Topologically-Aware Overlay Construction and Sever Selection Sylvia Ratnasamy, Mark Handley, Richard Karp, Scott Shenker.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
SkipNet: A Scalable Overlay Network with Practical Locality Properties Nick Harvey, Mike Jones, Stefan Saroiu, Marvin Theimer, Alec Wolman Microsoft Research.
Advertisements

Topology-Aware Overlay Construction and Server Selection Sylvia Ratnasamy Mark Handley Richard Karp Scott Shenker Infocom 2002.
Dynamic Replica Placement for Scalable Content Delivery Yan Chen, Randy H. Katz, John D. Kubiatowicz {yanchen, randy, EECS Department.
CAN 1.Distributed Hash Tables a)DHT recap b)Uses c)Example – CAN.
P2P data retrieval DHT (Distributed Hash Tables) Partially based on Hellerstein’s presentation at VLDB2004.
Ion Stoica, Robert Morris, David Karger, M. Frans Kaashoek, Hari Balakrishnan MIT and Berkeley presented by Daniel Figueiredo Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-peer.
Peer to Peer and Distributed Hash Tables
Scalable Content-Addressable Network Lintao Liu
1 Greedy Forwarding in Dynamic Scale-Free Networks Embedded in Hyperbolic Metric Spaces Dmitri Krioukov CAIDA/UCSD Joint work with F. Papadopoulos, M.
Topologically-Aware Overlay Construction and Server Selection Sylvia Ratnasamy, Mark Handly, Richard Karp and Scott Shenker Presented by Shreeram Sahasrabudhe.
Sylvia Ratnasamy, Paul Francis, Mark Handley, Richard Karp, Scott Schenker Presented by Greg Nims.
1 Turning Heterogeneity into an Advantage in Overlay Routing Gisik Kwon Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering Arizona State University Published in.
LightFlood: An Optimal Flooding Scheme for File Search in Unstructured P2P Systems Song Jiang, Lei Guo, and Xiaodong Zhang College of William and Mary.
“Scalable and Topologically-aware Application-layer Multicast” Yusung Kim Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology.
Presented by Elisavet Kozyri. A distributed application architecture that partitions tasks or work loads between peers Main actions: Find the owner of.
A Scalable Content Addressable Network (CAN)
Sylvia Ratnasamy, Paul Francis, Mark Handley, Richard Karp, Scott Shenker A Scalable, Content- Addressable Network (CAN) ACIRI U.C.Berkeley Tahoe Networks.
A Scalable Content Addressable Network Sylvia Ratnasamy, Paul Francis, Mark Handley, Richard Karp, and Scott Shenker Presented by: Ilya Mirsky, Alex.
A Scalable Content-Addressable Network Authors: S. Ratnasamy, P. Francis, M. Handley, R. Karp, S. Shenker University of California, Berkeley Presenter:
SkipNet: A Scalable Overlay Network with Practical Locality Properties Nick Harvey, Mike Jones, Stefan Saroiu, Marvin Theimer, Alec Wolman Microsoft Research.
Overlay Networks EECS 122: Lecture 18 Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences University of California Berkeley.
Search and Replication in Unstructured Peer-to-Peer Networks Pei Cao Cisco Systems, Inc. (Joint work with Christine Lv, Edith Cohen, Kai Li and Scott Shenker)
The Impact of DHT Routing Geometry on Resilience and Proximity Krishna Gummadi, Ramakrishna Gummadi, Sylvia Ratnasamy, Steve Gribble, Scott Shenker, Ion.
1 A Scalable Content- Addressable Network S. Ratnasamy, P. Francis, M. Handley, R. Karp, S. Shenker Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM ’01 Sections: 3.5 & 3.7.
1 Load Balance and Efficient Hierarchical Data-Centric Storage in Sensor Networks Yao Zhao, List Lab, Northwestern Univ Yan Chen, List Lab, Northwestern.
Chord-over-Chord Overlay Sudhindra Rao Ph.D Qualifier Exam Department of ECECS.
1 CS 194: Distributed Systems Distributed Hash Tables Scott Shenker and Ion Stoica Computer Science Division Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer.
1 Load Balance and Efficient Hierarchical Data-Centric Storage in Sensor Networks Yao Zhao, List Lab, Northwestern Univ Yan Chen, List Lab, Northwestern.
Peer To Peer Distributed Systems Pete Keleher. Why Distributed Systems? l Aggregate resources! –memory –disk –CPU cycles l Proximity to physical stuff.
Wide-area cooperative storage with CFS
An Evaluation of Scalable Application-level Multicast Using Peer-to-peer Overlays Miguel Castro, Michael B. Jones, Anne-Marie Kermarrec, Antony Rowstron,
