Residential Renewable Energy

A Survey on Peer-to-peer systems

A Survey on Peer-to-Peer Systems

1.G.Satyavathy, Lecturer, Department of Computer Science, Sri Ramakrishna College of Arts and Science for Women, Coimbatore-641 044th

2.Dr.M.Punithavalli, Director and Head, Department of computer science, Sri Ramakrishna College Of Arts and Science For Women, Coimbatore-641 044th

ABSTRACT

In this survey, we propose a framework for the analysis of peer-to-peer content distribution technologies. Our approach focuses on the dysfunctional features such as security, scalability, performance, fairness and resource potential, and examines the way in which these qualities are reflected in and shaped by the adopted architecture design decisions from the current peer-to-peer systems. Nowadays, peer-to-peer (P2P) systems was an important part of the Internet, attracting millions of users were using its structures and services.The popularity of peer-to-peer systems accelerate academic research Accession researchers from systems, networks, and theory. The most popular P2P applications support file sharing and content distribution, new applications in various areas of emerging, Internet telephony is one example. This paper addresses the issues of P2P systems such properties, structures, protocols, disadvantages, problems and areas of open futures development.

Keywords: Distributed systems, peer-to-peer, algorithms, performance, design, grid computing, peer-tope.

1. INTRODUCTION

  Calculation in the networks of processing nodes, each of which in one part of the input and / or resources first centralized or distributed computing can be classified. A centralized solution is based on a node as the computer nodes, the entire application locally known processes. In distributed Calculation, the processing steps of the application are divided among the participating nodes. The aim of such systems is to minimize communication and computation costs. Distributed Systems can be further divided into a client-server model and a P2P model. In the client-server model, the server is the central unit of the registry and the only provider of content and services. A client requests only the contents or performance of services, without sharing any of its own merits. The client-server model can be flat, where all clients only communicate with a single server or it can be hierarchical for improved scalability.

Over the years, and today is the client-server paradigm is the battle horse of the most user applications. In recent years, there is a new paradigm that is created, peer-to-peer (P2P), particularly the Support applications, file sharing, exchange of content such as music, movies and programs, but also implemented successfully Grid computing and Internet-based

Telephony. A refined definition of peer-to-Peer: "A peer-to-peer [P2P] system is a self-organizing system of equal, autonomous entities (peers), for the sharing of distributed resources in networked environment to prevent goals, the central services "[21]. It is possible to say that peer-Tope is a system with completely decentralized self and resource consumption. Based on the principles of design, completely decentralized and self-organizing – as opposed to client-server paradigm shift – the peer-to-peer concept proves to be the Design of the future. From the perspective of Peer-to-peer approaches, there are several challenges, such as robust, scalable and distributed systems new services. Statistics say that 50 percent of the Internet traffic obeys Peer-to-peer applications, some cases up to 75 percent. The cultivation of the Internet, Users and bandwidth, require an increase a diverse variety of applications. The client-server Paradigm shift requires a major effort and resources at these challenges. Internet-based applications to identify three essential characteristics:  

• Scalability.
• Safety and reliability.
• Flexibility and quality of services.

It is difficult for Client-server based applications to the development of the Internet to meet. The client-server centralized approach is one of the major constraints (resource shortage), is it is easily attacked and difficult to change because of their placement within the network infrastructure. All the above is expressed indicates that there is a bias the paradigm from client-server systems-to-peer systems Tope.

