This Article 
 Bibliographic References 
 Add to: 
Efficient, Proximity-Aware Load Balancing for DHT-Based P2P Systems
April 2005 (vol. 16 no. 4)
pp. 349-361
Yingwu Zhu, IEEE
Yiming Hu, IEEE

Abstract—Many solutions have been proposed to tackle the load balancing issue in DHT-based P2P systems. However, all these solutions either ignore the heterogeneity nature of the system, or reassign loads among nodes without considering proximity relationships, or both. In this paper, we present an efficient, proximity-aware load balancing scheme by using the concept of virtual servers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to use proximity information in load balancing. In particular, our main contributions are: 1) Relying on a self-organized, fully distributed k{\hbox{-}}{\rm{ary}} tree structure constructed on top of a DHT, load balance is achieved by aligning those two skews in load distribution and node capacity inherent in P2P systems—that is, have higher capacity nodes carry more loads; 2) proximity information is used to guide virtual server reassignments such that virtual servers are reassigned and transferred between physically close heavily loaded nodes and lightly loaded nodes, thereby minimizing the load movement cost and allowing load balancing to perform efficiently; and 3) our simulations show that our proximity-aware load balancing scheme reduces the load movement cost by 11-65 percent for all the combinations of two representative network topologies, two node capacity profiles, and two load distributions of virtual servers. Moreover, we achieve virtual server reassignments in O(\log{N}) time.

[1] Y. Zhu and Y. Hu, “Towards Efficient Load Balancing in Structured P2P Systems,” Proc. 18th Int'l Parallel and Distributed Processing Symp. (IPDPS), Apr. 2004.
[2] I. Stoica, R. Morris, D. Karger, M. Kaashoek, and H. Balakrishnan, “Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-Peer Lookup Service for Internet Applications,” Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, pp. 149-160, Aug. 2001.
[3] A. Rowstron and P. Druschel, “Pastry: Scalable, Decentralized Object Location, and Routing for Large-Scale Peer-to-Peer Systems,” Proc. 18th IFIP/ACM Int'l Conf. Distributed System Platforms (Middleware), pp. 329-350, Nov. 2001.
[4] B.Y. Zhao, J.D. Kubiatowicz, and A.D. Joseph, “Tapestry: An Infrastructure for Fault-Tolerance Wide-Area Location and Routing,” Technical Report UCB/CSD-01-1141, Computer Science Division, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Apr. 2001.
[5] S. Ratnasamy, P. Francis, M. Handley, R. Karp, and S. Shenker, “A Scalable Content-Addressable Network,” Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, pp. 161-172, Aug. 2001.
[6] S. Saroiu, P.K. Gummadi, and S.D. Gribble, “A Measurement Study of Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Systems,” Proc. Multimedia Computing and Networking (MMCN), Jan. 2002.
[7] F. Dabek, M.F. Kaashoek, D. Karger, R. Morris, and I. Stoica, “Wide-Area Cooperative Storage with CFS,” Proc. 18th ACM Symp. Operating Systems Principles (SOSP), pp. 202-215, Oct. 2001.
[8] A. Rao, K. Lakshminarayanan, S. Surana, R. Karp, and I. Stoica, “Load Balancing in Structured P2P Systems,” Proc. Second Int'l Workshop Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS), pp. 68-79, Feb. 2003.
[9] B. Godfrey, K. Lakshminarayanan, S. Surana, R. Karp, and I. Stoica, “Load Balancing in Dynamic Structured P2P Systems,” Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Mar. 2004.
[10] J.W. Byers, J. Considine, and M. Mitzenmacher, “Simple Load Balancing for Distributed Hash Tables,” Proc. Second Int'l Workshop Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS), pp. 80-87, Feb. 2003.
[11] D.R. Karger and M. Ruhl, “Simple Efficient Load Balancing Algorithms for Peer-to-Peer Systems,” Proc. Third Int'l Workshop Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS), Feb. 2004.
[12] Z. Zhang, S. Shi, and J. Zhu, “SOMO: Self-Organized Metadata Overlay for Resource Management in P2P DHT,” Proc. Second Int'l Workshop Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS), pp. 170-182, Feb. 2003.
[13] S. Ratnasamy, M. Handley, R.M. Karp, and S. Shenker, “Topologically-Aware Overlay Construction and Server Selection,” Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, vol. 3, pp. 1190-1199, June 2002.
[14] Z. Xu, C. Tang, and Z. Zhang, “Building Topology-Aware Overlays Using Global Soft-State,” Proc. 23rd Int'l Conf. Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), pp. 500-508, May 2003.
[15] Z. Xu, M. Mahalingam, and M. Karlsson, “Turning Heterogeneity into an Advantage in Overlay Routing,” Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, vol. 2, pp. 1499-1509, Apr. 2003.
[16] T. Asano, D. Ranjan, T. Roos, E. Welzl, and P. Widmaier, “Space Filling Curves and Their Use in Geometric Data Structure,” Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 181, pp. 3-15, July 1997.
[17] Q. Lv, S. Ratnasamy, and S. Shenker, “Can Heterogeneity Make Gnutella Scalable?” Proc. First Int'l Workshop Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS), pp. 94-103, Mar. 2002.
[18] E.W. Zegura, K.L. Calvert, and S. Bhattacharjee, “How to Model an Internetwork,” Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, vol. 2, pp. 594-602, Mar. 1996.

Index Terms:
Proximity-aware, peer-to-peer, virtual server, load balancing.
Yingwu Zhu, Yiming Hu, "Efficient, Proximity-Aware Load Balancing for DHT-Based P2P Systems," IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 349-361, April 2005, doi:10.1109/TPDS.2005.46
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.