecture 8 April 21, Web search and decentralized search on small-world networks
ECS 253 / MAE 253, Lecture 8 April 21, 2016 Web search and decentralized search on small-world networks Search for information Assume some resource of interest is stored at the vertices of a network: Web
More informationGraph Algorithms. Many problems in networks can be modeled as graph problems.
Graph Algorithms Many problems in networks can be modeled as graph problems. - The topology of a distributed system is a graph. - Routing table computation uses the shortest path algorithm - Efficient
More informationT U M. Modeling Scalability in Distributed Self-Stabilization: The Case of Graph Linearization
T U M I N S T I T U T F Ü R I N F O R M A T I K Modeling Scalability in Distributed Self-Stabilization: The Case of Graph Linearization Dominik Gall, Riko Jacob, Andrea Richa, Christian Scheideler, Stefan
More informationA Framework for Peer-To-Peer Lookup Services based on k-ary search
A Framework for Peer-To-Peer Lookup Services based on k-ary search Sameh El-Ansary Swedish Institute of Computer Science Kista, Sweden Luc Onana Alima Department of Microelectronics and Information Technology
More informationSelf Stabilization. CS553 Distributed Algorithms Prof. Ajay Kshemkalyani. by Islam Ismailov & Mohamed M. Ali
Self Stabilization CS553 Distributed Algorithms Prof. Ajay Kshemkalyani by Islam Ismailov & Mohamed M. Ali Introduction There is a possibility for a distributed system to go into an illegitimate state,
More informationGIAN Course on Distributed Network Algorithms. Network Topologies and Local Routing
GIAN Course on Distributed Network Algorithms Network Topologies and Local Routing Stefan Schmid @ T-Labs, 2011 GIAN Course on Distributed Network Algorithms Network Topologies and Local Routing If you
More informationTime Complexity of Distributed Topological Self-stabilization: The Case of Graph Linearization
Time Complexity of Distributed Topological Self-stabilization: The Case of Graph Linearization Dominik Gall 1, Riko Jacob 1, Andrea Richa 2, Christian Scheideler 3, Stefan Schmid 4, and Hanjo Täubig 1
More informationSelf-Stabilizing Distributed Queuing
Self-Stabilizing Distributed Queuing Srikanta Tirthapura Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engg. Iowa State University Ames, IA, USA, 50011 snt@iastate.edu Maurice Herlihy Computer Science Department Brown
More informationCharacterizing Traffic Demand Aware Overlay Routing Network Topologies
Characterizing Traffic Demand Aware Overlay Routing Network Topologies Benjamin D. McBride Kansas State University Rathbone Hall Manhattan, KS Email: bdm@ksu.edu Caterina Scoglio Kansas State University
More informationA Hybrid Peer-to-Peer Architecture for Global Geospatial Web Service Discovery
A Hybrid Peer-to-Peer Architecture for Global Geospatial Web Service Discovery Shawn Chen 1, Steve Liang 2 1 Geomatics, University of Calgary, hschen@ucalgary.ca 2 Geomatics, University of Calgary, steve.liang@ucalgary.ca
More informationByzantine Consensus in Directed Graphs
Byzantine Consensus in Directed Graphs Lewis Tseng 1,3, and Nitin Vaidya 2,3 1 Department of Computer Science, 2 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, and 3 Coordinated Science Laboratory
More informationChapter 6 PEER-TO-PEER COMPUTING
Chapter 6 PEER-TO-PEER COMPUTING Distributed Computing Group Computer Networks Winter 23 / 24 Overview What is Peer-to-Peer? Dictionary Distributed Hashing Search Join & Leave Other systems Case study:
More informationRelaxing Routing Table to Alleviate Dynamism in P2P Systems
Relaxing Routing Table to Alleviate Dynamism in P2P Systems Hui FANG 1, Wen Jing HSU 2, and Larry RUDOLPH 3 1 Singapore-MIT Alliance, National University of Singapore 2 Nanyang Technological University,
More informationState-Optimal Snap-Stabilizing PIF In Tree Networks
State-Optimal Snap-Stabilizing PIF In Tree Networks (Extended Abstract) Alain Bui, 1 Ajoy K. Datta, 2 Franck Petit, 1 Vincent Villain 1 1 LaRIA, Université de Picardie Jules Verne, France 2 Department
More informationFault Resilience of Structured P2P Systems
Fault Resilience of Structured P2P Systems Zhiyu Liu 1, Guihai Chen 1, Chunfeng Yuan 1, Sanglu Lu 1, and Chengzhong Xu 2 1 National Laboratory of Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, China 2
More informationEarly Measurements of a Cluster-based Architecture for P2P Systems
Early Measurements of a Cluster-based Architecture for P2P Systems Balachander Krishnamurthy, Jia Wang, Yinglian Xie I. INTRODUCTION Peer-to-peer applications such as Napster [4], Freenet [1], and Gnutella
More informationA Search Theoretical Approach to P2P Networks: Analysis of Learning
A Search Theoretical Approach to P2P Networks: Analysis of Learning Nazif Cihan Taş Dept. of Computer Science University of Maryland College Park, MD 2742 Email: ctas@cs.umd.edu Bedri Kâmil Onur Taş Dept.