2.UNSTRUCTURED PEER-TO-peer systems

Was the first generation of peer-to-peer file-sharing basis, using an unstructured approach. Napster [11] One of them was looking for a strategy in a metaserver servers and the Location of the data elements after that the data is based directly transferred between the peers. Gnutella use a flooding technique, a query to all peers in the System sent until the required data is found by peer. Peer-to-peer networks do not provide transportation to a specific infrastructure need services. Based on TCP or HTTP connections-to-peer system is an overlay structure on the content focus Peer-allocation and distribution. saved in standard client-server systems and content provided by a central server. Peer-to-peer are highly decentralized, and locate the desired content to some peer and the corresponding IP address of the peer to peer users. The download of this content is introduced via a separate connection. In client-server system the server provides services or content (Web server, time server), clients just ask, content or services on the server. In peer-to-peer systems, all resources provided by peers, plays the role of the customer and / or server, this is by Servent term (the first syllable of the word server and the second term of the client) is expressed. There was in the first generation of peerto-peer systems, some of those who have a central Approach used. The server is still available, but in contrast to client-server approach that server only logs IP address of peers, where some content is available, reducing the load on the server (Napster [11] is an example). Gnutella and Freenet 0.4 were decentralized approach to replace the centralized scheme shown above. These schemes are based to the desired content identifier flooding over the network to reach a large number of peers. Peers, provision of content to the requesting peer responding. A major drawback is the large generation of traffic by flooding the request. In order to avoid this, 0.6 Gnutella is a hierarchy of nodes called super-peers, the business of the available content of the connected peers, along with their IP addresses. Reducing the primary function of this super-hop peers in the process of searching, reducing traffic in the network.

The above schemes are unstructured peer-to-peer address, because the content stored on a particular node and the IP are independent and not follow any structure. Examples of unstructured peer-to-peer systems are Napster, Gnutella [11?], FastTrack, eDonkey, Freenet.

3.STRUCTURED PEER-TO-PEER SYSTEMS

The challenge of development of scalable unstructured Peerto-peer applications and share in the attention research. Because of the advantages and opportunities of decentralized self-organizing systems, researchers focused on approaches for distributed content-addressable memory so-called Distributed Hash Tables (DHT). These have been developed to distributed indexing, scalability, reliability and fault tolerance tolerance.Using a DHT Data element (which can be accessed from the network logN in a complexity of O). The underlying network and the number of peers in a structural approach can not affect the efficiency of distributed application to grow, there is a contrast to the one described above, unstructured peer-to-peer applications, which have usually best linear search complexity. Four of the most interesting representatives and mechanisms for the routing of messages and data for positioning structured content distribution systems are: Freenet [6, 7] is a loosely structured system, that file and node ID used to estimate when a file can produce to be found, and a chain mode propagation approach to forward queries from node to node. Chord is a system whose nodes maintain a routing table distributed in the form of an identifier circle which all nodes are assigned and an associated finger table is built. CAN is a system with n-dimensional Cartesian coordinate space to implement distributed location and routing table each node is responsible for a zone in the coordinate space.Tapestry (And Pastry and Kadmelia [13]) contributes to Plaxton mesh data structure, pointer to Node the network, whose IDs of elements in a tree-like structure or ID-based prefixes to a single digit position.

 

4th Self

The term self-organization is possible, autonomy, self-account maintenance, optimization,

Adaptability, stock transfer, reproduction or formation.

4.1. Definitions

System: A system is a set of components, have relations between each other and form a unified whole. A system is different from its Environment.

Complexity: This term is used to indicate the existence of system features that make it difficult

to describe the semantics of a general behavior of systems in any language, even if complete

Information about its components and interaction is known.

Feedback: The return to the input of part of the output of a machine, system or process (As in

Changes in the production of an electronic circuit that improve performance or automatic control, providing even necessary).

Emergence: refers to unexpected global system properties, not in each of the individual

Subsystems of the component interactions occur [5].

Complex Systems: Complex systems are systems with multiple interacting components, whose behavior can not simply components derived from the conduct of the [20].

Criticality: A meeting at which a Chain reaction is possible, as critical, and should have said

Criticality achieved.

Hierarchy: In this context, hierarchy is defined as the root of the tree.

Heterarchy: A Heterarchy is a kind of network structure allows a high degree of connectivity. is connected, by contrast, is a hierarchy in each node to at most one parent node and zero or more

Childs nodes. In Heterarchy, however, a node can be connected to any of the surrounding nodes.

Stigmergy: Stigmergy defines a paradigm indirect and mediated by an asynchronous communication environment.

Perturbation theory: A disorder is a disorder the causes of an act of compensation, the disturbance may be experienced in a positive or negative way.

