Similar articles

Abstract: peer-to-peer (P2P) systems are now very popular. Current P2P systems are broadly of two kinds, structured and unstructured. The tree structured P2P systems used technologies such as distributed hash tables (DHT) and hierarchical clustering can search the required target quickly, however, in a tree, the internal node has a higher load and its leave or crash often causes a large population of its offspring’s problems, so that in the highly dynamic Internet environment the tree structure may still suffer frequent breaks. On the other hand, most widely used unstructured P2P networks rely on central directory servers or massive message flooding, clearly not scalable. So, we consider both of the above systems’ advantages and disadvantages and realize that in the P2P systems one node may fail easily, but that when a number of nodes organized as a set, which we call “super node”, the set is robust. Super nodes can be created and updated aware of topology-aware, and used with simple protocol such as flooding or “servers” to exchange information. Furthermore the entire robust super node can be organized into exquisite tree structure. By using this overlay network architecture, P2P systems are robust, efficient, scalable and secure. The simulation results demonstrated that our architecture greatly reduces the alteration time of the structure while decreasing the average delay time, compared to the common tree structure.

[1] Banerjee, S., Bhattacharjee, B., Kommareddy, C., 2002. Scalable Application Layer Multicast. ACM SIGCOMM. Pittsburgh, PA.

[2] Chen, H., Yang, M., Han, J.Q., Deng, H.Q., Li, X.M., 2004. Maze: a Social Peer-to-Peer Network. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on E-Commerce Technology for Dynamic E-Business (CEC-East’04).

[3] Chu, Y.H., Rao, S.G., Zhang, H., 2000. A Case for End System Multicast. Proceedings of ACM SIGMETRICS. Santa Clara, p.1-12.

[4] Eugster, P., Guerraoui, R., Kermarrec, A.M., Massoulie, L., 2004. From epidemics to distributed computing. IEEE Computer, 37(5):60-67.

[5] Ganesh, A.J., Kermarrec, A.M., Massoulie, L., 2003. Peer-to-peer membership management for gossip-based protocols. IEEE Trans. on Computers, 52(2):139-149.

[6] Padmanabhan, V.N., Wang, H.J., Chou, P.A., Sripanidkulchai, K., 2002. Distributing Streaming Media Content Using Cooperative Networking. ACM/IEEE NOSSDAV. Miami, FL, USA.

[7] Ratnasamy, S., Francis, P., Handley, M., Karp, R., Shenker, S., 2001. A Scalable Content-Addressable Network. Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM’01. San Diego, CA, USA.

[8] Rowstron, A., Druschel, P., 2001. Pastry: Scalable, Distributed Object Location and Routing for Large-Scale Peer-to-Peer Systems. IFIP/ACM International Conference on Distributed Systems Platforms (Middleware). Heidelberg, Germany, p.329-350.

[9] Schollmeier, R., 2001. A Definition of Peer-to-Peer Networking for the Classification of Peer-to-Peer Architectures and Applications. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P’01). Linköping, Sweden.

[10] Tran, D.A., Hua, K.A., Do, T.T., 2003. ZIGZAG: An Efficient Peer-to-Peer Scheme for Media Streaming. Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2003. San Francisco, CA, USA.

[11] Zegura, E.W., Calvert, K., Bhattacharjee, S., 1996. How to Model an Internetwork. IEEE Infocom. San Francisco, CA.

[12] Zhang, X.Y., Liu, J.C., Li, B., Yum, T.S.P., 2005. CoolStreaming/DONet: A Data-Driven Overlay Network for Efficient Live Media Streaming. Proceedings of Infocom2005.

[13] Zhao, B., Huang, L., Stribling, J., Rhea, S., Joseph, A., Kubiatowicz, J., 2004. Tapestry: A resilient global-scale overlay for service deployment. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 22(1):41-53.