Sylvia Ratnasamy, Paul Francis, Mark Handley, Richard Karp, Scott Shenker A Scalable, Content- Addressable Network ACIRI U.C.Berkeley Tahoe Networks 1.
Topology-Aware Overlay Networks By Huseyin Ozgur TAN.
Sylvia Ratnasamy, Paul Francis, Mark Handley, Richard Karp, Scott Shenker A Scalable, Content- Addressable Network ACIRI U.C.Berkeley Tahoe Networks 1.
Structured P2P Network Group14: Qiwei Zhang; Shi Yan; Dawei Ouyang; Boyu Sun.
1 A scalable Content- Addressable Network Sylvia Rathnasamy, Paul Francis, Mark Handley, Richard Karp, Scott Shenker Pirammanayagam Manickavasagam.
Roger ZimmermannCOMPSAC 2004, September 30 Spatial Data Query Support in Peer-to-Peer Systems Roger Zimmermann, Wei-Shinn Ku, and Haojun Wang Computer.
Distributed Hash Table Systems Hui Zhang University of Southern California.
PIC: Practical Internet Coordinates for Distance Estimation Manuel Costa joint work with Miguel Castro, Ant Rowstron, Peter Key Microsoft Research Cambridge.
CONTENT ADDRESSABLE NETWORK Sylvia Ratsanamy, Mark Handley Paul Francis, Richard Karp Scott Shenker.
N ETWORKed M EDIA L AB. D EPT. OF I NFO. & C OMM., K-JIST DHT Based P2P (Peer-to-Peer) for Exploiting Network Proximity ChanMo Park
Applied Research Laboratory David E. Taylor A Scalable Content-Addressable Network Sylvia Ratnasamy, Paul Francis, Mark Handley, Richard Karp, Scott Shenker.
Sylvia Ratnasamy (UC Berkley Dissertation 2002) Paul Francis Mark Handley Richard Karp Scott Shenker A Scalable, Content Addressable Network Slides by.
The Impact of DHT Routing Geometry on Resilience and Proximity K. Gummadi, R. Gummadi..,S.Gribble, S. Ratnasamy, S. Shenker, I. Stoica.
Vincent Matossian September 21st 2001 ECE 579 An Overview of Decentralized Discovery mechanisms.
Ion Stoica, Robert Morris, David Karger, M. Frans Kaashoek, Hari Balakrishnan MIT and Berkeley presented by Daniel Figueiredo Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-peer.
Paper Group: 20 Overlay Networks 2 nd March, 2004 Above papers are original works of respective authors, referenced here for academic purposes only Chetan.
A Scalable Content-Addressable Network (CAN) Seminar “Peer-to-peer Information Systems” Speaker Vladimir Eske Advisor Dr. Ralf Schenkel November 2003.
An IP Address Based Caching Scheme for Peer-to-Peer Networks Ronaldo Alves Ferreira Joint work with Ananth Grama and Suresh Jagannathan Department of Computer.
Scalable Content- Addressable Networks Prepared by Kuhan Paramsothy March 5, 2007.
Peer to Peer A Survey and comparison of peer-to-peer overlay network schemes And so on… Chulhyun Park
P2P Group Meeting (ICS/FORTH) Monday, 28 March, 2005 A Scalable Content-Addressable Network Sylvia Ratnasamy, Paul Francis, Mark Handley, Richard Karp,
1 Distributed Hash Table CS780-3 Lecture Notes In courtesy of Heng Yin.
Plethora: Infrastructure and System Design. Introduction Peer-to-Peer (P2P) networks: –Self-organizing distributed systems –Nodes receive and provide.
CS 6401 Overlay Networks Outline Overlay networks overview Routing overlays Resilient Overlay Networks Content Distribution Networks.
Peer-to-Peer Networks 03 CAN (Content Addressable Network) Christian Schindelhauer Technical Faculty Computer-Networks and Telematics University of Freiburg.
Two Peer-to-Peer Networking Approaches Ken Calvert Net Seminar, 23 October 2001 Note: Many slides “borrowed” from S. Ratnasamy’s Qualifying Exam talk.
P2P Search COP6731 Advanced Database Systems. P2P Computing  Powerful personal computer Share computing resources P2P Computing  Advantages: Shared.
CSCI 599: Beyond Web Browsers Professor Shahram Ghandeharizadeh Computer Science Department Los Angeles, CA
Plethora: A Locality Enhancing Peer-to-Peer Network Ronaldo Alves Ferreira Advisor: Ananth Grama Co-advisor: Suresh Jagannathan Department of Computer.
Incrementally Improving Lookup Latency in Distributed Hash Table Systems Hui Zhang 1, Ashish Goel 2, Ramesh Govindan 1 1 University of Southern California.
Plethora: Infrastructure and System Design
Zhichen Xu, Mallik Mahalingam, Magnus Karlsson
Turning Heterogeneity into an Advantage in Overlay Routing
A Scalable content-addressable network
CONTENT ADDRESSABLE NETWORK
A Scalable, Content-Addressable Network
A Scalable Content Addressable Network
A Scalable, Content-Addressable Network
Presentation transcript:

Topologically-Aware Overlay Construction and Sever Selection Sylvia Ratnasamy, Mark Handley, Richard Karp, Scott Shenker

Motivation Constructing overlay by incorporating physical topology into the logical topology Selecting a good sever in content distribution and P2P file sharing by considering the physical topology

(Images downloaded from Topology-aware Overlay

(Images downloaded from The logical structure of the overlay should take into account the physical structure of the underlying network!

Outline Motivation Binning Scheme Applying Binning Scheme

Design Consideration Desirable Properties: Practicality and Scalability –Simple –Fast converge to a good state –Distributed – no central point of failure or bottleneck –Scalable – for millions of nodes Priorities: (Scalability + Practicality) > Accuracy

Method Network Measurement used: Network Latency –Non-intrusive –Light-weight –End-to-end Binning Scheme

Distributed Binning Clustering the nodes by a set of landmark machines spread across the internet. Nodes measure RTT to each of these landmarks and orders the landmarks in increasing RTT. Divide the range of possible latency values into levels

Distributed Binning Example

Discussion Will Binning Scheme effect distributed, scalable properties? –Given each node computing the annotation, who do the clustering? –Where is the clustering result(approximate physical topology) stored?

Scalability Every node will ping all landmarks to refresh the topology. –At a million nodes on the network, refreshing at every hour, each landmark would approximately handle 2700pings/sec. How to guarantee balance visits? –Better scalability by have multiple nodes at a location act as a single logical landmark.

Performance Experiment Set Measurement –For each node in a bin compute Gain ratio = inter-bin latency / intra-bin latency – Ratio = Reduction in Latency = Desirable Data Set –Transit Stub (1,000 and 10,000 nodes) –Power-law Random Graphs (1,166 and 1,779 nodes) –NLANR(103 nodes) Assumption –The landmark machines is separated form each other by 4 hops

Increasing Number of Levels Gain Ratio is improved with level increasing Improvement rapidly saturates

Increasing Number of Landmarks Gain Ratio is improved with landmarks increasing Improvement rapidly saturates except TS-10k

Binning Vs (Random, Nearest-Neighbor) Random Binning: Each node selects a bin at random. Nearest Neighbor Clustering: At each iteration, two closest clusters are merged into a single cluster.