More informationDYNAMIC TREE-LIKE STRUCTURES IN P2P-NETWORKS
DYNAMIC TREE-LIKE STRUCTURES IN P2P-NETWORKS Herwig Unger Markus Wulff Department of Computer Science University of Rostock D-1851 Rostock, Germany {hunger,mwulff}@informatik.uni-rostock.de KEYWORDS P2P,
More informationA Super-Peer Based Lookup in Structured Peer-to-Peer Systems
A Super-Peer Based Lookup in Structured Peer-to-Peer Systems Yingwu Zhu Honghao Wang Yiming Hu ECECS Department ECECS Department ECECS Department University of Cincinnati University of Cincinnati University
More informationA Synchronous Self-Stabilizing Minimal Domination Protocol in an Arbitrary Network Graph
A Synchronous Self-Stabilizing Minimal Domination Protocol in an Arbitrary Network Graph Z. Xu, S. T. Hedetniemi, W. Goddard, and P. K. Srimani Department of Computer Science Clemson University Clemson,
More informationChapter 10: Peer-to-Peer Systems
Chapter 10: Peer-to-Peer Systems From Coulouris, Dollimore and Kindberg Distributed Systems: Concepts and Design Edition 4, Addison-Wesley 2005 Introduction To enable the sharing of data and resources
More informationAOTO: Adaptive Overlay Topology Optimization in Unstructured P2P Systems
AOTO: Adaptive Overlay Topology Optimization in Unstructured P2P Systems Yunhao Liu, Zhenyun Zhuang, Li Xiao Department of Computer Science and Engineering Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824
More informationTelematics Chapter 9: Peer-to-Peer Networks
Telematics Chapter 9: Peer-to-Peer Networks Beispielbild User watching video clip Server with video clips Application Layer Presentation Layer Application Layer Presentation Layer Session Layer Session
More informationNodeId Verification Method against Routing Table Poisoning Attack in Chord DHT
NodeId Verification Method against Routing Table Poisoning Attack in Chord DHT 1 Avinash Chaudhari, 2 Pradeep Gamit 1 L.D. College of Engineering, Information Technology, Ahmedabad India 1 Chaudhari.avi4u@gmail.com,
More informationARTICLE IN PRESS. An anonymous self-stabilizing algorithm for 1-maximal independent set in trees
S0020-0190(04)00098-5/SCO AID:3078 Vol. ( ) P.1 (1-7) ELSGMLTM(IPL):m3 v 1.193 Prn:15/04/2004; 13:20 ipl3078 by:r.m. p. 1 Information Processing Letters ( ) www.elsevier.com/locate/ipl An anonymous self-stabilizing
More informationAthens University of Economics and Business. Dept. of Informatics
Athens University of Economics and Business Athens University of Economics and Business Dept. of Informatics B.Sc. Thesis Project report: Implementation of the PASTRY Distributed Hash Table lookup service
More informationEvaluating Unstructured Peer-to-Peer Lookup Overlays
Evaluating Unstructured Peer-to-Peer Lookup Overlays Idit Keidar EE Department, Technion Roie Melamed CS Department, Technion ABSTRACT Unstructured peer-to-peer lookup systems incur small constant overhead
More informationChoosing a Random Peer
Choosing a Random Peer Jared Saia University of New Mexico Joint Work with Valerie King University of Victoria and Scott Lewis University of New Mexico P2P problems Easy problems on small networks become
More informationEffect of Links on DHT Routing Algorithms 1
Effect of Links on DHT Routing Algorithms 1 Futai Zou, Liang Zhang, Yin Li, Fanyuan Ma Department of Computer Science and Engineering Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 200030 Shanghai, China zoufutai@cs.sjtu.edu.cn
More informationDegree Optimal Deterministic Routing for P2P Systems
Degree Optimal Deterministic Routing for P2P Systems Gennaro Cordasco Luisa Gargano Mikael Hammar Vittorio Scarano Abstract We propose routing schemes that optimize the average number of hops for lookup
More informationDistributed Network Routing Algorithms Table for Small World Networks
Distributed Network Routing Algorithms Table for Small World Networks Mudit Dholakia 1 1 Department of Computer Engineering, VVP Engineering College, Rajkot, 360005, India, Email:muditdholakia@gmail.com
More informationDynamic Load Sharing in Peer-to-Peer Systems: When some Peers are more Equal than Others