4.2. Stats Self-organization

 

Based on the above definitions, self-organizing systems are characterized as follows:

Borders of states: the boundary between system and environment is defined by the Self itself.

Independence Identity and structure: The distinction between identity and structure allows flexibility and adaptability to explain.

Maintenance: one is self-organizing system must try to maintain themselves.

Feedback and Heterarchy: If a system is disturbed, try to restructure in order to maintain itself, so it need networked relations with their neighbors.

Self-determined reaction to failure: A self-organizing system responds when a fault occurs, but it needs to metrics collection and analysis of the disorder.

These characteristics of self-organizing systems can be extended to P2P systems, establishing some basic criteria such as borders, reproduction, Adaptability, organization, metrics, and criteria for adaptivity and autonomy as a feedback, o reduce the complexity, randomness, self- Criticality and emergence. Besides the degree of conformity with these criteria, every system has an identity or a key objective that essential feature of the system. The identity a P2P system is imposed from outside (the developer) and it is not self-determined.

5th APPLICATION

Peer-to-peer is an alternative for the management of different types of resources such as information, files bandwidth, memory and processor cycles.

5.1. Information

 

This section shows how P2P networks is in the areas of information use.

Presence Information: Presence information is very important in P2P applications. It provides Details of the peers and resources are available. This is relevant to the self-organization of the system. The use of information is also important to processor cycles share, because the system knows which processor is overloaded or not. The peers are agents of the data for the other peers.

Document Management: In general, documents are centrally organized systems, allows the share storage, management and use of data. A large effort needed to create a to create a centralized index of relevant documents. Experience shows that the documents are created in a company, including with the desktop PC, without a central repository a distributed knowledge of their existence. In this case, the P2P networks are very useful.

Collaboration: P2P allows the management of documents at the level of closed working groups.

5.2. Files

 

A characteristic feature for file sharing is that sometimes peers ares client when they download files and sometimes when they sEvent server upload files (). A key problem in P2P systems, the user of the content or files (requires lookup problem) [4]. As part of the file-sharing, three different models have been developed: the flooding inquiry model (Gnutella) [16, 17], the central directory model (Napster) and document routing model (Freenet) [6, 7, 14].

5.3. Bandwidth

 

I have some information that you’re going to love! There is an information product available on the internet that will explain how the average homeowner can build and install their own independent power source and achieve complete energy efficiency! We’re talking about a magnetic power generator that creates zero cost electricity, and doesn’t rely on mother nature (ie. wind or solar energy). When installed and functioning, these magnetic generators create their own energy and they’ll power your home for free! Plus…you may be eligible for residential renewable energy tax credit! Read the rest of the article here: DIY Magnetic Generator

The traffic on networks is increasing steadily, especially in large volumes of multimedia data, File-sharing, ie the efficient use of bandwidth has suffered a significant increase. If data are centralized, resulting in a spontaneous increase in demand, the bandwidth a bottleneck. P2P approach increased load without any additional management,

taking advantage of the transmission paths that are not fully exploited. This Concept is applied

in the areas of streaming. A common use of bandwidth is also very good advantage of splitting large files into smaller blocks of the requesting peers, BitTorrent [8] should be downloaded is an implementation of this principle.

5.4. Storage space

 

be used by P2P networks storage, only a fraction of the available space on the desktop PC. A P2P network is a storage cluster of computers, based on existing networks, all the shares of the storage in the network. Examples are over [18], pasta [15], [9 CFS], Ocean Goals [12], Farsite [1], Inter Memory [10].

5.5. Processor cycles

 

There are requirements for high performance computing, while there is Unused computing power to bundle it as an incentive for the use of P2P applications that are performance. In this way, it is possible to more computing power than a to achieve supply cheap supercomputer. This is due to the formation of a cluster of independent, networked computers, where one computer is transparent and all networked Nodes are carried merge into a single logical computer.

An example is SETI @ home [2].

