This Article 
 Bibliographic References 
 Add to: 
Dynamic Layer Management in Superpeer Architectures
November 2005 (vol. 16 no. 11)
pp. 1078-1091

Abstract—Superpeer unstructured P2P systems have been found to be very effective by dividing the peers into two layers, superlayer and leaf-layer, in which message flooding is only conducted among superlayer and all leaf-peers are represented by corresponding superpeers. However, current superpeer systems do not employ any effective layer management schemes, so the transient and low-capacity peers are allowed to act as superpeers. Moreover, the lack of an appropriate size ratio maintenance mechanism on superlayer to leaf-layer makes the system's search performance far from being optimal. We present one workload model aimed at reducing the weighted overhead of a network. Using our proposed workload model, a network can determine an optimal layer size ratio between leaf-layer and superlayer. We then propose a Dynamic Layer Management algorithm, DLM, which can maintain an optimal layer size ratio and adaptively elect and adjust peers between superlayer and leaf-layer. DLM is completely distributed in the sense that each peer decides to be a superpeer or a leaf-peer independently without global knowledge. DLM could effectively help a superpeer P2P system maintain the optimal layer size ratio and designate peers with relatively long lifetime and large capacities as superpeers, and the peers with short lifetime and low capacities as leaf-peers under highly dynamic network situations. We demonstrate that the quality of a superpeer system is significantly improved under the DLM scheme by comprehensive simulations.

[1] “The Gnutella Protocol Specification 0.6,” http:/rfc-gnutella., 2002.
[2] “Regional Characteristics of P2P,” http:/, 2003.
[3] P. Backx, T. Wauters, B. Dhoedt, and P. Demeester, “A Comparison of Peer-to-Peer Architectures,” Proc. Eurescom Summit, 2002.
[4] F.E. Bustamante and Y. Qiao, “Friendships that Last: Peer Lifespan and Its Role in P2P Protocols,” Proc. Int'l Workshop Web Content Caching and Distribution, 2003.
[5] B.F. Cooper and H. Garcia-Molina, “SIL: Modeling and Measuring Scalable Peer-to-Peer Search Networks,” Proc. Int'l Workshop Databases, Information Systems, and Peer-to-Peer Computing, 2003.
[6] N. Daswani, H. Garcia-Molina, and B. Yang, “Open Problems in Data-Sharing Peer-to-Peer Systems,” Proc. Ninth Int'l Conf. Database Theory, 2003.
[7] Z. Ge, D.R. Figueiredo, S. Jaiswal, J. Kurose, and D. Towsley, “Modeling Peer-Peer File Sharing Systems,” Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, 2003.
[8] Gnutella, http:/, 2003.
[9] K.P. Gummadi, R.J. Dunn, S. Saroiu, S.D. Gribble, H.M. Levy, and J. Zahorjan, “Measurement, Modeling, and Analysis of a Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing Workload,” Proc. 19th ACM Symp. Operating Systems Principles, Oct. 2003.
[10] K.-C. Hsiao and C.-T. King, “A Tree Model for Structured Peer-to-Peer Protocols,” Proc. Third Int'l Symp. Cluster Computing and the Grid, May 2003.
[11] N. Leibowitz, A. Bergman, R. Ben-Shaul, and A. Shavit, “Are File Swapping Networks Cacheable? Characterizing P2P Traffic,” Proc. Seventh Int'l WWW Caching Workshop, Aug. 2002.
[12] J. Liang, R. Kumar, and K.W. Ross, “Understanding KaZaA,” , 2004.
[13] Q. Lv, P. Cao, E. Cohen, K. Li, and S. Shenker, “Search and Replication in Unstructured Peer-to-peer Networks,” Proc. 16th ACM Int'l Conf. Supercomputing, 2002.
[14] D.A. Menasce and L. Kanchanapalli, “Probabilistic Scalable P2P Resource Location Services,” ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Rev., vol. 30, pp. 48-58, 2002.
[15] Morpheus, http:/, 2004.
[16] Mutella, http:/, 2003.
[17] S. Ratnasamy, P. Francis, M. Handley, R. Karp, and S. Shenker, “A Scalable Content-Addressable Network,” Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, 2001.
[18] A. Rowstron and P. Druschel, “Pastry: Scalable, Distributed Object Location and Routing for Large-scale Peer-to-Peer Systems,” Proc. Int'l Conf. Distributed Systems Platforms, 2001.
[19] S. Saroiu, P. Gummadi, and S. Gribble, “A Measurement Study of Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Systems,” Proc. Multimedia Computing and Networking, 2002.
[20] S. Sen and J. Wang, “Analyzing Peer-to-Peer Traffic across Large Networks,” Proc. ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop, 2002.
[21] S. Singh, S. Ramabhadran, F. Baboescu, and A.C. Snoeren, “The Case for Service Provider Deployment of Super-Peers in Peer-to-Peer Networks,” Proc. Workshop Economics of Peer-to-Peer Systems, 2003.
[22] A. Singla and C. Rohrs, “Ultrapeers: Another Step towards Gnutella Scalability,” Version 1.0.26, http://rfc-gnutella. Ultrapeers_1.0.html, Nov. 2002.
[23] I. Stoica, R. Morris, D. Karger, M.F. Kaashoek, and H. Balakrishnan, “Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-Peer Lookup Service for Internet Applications,” Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, pp. 149-160, 2001.
[24] J. Xu, A. Kumar, and X. Yu, “On the Fundamental Tradeoffs between Routing Table Size and Network Diameter in Peer-to-Peer Networks,” Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, 2003.
[25] B. Yang and H. Garcia-Molina, “Efficient Search in Peer-to-Peer Networks,” Proc. Int'l Conf. Distributed Computing Systems, 2002.
[26] B. Yang and H. Garcia-Molina, “Designing a Super-Peer Network,” Proc. 19th Int'l Conf. Data Eng., Mar. 2003.
[27] B.Y. Zhao, L. Huang, J. Stribling, S.C. Rhea, A.D. Joseph, and J. Kubiatowicz, “Tapestry: A Resilient Global-scale Overlay for Service Deployment,” IEEE J. Selected Areas in Comm., 2003.

Index Terms:
Unstructured peer-to-peer, superpeer architecture, layer management, workload analysis, adaptive algorithms.
Li Xiao, Zhenyun Zhuang, Yunhao Liu, "Dynamic Layer Management in Superpeer Architectures," IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 1078-1091, Nov. 2005, doi:10.1109/TPDS.2005.137
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.