Dynamic Load Sharing in Peer-to-Peer Systems: When some Peers are more Equal than Others Sabina Serbu, Silvia Bianchi, Peter Kropf and Pascal Felber Computer Science Department, University of Neuchâtel
More informationGIAN Course on Distributed Network Algorithms. Network Topologies and Interconnects
GIAN Course on Distributed Network Algorithms Network Topologies and Interconnects Stefan Schmid @ T-Labs, 2011 The Many Faces and Flavors of Network Topologies Gnutella P2P. Social Networks. Internet.
More informationMaximal Independent Set
Chapter 0 Maximal Independent Set In this chapter we present a highlight of this course, a fast maximal independent set (MIS) algorithm. The algorithm is the first randomized algorithm that we study in
More informationFormal Model. Figure 1: The target concept T is a subset of the concept S = [0, 1]. The search agent needs to search S for a point in T.
Although this paper analyzes shaping with respect to its benefits on search problems, the reader should recognize that shaping is often intimately related to reinforcement learning. The objective in reinforcement
More informationCache-Oblivious Traversals of an Array s Pairs
Cache-Oblivious Traversals of an Array s Pairs Tobias Johnson May 7, 2007 Abstract Cache-obliviousness is a concept first introduced by Frigo et al. in [1]. We follow their model and develop a cache-oblivious
More informationDynamics, Non-Cooperation, and Other Algorithmic Challenges in Peer-to-Peer Computing
Dynamics, Non-Cooperation, and Other Algorithmic Challenges in Peer-to-Peer Computing Stefan Schmid Distributed Computing Group Oberseminar TU München, Germany December 2007 Networks Neuron Networks DISTRIBUTED
More informationChapter 8 DOMINATING SETS
Chapter 8 DOMINATING SETS Distributed Computing Group Mobile Computing Summer 2004 Overview Motivation Dominating Set Connected Dominating Set The Greedy Algorithm The Tree Growing Algorithm The Marking
More informationAnonymous Self-Stabilizing Distributed Algorithms for Connected Dominating Set in a Network Graph
Anonymous Self-Stabilizing Distributed Algorithms for Connected Dominating Set in a Network Graph Wayne Goddard and Pradip K Srimani School of Computing Clemson University Clemson, SC 29634 0974 {goddard,
More informationAnalyze the obvious algorithm, 5 points Here is the most obvious algorithm for this problem: (LastLargerElement[A[1..n]:
CSE 101 Homework 1 Background (Order and Recurrence Relations), correctness proofs, time analysis, and speeding up algorithms with restructuring, preprocessing and data structures. Due Thursday, April
More informationDomination Cover Pebbling: Structural Results
Domination Cover Pebbling: Structural Results arxiv:math.co/0509564 v 3 Sep 005 Nathaniel G. Watson Department of Mathematics Washington University at St. Louis Carl R. Yerger Department of Mathematics
More informationOn the packing chromatic number of some lattices
On the packing chromatic number of some lattices Arthur S. Finbow Department of Mathematics and Computing Science Saint Mary s University Halifax, Canada BH C art.finbow@stmarys.ca Douglas F. Rall Department
More informationShould we build Gnutella on a structured overlay? We believe
Should we build on a structured overlay? Miguel Castro, Manuel Costa and Antony Rowstron Microsoft Research, Cambridge, CB3 FB, UK Abstract There has been much interest in both unstructured and structured
More informationAn Efficient Silent Self-Stabilizing Algorithm for 1-Maximal Matching in Anonymous Network
An Efficient Silent Self-Stabilizing Algorithm for 1-Maximal Matching in Anonymous Network Yuma Asada and Michiko Inoue Nara Institute of Science and Technology, 8916-5 Takayama, Ikoma, NARA 630-0192 JAPAN,
More informationCPSC 536N: Randomized Algorithms Term 2. Lecture 5
CPSC 536N: Randomized Algorithms 2011-12 Term 2 Prof. Nick Harvey Lecture 5 University of British Columbia In this lecture we continue to discuss applications of randomized algorithms in computer networking.
