implicit group messaging in peer to peer networks l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Implicit group messaging in peer-to-peer networks PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Implicit group messaging in peer-to-peer networks

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 24

Implicit group messaging in peer-to-peer networks - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 239 Views
  • Uploaded on

Implicit group messaging in peer-to-peer networks Daniel Cutting, 28th April 2006 Advanced Networks Research Group Outline. Motivation and problem Implicit groups Implicit group messaging (IGM) P2P model Evaluation Motivation.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Implicit group messaging in peer-to-peer networks' - Gabriel


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
implicit group messaging in peer to peer networks

Implicit group messaging inpeer-to-peer networks

Daniel Cutting, 28th April 2006

Advanced Networks Research Group

outline
Outline.
  • Motivation and problem
  • Implicit groups
  • Implicit group messaging (IGM)
  • P2P model
  • Evaluation
motivation
Motivation.
  • It’s now very easy to publish content on the Internet: blogs, podcasts, forums, iPhoto “photocasting”, …
  • More and more publishers of niche content
  • Social websites like Flickr, YouTube, MySpace, etc. are gateways for connecting publishers and consumers
  • Similar capability would also be desirable in P2P
    • Collaboration and sharing without central authority
    • No reliance on dedicated infrastructure
    • No upfront costs, requirements
problem
Problem.
  • As more new niches are created, consumers need to search/filter more to find and collate varied content
  • How can we connect many publishers and consumers?
  • The publisher already knows the intended audience
    • Can often describe the audience in terms of interests
    • Does not know the names of individual audience members
    • So, address them as an implicit group
implicit groups
Implicit groups.
  • Explicit groups
    • Members named
    • Pre-defined by publisher or consumers need to join
    • Wolfgang, Julie
  • Implicit groups
    • Members described
    • Publisher defines “on the fly”, consumers don’t need to join
    • Soccer & Brazil
implicit group messaging
Implicit group messaging.
  • CAST messages from any source to any implicit group at any time in a P2P network
    • Each peer described byattributes (capabilities, interests, services, …), e.g. “Soccer”, “Brazil”
    • Implicit groups are specified as logical expressions of attributes, e.g. “(Soccer OR Football) AND Brazil”
    • System delivers messages from sources to all peers matching target expressions
p2p model
P2P model.
  • A fully distributed, structured overlay network
    • Peers maintain a logical Cartesian surface (like CAN)
    • Each peer owns part of the surface and knows neighbours
    • Peers store data hashed to their part of the surface
    • Peers geometrically ROUTE to locations by passing from neighbour to neighbour
    • Quadtree-based surface addressing
  • Smoothly combine two major techniques for efficient CAST delivery to groups of any size
p2p model8
P2P model.
  • Attribute partitioning:“attribute  peer” index for small groups
  • Summary hashing:for reaching BIG groups
  • Hybrid CAST algorithm: reactive multicast algorithm combining the above
quadtree based addressing
Quadtree-based addressing.
  • Surfaces can be any dimensionality d
  • An address is a string of digits of base 2d
  • Map from an address to the surface using a quadtree decomposition
  • Quadrants called extents
attribute partitioning
Attribute partitioning.
  • A distributed index from each attribute to all peers
  • Indices are stored at rendezvous points (RPs) on the surface by hashing the attribute to an address
attribute partitioning registration
Attribute partitioning (registration).
  • Every peer registers at each of its attributes RPs
  • Every registration includes IP address and all attributes
attribute partitioning casting
Attribute partitioning (CASTing).
  • To CAST, select one term from target
  • Route CAST to its RP
  • RP finds all matches and unicasts to each
attribute partitioning13
Attribute partitioning.
  • Simple, works well for small groups and rare attributes
    • Fast: just one overlay route followed by unicasts
    • Fair: each peer responsible for similar number of attributes
  • BUT common attribute  lots of registrations at one RP
    • Heavy registration load on some unlucky peers
  • ALSO big groups  many identical unicasts required
    • Heavy link stress around RPs
  • SO, in these cases share the load with your peers!
summary hashing
Summary hashing.
  • Spreads registration and delivery load over many peers
  • In addition to attribute registrations, each peer stores a back-pointer and a summary of their attributes at one other location on the surface
  • Location of summary encodes its attributes
  • Given a target expression, any peer can calculate all possible locations of matching summaries (and thus find pointers to all group members)
  • Summaries distributed over surface; a few at each peer
summary hashing registration
Summary hashing (registration).
  • Each peer creates a Bloom Filter
    • {Soccer,Brazil}01101 01100 | 01001
  • Treat bits as an address
    • 01101(0)  122 (2D)
  • Store summary at that address on the surface

Benoit {Argentina, Soccer}

Wolfgang {Soccer, Brazil}

Kim {Brazil}

Julie {Soccer, Argentina, Brazil}

summary hashing casting
Summary hashing (CASTing).
  • Can find all summaries matching a CAST by calculating all possible extents where they must be stored
  • Convert CAST to Bloom Filter, replace 0s with wildcards
    • Soccer & Brazil  {Soccer, Brazil}  *11*1

01100 | 01001

  • Any peer with both attributes must have (at least) the 2nd, 3rd and 5th bits set in their summary address
    • The wildcards may match 1s or 0s depending on what other attributes the peer has
summary hashing casting17
Summary hashing (CASTing).
  • Find extents with 2nd, 3rd and 5th bits are set
  • {Soccer,Brazil} *11*1(*)= { 122, 123, 132, 133, 322, 323, 332, 333 }
summary hashing casting18
Summary hashing (CASTing).
  • Start anywhere and intersect unvisited extents with target expression
  • Cluster remainder and forward towards each one until none remain
  • When summaries are found, unicast to peers
  • Called Directed Amortised Routing (DAR)
igm on p2p summary
IGM on P2P summary.
  • Peers store their summary on the surface and register at the RP for each of their attributes
  • If an RP receives too many registrations for a common attribute, it simply drops them
  • To CAST, a source peer picks any term from target expression and tries a Partition CAST (through an RP)
  • If RP doesn’t know all matching members (because it’s a common attribute) or the group is too large to unicast to each one, it resorts to a DAR
evaluation
Evaluation.
  • 2,000 peer OMNeT++/INET simulation of campus-scale physical networks, 10 attributes per peer (Zipf)
  • 8,000 random CASTs of various sizes (0 to ~900 members)
  • Comparison to a Centralised server model
  • Metrics
    • Delay penalty
    • Peer stress (traffic and storage)
evaluation delay penalty
Evaluation (delay penalty).
  • Ratio of Average Delay (RAD) and Ratio Maximum Delay (RMD) compared to Centralised model
  • 80% of CASTs have average delay less than 6 times Centralised model
  • 95% havemaximum delayless than 6 timesCentralised
evaluation peer stress
Evaluation (peer stress).
  • Order of magnitude fewer maximum packets handled by any one peer over the Centralised serverHigher average stresssince more peers involvedin delivering CASTs
  • Even spread ofregistrations over peers
conclusion
Conclusion
  • Implicit groups are a useful way of addressing a group when you know what they have in common but not who they are
  • IGM is also applicable to other applications
    • Software updates to those who need them
    • Distributed search engines
  • P2P implicit group messaging is fast and efficient
    • Does not unfairly stress any peers or network links
    • Can deliver to arbitrary implicit groups with large size variation