Discussion Is gain ration a reasonable way to measure the performance of binning scheme? What is the effect of increasing the nodes. Is the assumption too strong for the experiment data, that the landmark machines is separated form each other by 4 hops?

Outline Motivation Binning Scheme Applying Binning Scheme

Construction of Overlays –Structured: Nodes are interconnected (at application- level) in a well-defined manner. Content-Addressable Network, Chord, PASTRY, Tapestry –Unstructured: Less structured networks End-system. Multicast, Scattercast Sever Selection

Construction of Overlays Measurement –Latency Stretch: ratio of average inter-node latency on the overlay network to the average inter-node latency on the underlying IP-level network. – Latency Stretch = Better!

Construction of CAN Only ordering of landmarks is used for binning so that there are m! orderings for m landmarks. Build a m dimensions cube. Each dimension has m, m-1, …, 1 elements. Each point in the cub is correspondent to one order. New node joins CAN at the portion associated with its landmark ordering.

Side Effect Co-ordinate space not uniformly populated The average number of hops on the path between two points decrease. ?

Discussion Overlay nodes >> physical nodes ? Given each node in CAN can store multiple network nodes, how to store and change the CAN topology.

Construction of Unstructured Overlays Given a set of n nodes on the Internet, each node pick k neighbor, so that the average routing latency is low. Short-Long: k/2 closest nodes+ k/2 random nodes BinShort-Long: k/2 nodes self-bin nodes + k/2 other BinShort-Long with Sample: k/2 closest nodes from a sample set of self-bin + k/2 other

Discussion How to random select nodes given distributed environment.

Server - Selection Select server in the same bin If no such sever, select the sever with most_similar_bin to client’s

Stretch = (latency to selected server) / (latency to optimal server)

Performance is improved with landmarks increasing Improvement rapidly saturates

- For TS-10K 1000 servers, rest clients

- Adjusted stretch ?

- For NLANR data

Discussion Load unbalance Select 1 sever from 1000 sever in a 10k nodes.

Conclusion A simple, scalable, binning scheme to infer network proximity information Applying this scheme to overlay construction and server selection can significantly improve application performance.

Thank you! Any questions?

Distributed Binning Set of nodes independently partition into disjoint “ bin ” –Nodes within a single bin are relatively closer to one another than to nodes not in their bin Small set of Landmark machines geographically distributed over the Internet to “ measure ” latency Check average inter-bin and intra-bin latencies to ensure binning does the job

Distributed Binning Example

TS-10K and TA-1K: Transit-sub topologies with 10,000 and 1000 nodes PLRG1 and PLRG2: Power-Law Random Graphs with 1166 and 1779 nodes NLANR: National Lab for Applied Network Research based Active Measurement Project –Consisting of 100 active monitors that exchange information

Distributed Binning Example TS-10K and TA-1K: Transit-sub topologies with 10,000 and 1000 nodes PLRG1 and PLRG2: Power-Law Random Graphs with 1166 and 1779 nodes NLANR: National Lab for Applied Network Research based Active Measurement Project –Consisting of 100 active monitors that exchange information

Binning based Server Selection If there exists one or more servers within the same bin as the client, then the client is redirected to a random server from its own bin If no server exists within the same bin as the client, an existing server from another similar bin

Latency Stretch Comparison

Scalability Each node only needs measure with small set of landmarks –At a million nodes on the network, refreshing at every hour, each landmark would approximately handle 2700pings/sec. –Better scalability by have multiple nodes at a location act as a single logical landmark.

Construction of CAN topologies using Binning –Ordering of landmarks is used for binning –m landmarks, m! orderings –Co-ordinate space divided along first dimension into m portions, each portion sub divided along second dimension into m-1 portions and so on –New node joins CAN at a random portion associated with its landmark ordering Result –Co-ordinate space not uniformly populated –Uneven distribution of size of zone spaces (future work!)