More informationChapter 8 DOMINATING SETS
Distributed Computing Group Chapter 8 DOMINATING SETS Mobile Computing Summer 2004 Overview Motivation Dominating Set Connected Dominating Set The Greedy Algorithm The Tree Growing Algorithm The Marking
More informationOverlay networks. Today. l Overlays networks l P2P evolution l Pastry as a routing overlay example
Overlay networks Today l Overlays networks l P2P evolution l Pastry as a routing overlay eample Network virtualization and overlays " Different applications with a range of demands/needs network virtualization
More informationPeer Clustering and Firework Query Model
Peer Clustering and Firework Query Model Cheuk Hang Ng, Ka Cheung Sia Department of Computer Science and Engineering The Chinese University of Hong Kong Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong SAR {chng,kcsia}@cse.cuhk.edu.hk
More informationUsing Linearization for Global Consistency in SSR
Using Linearization for Global Consistency in SSR Kendy Kutzner 1 and Thomas Fuhrmann 2 1 University of Karlsruhe 2 Technical University of Munich Computer Science Department Computer Science Department
More informationDistributed Systems Leader election & Failure detection
Distributed Systems Leader election & Failure detection He Sun School of Informatics University of Edinburgh Leader of a computation Many distributed computations need a coordinator of server processors
More information2. CONNECTIVITY Connectivity
2. CONNECTIVITY 70 2. Connectivity 2.1. Connectivity. Definition 2.1.1. (1) A path in a graph G = (V, E) is a sequence of vertices v 0, v 1, v 2,..., v n such that {v i 1, v i } is an edge of G for i =
More informationPeer-to-Peer Networks Pastry & Tapestry 4th Week
Peer-to-Peer Networks Pastry & Tapestry 4th Week Department of Computer Science 1 Peer-to-Peer Networks Pastry 2 2 Pastry Peter Druschel Rice University, Houston, Texas now head of Max-Planck-Institute
More informationBRINGING ORDER IN SEGMENTS FOR A ROBUST NETWORK IN MOBILE SERVICES
BRINGING ORDER IN SEGMENTS FOR A ROBUST NETWORK IN MOBILE SERVICES Abdulfattah Muhyiddeen, R. Mohd Nor and M. M. Hafizur Rahman Department of Computer Science, International Islamic University Malaysia,
More informationCharacterizing Gnutella Network Properties for Peer-to-Peer Network Simulation
Characterizing Gnutella Network Properties for Peer-to-Peer Network Simulation Selim Ciraci, Ibrahim Korpeoglu, and Özgür Ulusoy Department of Computer Engineering, Bilkent University, TR-06800 Ankara,
More informationComparing Chord, CAN, and Pastry Overlay Networks for Resistance to DoS Attacks
Comparing Chord, CAN, and Pastry Overlay Networks for Resistance to DoS Attacks Hakem Beitollahi Hakem.Beitollahi@esat.kuleuven.be Geert Deconinck Geert.Deconinck@esat.kuleuven.be Katholieke Universiteit
More informationDistributed Hash Table
Distributed Hash Table P2P Routing and Searching Algorithms Ruixuan Li College of Computer Science, HUST rxli@public.wh.hb.cn http://idc.hust.edu.cn/~rxli/ In Courtesy of Xiaodong Zhang, Ohio State Univ
More information8 Supervised Overlay Networks
8 Supervised Overlay Networks Every application run on multiple machines needs a mechanism that allows the machines to exchange information. An easy way of solving this problem is that every machine knows
More informationThe alternator. Mohamed G. Gouda F. Furman Haddix
Distrib. Comput. (2007) 20:21 28 DOI 10.1007/s00446-007-0033-1 The alternator Mohamed G. Gouda F. Furman Haddix Received: 28 August 1999 / Accepted: 5 July 2000 / Published online: 12 June 2007 Springer-Verlag
More informationLocal Stabilizer. Yehuda Afek y Shlomi Dolev z. Abstract. A local stabilizer protocol that takes any on-line or o-line distributed algorithm and
Local Stabilizer Yehuda Afek y Shlomi Dolev z Abstract A local stabilizer protocol that takes any on-line or o-line distributed algorithm and converts it into a synchronous self-stabilizing algorithm with
More informationMaximal Independent Set
