1 / 26

Compact Routing and Locality in Peer-to-Peer Systems

Compact Routing and Locality in Peer-to-Peer Systems. Ittai Abraham School of Computer Science and Engineering Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Internet Activity. After 1992 – Dominated by the web browser Client Server paradigm Clients are Lightweight and Transient

cassia
Download Presentation

Compact Routing and Locality in Peer-to-Peer Systems

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Compact Routing and Locality in Peer-to-Peer Systems Ittai Abraham School of Computer Science and Engineering Hebrew University of Jerusalem

  2. Internet Activity • After 1992 – Dominated by the web browser • Client Server paradigm • Clients are Lightweight and Transient • Low bandwidth, computational power and storage requirements • Most servers are relatively simple and static (HTTP) • Distributed Computing community mostly focused on robustifying servers for load balancing and high availability, targeting mostly at clusters of dozens of servers at the most • How will Internet Activity look like in the future ?

  3. Tomorrow’s Internet ? • Internet peers will be stateful and will have a persistent connection • Have high bandwidth, computational power and storage capabilities • Peers are capable of acting both as a server and as a client • Will have an active network presence • Symmetric, decentralized, self organizing paradigm

  4. Peer-to-peer Systems • Group of peers wish to maintain a shared information data structure • Complications • Large group • Enormous amounts of information • Group is spatially distributed • Dynamically changing • Heterogeneous • Selfish/faulty/malicious participants • Challenge: provide efficient access to the shared information data structure

  5. Distributed Hash Tables • A universe U of object ids. A hash function h maps U into a smaller set S spreading ids without many collisions • A set V of nodes that forms a distributed system • The set S is partitioned in to |V| parts, and each node in V maintains its relevant part of the hash table • Basic operations are lookup and store: Given an object id A, find the hash value h(A), route to the node that maintains the key h(A), and read/write the object A

  6. DHT Lookup Example • Hash function h(x) = x mod 1009 • For this example each node with id i maintains all the objects whose has hash value is in [1009*i/6,1009*(i+1)/6) 0 5 6 Hash value is 1, so need to route to node with id 0 3 2 Node 2 wants to find the value of the object with id 1009001 4 1

  7. Traditional Complexity Measures of Distributed Hash Tables • Degree (local memory) of the overlay network O(1), O(logk n), O(n1/k) • Number of hops from source node to target node O(log n), O(log n/loglog n), O(1) • But counting hops does not take into account a weighted communication network

  8. Locality Awareness x t s

  9. Low Stretch Routing • Two models: • Peers communicate through a weighted network G=<V,E,ω> • The cost of communication d(s,t) between peers in V induces a metric space M=<V,d>I • General metric • Growth bounded metric, Euclidean metric, Doubling metric • In either case the stretch of a routing scheme RS is the maximal ratio over all pairs of dRS(s,t)/d(s,t)

  10. Routing on a weighted graph • Devise a distributed routing scheme such that: a node that knows the label of a target node can send a message that will be routed to the target node • Main complexity measures: • Stretch: the ratio between the cost of the path taken by the routing protocol and the cost of a minimum cost path from source to destination. • Memory: the number of bits stored in each node. • A solution is compact if memory is o(n)

  11. Routing on a weighted graph • Lower bounds: • Stretch < 3 requires Ω(n) bits per node [Gavoille & Gengler 01] • Stretch < 5 requires Ω (√n) bits per node [Thorup & Zwick 01] • Stretch < 2k-1 requires Ω (n1/k) bits per node [Thorup & Zwick 01] Under the Erdosh conjecture • Two main variants: • Labeled routing: designer can choose the labels of nodes • Name Independent routing: node labels are given by an adversary • Labeled routing: • Stretch 3 with Õ(n2/3) bits [Cowen 99] • Stretch 3 with Õ(√n) bits [Thorup & Zwick 01] • Stretch 4k-1 with Õ(n1/k) bits [Thorup & Zwick 01]

  12. Name Independent Routing • Awerbuch, Bar-Noy, Linial & Peleg 89 • With Õ(n1/k) bits – stretch O(k29k) • With Õ(n2/3) bits – stretch 468 • With Õ(√n) bits – stretch 2593 • Awerbuch & Peleg 90 (Sparse Partitions) • For diameters that are polynomial in n • With Õ(n1/k) bits – stretch O(k2) • With Õ(n2/3) bits – stretch 624 • With Õ(√n) bits – stretch 1088 • Arias, Cowen, Laing, Rajaraman & Taka 03 • With Õ(√n) bits – stretch 5 [A, Gavoille, Malkhi], DISC 04, Stretch O(k) [A, Gavoille, Malkhi, Nisam, Thorup], SPAA 04, Stretch 3

  13. Compact Name-Independent Routing with Minimum Stretch[A, Gavoille, Malkhi, Nisan, and Thorup SPAA 2004] • Optimal stretch 3 with Õ(√n) bits • Construction in polynomial time • Routing decisions performed in constant time • Surprisingly, with Õ(√n) bits allowing the designer to label the nodes does not improve the stretch factor compared to the task when node labels are predetermined by an adversary.