6th PEER BASED APPLICATIONS on peer-to-

 

Some P2P applications based on the following:

6.1. Application Layer Multicast

In the early days, the size of the Internet, certainly limited, allows the broadcasting of a single packet to all possible nodes. In the present Internet, this technology of broadcasting is very expensive. Now it is necessary to have a selective transmission, such as multicast. In this area, P2P technology has helped in its unstructured networks to achieve the scalability, unlimited.

6.2. GRID Computing

 

The fundamental goal of Grid computing is the sharing of resources between individuals and support institutions (organizational units) or the resource units within a networked infrastructure. Grids are structure and includes standards, but not capacity of self-organizing, fault tolerance and scalability. On the other Page P2P systems are self-organizing, fault tolerance, are very good transient populations of the same age, but is the lack of standards. All efforts research in these areas is in the best merge the two worlds. In fact, the question of how the two concepts of convergence in

open [3].

7th SUMMARY: The PRESENT AND FUTURE

 

It was a lot of work to have, and there are a lot to do work in the field. It is possible to classify and summarize all activities in research and applications, present and future.

7.1. Applications

 

7.1.1. The presence

  From 2004 to present

Support for various communication forms

• Telephony.
• Streaming
• Scalable Naming and flexible systems.
• Personal communications (EGE-mail).
• Inter-Organization sharing of resources.
• / Context aware content Routing.

7.1.2. The future

 

Challenges in the future of applications

• Video conference.
• Distribution of learning materials.
• Location-based Services in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET), distributed and centralized.
• Context-aware service.
• Trustworthy Computing.

7.2. Disadvantages

 

Reasons against peer-to-peer.

7.2.1. The presence

Until today.

• Law suits against users.
• Software patents.
• Intellectual Properties.
• P2P requires flat rate access.
• Even low end node bandwidth.
• Digital Right Management.
• Best-effort service sufficient for most applications.

7.2.2. The future

• The lack of trust.
• Marketing as the end of P2P.
• P2P integrated into other subjects.

7.3. Research

What are the current research efforts, and explores what to do the work.

7.3.1. Today

In fact, research shows.

Semantics integration of different information specific to the peer database.

• Quality of service criteria (consistency, availability, security, reliability).
• Legacy support in overlays.
• P2P and non-inquiry Answer interactions.
• DHTs highly adaptive.
• Overlay optimization.
• P2P signaling efficiency.
• Data Dissemination.
• Allocation (mechanism and protocols) and guarantees the quality of services P2P systems.
• Self-determination of information.
• Accounting Incentive.
• Realistic P2P simulator.
• Decentralized reputation mechanism.
• Semantics queries.
• Efficient P2P content distribution.
• Content-based search queries of metadata.
• Reducing the signaling traffic.
• Data-centric P2P algorithm.
• Content Management.
• Application / data integration.
• Security Trust, authentication transmission.
• Incentive market mechanism.
• Reliable Messaging.
• P2P in mobile cellular / ad-hoc.

7.3.2. Future challenges

• Anonymous yet secure e-commerce.
• Interoperability and / vs standards.
• Real bussiness for P2P information systems.
• P2P real-time data dissemination.
• P2P file systems.
• Concept of dynamic trust and security.
• Dynamic content update.
• Distributed search mechanism.
• P2P technologies in MANET.
• Mobile P2P.
• Intelligent Search.
• Service differentiation.
• P2P-Grid integration project.

Certainly there are a lot of work to do, this paper has not conclusions (Nothing is over), because all only just begun. The fields of applications is huge. There are excellent values [23, 3, 22] This should be used for research and teaching be.

8th REFERENCES

[1] A. Adya, WJ Bolosky, M. Castro, G. Cermak, R. Chaiken, JR Douceur FARSITE.:

Federated, available and reliable storage for an incompletely trusted environment,

2002nd http://Research.microsoft.com/sn/Farsite/OSDI20002.pdf

[2] D. Anderson. SETI @ home. Chapter 5, p. 67-76. OReally, 2001.