Chapter 4 Maximal Independent Set In this chapter we present a first highlight of this course, a fast maximal independent set (MIS) algorithm. The algorithm is the first randomized algorithm that we study
More informationChordal deletion is fixed-parameter tractable
Chordal deletion is fixed-parameter tractable Dániel Marx Institut für Informatik, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany. dmarx@informatik.hu-berlin.de Abstract. It
More informationLeader Election in Rings
Leader Election Arvind Krishnamurthy Fall 2003 Leader Election in Rings Under different models: Synchronous vs. asynchronous Anonymous vs. non-anonymous (knowledge of unique id) Knowledge of n (non-uniform)
More informationDistributed Algorithms 6.046J, Spring, Nancy Lynch
Distributed Algorithms 6.046J, Spring, 205 Nancy Lynch What are Distributed Algorithms? Algorithms that run on networked processors, or on multiprocessors that share memory. They solve many kinds of problems:
More informationChord : A Scalable Peer-to-Peer Lookup Protocol for Internet Applications
: A Scalable Peer-to-Peer Lookup Protocol for Internet Applications Ion Stoica, Robert Morris, David Liben-Nowell, David R. Karger, M. Frans Kaashock, Frank Dabek, Hari Balakrishnan March 4, 2013 One slide
More informationReCord: A Distributed Hash Table with Recursive Structure
ReCord: A Distributed Hash Table with Recursive Structure Jianyang Zeng and Wen-Jing Hsu Abstract We propose a simple distributed hash table called ReCord, which is a generalized version of Randomized-
More informationContent Overlays. Nick Feamster CS 7260 March 12, 2007
Content Overlays Nick Feamster CS 7260 March 12, 2007 Content Overlays Distributed content storage and retrieval Two primary approaches: Structured overlay Unstructured overlay Today s paper: Chord Not
More informationInvited Paper: Robust Architectures for Open Distributed Systems and Topological Self-Stabilization
Invited Paper: Robust Architectures for Open Distributed Systems and Topological Self-Stabilization Stefan Schmid T-Labs / TU Berlin Berlin, Germany stefan@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de ABSTRACT Distributed
More informationHöllische Programmiersprachen Hauptseminar im Wintersemester 2014/2015 Determinism and reliability in the context of parallel programming
Höllische Programmiersprachen Hauptseminar im Wintersemester 2014/2015 Determinism and reliability in the context of parallel programming Raphael Arias Technische Universität München 19.1.2015 Abstract
More informationA Study of Connectivity Metrics for Wireless Ad Hoc Networks. Samuel C. Nelson. A Proposal Submitted to the Honors Council
A Study of Connectivity Metrics for Wireless Ad Hoc Networks by Samuel C. Nelson A Proposal Submitted to the Honors Council For Honors in Computer Science 15 October 2005 1 Introduction Imagine the following
More informationCompSci 356: Computer Network Architectures Lecture 21: Overlay Networks Chap 9.4. Xiaowei Yang
CompSci 356: Computer Network Architectures Lecture 21: Overlay Networks Chap 9.4 Xiaowei Yang xwy@cs.duke.edu Overview Problem Evolving solutions IP multicast Proxy caching Content distribution networks
More information08 Distributed Hash Tables
08 Distributed Hash Tables 2/59 Chord Lookup Algorithm Properties Interface: lookup(key) IP address Efficient: O(log N) messages per lookup N is the total number of servers Scalable: O(log N) state per
More informationON THE STRONGLY REGULAR GRAPH OF PARAMETERS
ON THE STRONGLY REGULAR GRAPH OF PARAMETERS (99, 14, 1, 2) SUZY LOU AND MAX MURIN Abstract. In an attempt to find a strongly regular graph of parameters (99, 14, 1, 2) or to disprove its existence, we
More informationTreewidth and graph minors
Treewidth and graph minors Lectures 9 and 10, December 29, 2011, January 5, 2012 We shall touch upon the theory of Graph Minors by Robertson and Seymour. This theory gives a very general condition under
More informationMatching Algorithms. Proof. If a bipartite graph has a perfect matching, then it is easy to see that the right hand side is a necessary condition.