  14. The Recipe • Ingredients • Vicinity routing • Random coloring to √n colors • Hash labels to colors • Labeled routing on trees • Landmarks • Partial shortest path trees

  15. w v Vicinity Routing • Let B(u) denote the (√n log n)-closest nodes to u (ties broken consistently) • For all vB(u), node u stores the next hop of a minimum cost path from u to v • Simple property [ABLP 89]: If vB(u) and w is on a minimum cost path from u to v, then vB(w) u B(u)

  16. Random Coloring to √n Colors • Every node u chooses a random color c(u) • With high probability • Every color set has O(√n) nodes • Every node has in its vicinity at least one node from every color set • Polynomial number of tests • Each test can be done in logspace • Derandomization using the pseudo random generator of Nisan

  17. Hash Labels to Colors • Label u is hashed to a color h(u){1… √n} • At most O(√n log n) hashed to same color • Trivial if node labels are a permutation of 1…n • Otherwise can collision free hash to n2.5 and then use the techniques of Tarjan and Yao to hash to √n in constant time. Can be deradomized similarly to deterministic dictionaries of Hagerup, Milerstein, & Pagh

  18. Labeled Routing on Trees • Based on DFS Interval Routing, improved by Thorup & Zwick 01 and Frainiaud & Gavoille 01 • A node is heavy if its sub-tree contains more than half of the nodes of its parent’s sub-tree • Each node stores its DFS interval and the DFS interval of its heavy child (if it has one) • Storage is O(log n) bits • A node’s label consists of the names of the non-heavy nodes on the path from the root • Labels require O(log2 n) bits • Routing to v on node u: • If v is not in u’s interval then send to parent • If v is in u’s heavy child interval then send to heavy • Otherwise u’s label contains the appropriate child

  19. Landmarks • Let R(T,v) be the routing information stored at node v for routing on tree T • Let T(u) be the minimum cost tree rooted at u • One color is designated as special • Let L be the set of all nodes l such that c(l)=special color • Every node u maintains R(T(l),u) for all lL • This requires Õ(√n) bits • For node u, let l(u) be a landmark in B(u)

  20. Partial Shortest Path Trees • Every node v stores R(T(u),v) for all uB(v) • Requires Õ(√n) bits • Let L(T,u) be the label of u on tree T • Simple property: If xB(y) then given L(T(x),y), node x can route to node y along a minimum cost path x w y B(y)

  21. Case 1: Inside B(u) • Use vicinity routing u v

  22. w Case 2: B(u) and B(v) are close • Any node on any minimal path from u to v is either in B(u) or in B(v) • Vicinity route to wB(u) s.t. c(w)=h(v) • Node w stores L(T(w),u),x,(xy),L(T(y),v) • Partial tree route to u on T(w) • Vicinity routing to y • Partial tree route to v on T(y) u y x v

  23. l(v) Case 3: B(u) and B(v) are far • Any minimal path from u to v contains a node that is not in B(u) or in B(v) • Vicinity route to wB(u) s.t. c(w)=h(v) • Node w stores L(T(l(v)),l(v)) and L(T(l(v)),v) • Tree route on T(l(v)) to l(v) and then to v u w v

  24. Storage on node u • Routing information and colors in B(u) [Vicinity] • R(T(l),u) for all lL [Landmarks] • R(T(v),u) for all vB(u) [Partial Trees] • For all v such that c(u)=h(v) minimum of • Path to l(v) and then to v. Store <L(T(l(v)), l(v)) , L(T(l(v)), v)> • Let P(u,w,v) be a path from u to v composed of an MCP from u to w, and of an MCP from w to v, such that: • u \in B(w), • there exists an edge (x  y) along the minimum path from w to v such that x  B(w) and y  B(v) Among all the these paths choose the lowest cost path P(u,w,v) and store <L(T(u), w), x, (x  y), L(T(y),v)>

  25. Routing from u to v • If vB(u) use vicinity routing • If vL use tree routing on T(v) • Otherwise vicinity route to wB(u) such that c(w)=h(v) • Node w stores either • <R(T(l(v)), l(v)) , R(T(l(v)), v)>, and routing proceeds to l(v) and then to v • <R(T(u), w), x, (x  y), R(T(y),v)>, and routing proceeds to w then x to y and finally to v

  26. Better than stretch 3 ? • There are worst case metrics in which stretch 3 is the best possible (many edges and high girth) • But do these metrics depict real world distances ? • Studies show that many networks have a bounded expansion ratio. Density changes are somewhat gradual • [Plaxton, Rajaraman & Rica 1997]: • Required • Expected (large) constant stretch • Deployments: Tapestry (Berkeley), Pastry (MS UK)

More Related