[3] D. S. and Spinellis AndroutsellisTheotokis. A Survey of Peer-to-Peer Content Distribution Technologies. ACM Computing Surveys, Vol 36 (4) 2004th

  [4] H. Balakrishnan, MF Kaashoek, D. Karger, R. Morris and I. Stoica. Looking up data in P2P systems. Communications of the ACM, 46 (2), 2003.

[5] JL Casti. Complexity. Enciclopaedia Britannica. 2005

[6] I. Clarke. Freenets Next Generation Routing Protocol. 2003rd http://freenet.sourceforge.net/ Index. php? page = ngrouting.

  [7] I. Clarke, SG Miller, TW Hong, O. Sandberg, and B. Wiley. Shooters Free Expression Online with Freenet. IEEE Internet Computing, 6 (1), pp 40-49, 2002.

[8] B. Cohen., Incentives Build Robustness to in Bit-Torrent. Workshop on Economics of Peer-to-peer systems, 2003.

[9] F. Dabek, MF Kasshoek, D. Karger, R. Morris and I. Stoica. Wide-Area Cooperative Storage with CFS. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. pp 202-215, 2001.

[10] A. Goldberg and P. Yianilos. Forwards an archive Inter memory. Proceedings of the IEEE International Forum on Research and Technology Advances in Digital Libraries. pp 147-156, 1998.

[11] A. Kim and L. Hoffman. Napster and other Internet peer-to-peer applications. George Washington University, 2002, citeseer. ist.psu.edu/kim01pricing.html.

[12] J. Krubiatowicz, D. Bindel, Y. Chen et al. Ocean Store: an architecture for the Global Scale Persistent Storage. Proceedings of the 9th International conference on architecture support for programming languages and operating systems. 2000th

[13] P. and D. Mazieres Maymounkov. Kademlia: A peer-to-Peer Information System Based on the XOR metric. International Workshop on Peer-to- Peer systems. (IPTPS02), 2002.

  [14] DS Milojicic, V. Kalogeraki, R. Lukose, K. Nagaraja, J. Pruyn. Peer-to-peer computing. HP, Technical Report, HPL-2002-http: www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2002/HPL-2002-57.pdf / /.

[15] T. Moreton, I. Pratt and T. Harris Storage., Variability and Naming in Pasta. 2002nd http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/tlh20/papers/mphpasta . pdf.

[16] M. Ripeanu. Peer-to-Peer Architecture Case Study: Gnutella network. Proceedings of the IEEE 1st International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing, 2001.

  [17] M. Foster and I. Ripeanu. Mapping the Gnutella Network: Properties of large peer-to-Peer Systems and implications for system design. IEEE Internet Computing, 6 (1), 2002.

  [18] A. Rowstron and P. Druschel. Storage Management and caching in the past, a large-scale, Persistent Peer-to-peer Storage Utility 18. ACM SOSP01. 2,001th

  [19] S. Saroiu, KP Gummadi and SD Gribble. Measurement and analysis of the characteristics of Napster and Gnutella hosts. Multimedia Systems, 9 (2), 2003. pp 170-184, Springer-Verlag.

[20] F. Schweitzer. Spatial coordination of decisions in multi-agent systems. International Workshop on social and economic physics. 2003rd

  [21] R. Steinmetz and K. Wehrle. Peer-to-peer networks and computing. Spectrum computer science, 27 (1). Springer. 2004th

  [22] R. Steinmetz and K. Wehrle (Eds). Peer-to-peer systems and applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, LNCS 3485, Springer. 2005th

  [23] J. van der Merwe, D. Dawound, S. Mc Donald. A Survey on Peer-to-Peer Key Management for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, ACM Computing Survey, 39 (1) 2007

About the Author

1.G.Satyavathy,Lecturer,Department Of Computer Science,Sri Ramakrishna College Of Arts and Science For Women,Coimbatore-641 044.

2.Dr.M.Punithavalli,Director and Head,Department Of Computer Science,Sri Ramakrishna College Of Arts and Science For Women,Coimbatore-641 044.

Truth TV World News-9/11 LIVE-UnCut/Unedited footage of the attacks on the WTC’s on 9/11