18.433 Combinatorial Optimization Matching Algorithms September 9,14,16 Lecturer: Santosh Vempala Given a graph G = (V, E), a matching M is a set of edges with the property that no two of the edges have
More informationDISTRIBUTED HASH TABLE PROTOCOL DETECTION IN WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
DISTRIBUTED HASH TABLE PROTOCOL DETECTION IN WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS Mr. M. Raghu (Asst.professor) Dr.Pauls Engineering College Ms. M. Ananthi (PG Scholar) Dr. Pauls Engineering College Abstract- Wireless
More informationPeer-to-Peer Semantic Search Engine
Peer-to-Peer Semantic Search Engine Tomáš Havryluk, Ivan Jelínek Abstract: Peer-to-Peer is a relatively old but still an evolving branch of web technologies. This article gives a survey of Peer-to-Peer
More informationSecuring Chord for ShadowWalker. Nandit Tiku Department of Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Securing Chord for ShadowWalker Nandit Tiku Department of Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign tiku1@illinois.edu ABSTRACT Peer to Peer anonymous communication promises to eliminate
More informationMULTI-DOMAIN VoIP PEERING USING OVERLAY NETWORK
116 MULTI-DOMAIN VoIP PEERING USING OVERLAY NETWORK Herry Imanta Sitepu, Carmadi Machbub, Armein Z. R. Langi, Suhono Harso Supangkat School of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, Institut Teknologi
More informationTiara: A Self-Stabilizing Deterministic Skip List
Tiara: A Self-Stabilizing Deterministic Skip List Thomas Clouser 1, Mikhail Nesterenko 1, and Christian Scheideler 2 1 Deparment of Computer Science, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA 2 Institute of
More informationCS4700/CS5700 Fundamentals of Computer Networks
CS4700/CS5700 Fundamentals of Computer Networks Lecture 22: Overlay networks Slides used with permissions from Edward W. Knightly, T. S. Eugene Ng, Ion Stoica, Hui Zhang Alan Mislove amislove at ccs.neu.edu
More informationMatching Theory. Figure 1: Is this graph bipartite?
Matching Theory 1 Introduction A matching M of a graph is a subset of E such that no two edges in M share a vertex; edges which have this property are called independent edges. A matching M is said to
More informationLessLog: A Logless File Replication Algorithm for Peer-to-Peer Distributed Systems
LessLog: A Logless File Replication Algorithm for Peer-to-Peer Distributed Systems Kuang-Li Huang, Tai-Yi Huang and Jerry C. Y. Chou Department of Computer Science National Tsing Hua University Hsinchu,
More informationOn the Max Coloring Problem
On the Max Coloring Problem Leah Epstein Asaf Levin May 22, 2010 Abstract We consider max coloring on hereditary graph classes. The problem is defined as follows. Given a graph G = (V, E) and positive
More informationInterleaving Schemes on Circulant Graphs with Two Offsets
Interleaving Schemes on Circulant raphs with Two Offsets Aleksandrs Slivkins Department of Computer Science Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 slivkins@cs.cornell.edu Jehoshua Bruck Department of Electrical
More informationConstructing Connected Dominating Sets with Bounded Diameters in Wireless Networks
Constructing Connected Dominating Sets with Bounded Diameters in Wireless Networks Yingshu Li Department of Computer Science Georgia State University Atlanta, GA 30303 yli@cs.gsu.edu Donghyun Kim Feng
More informationMaximum number of edges in claw-free graphs whose maximum degree and matching number are bounded
Maximum number of edges in claw-free graphs whose maximum degree and matching number are bounded Cemil Dibek Tınaz Ekim Pinar Heggernes Abstract We determine the maximum number of edges that a claw-free
More informationDistributed minimum spanning tree problem
Distributed minimum spanning tree problem Juho-Kustaa Kangas 24th November 2012 Abstract Given a connected weighted undirected graph, the minimum spanning tree problem asks for a spanning subtree with
More informationThe Structure of Bull-Free Perfect Graphs
The Structure of Bull-Free Perfect Graphs Maria Chudnovsky and Irena Penev Columbia University, New York, NY 10027 USA May 18, 2012 Abstract The bull is a graph consisting of a triangle and two vertex-disjoint
More information