1. Adaptive Content Management in Structured P2P Communities Jussi Kangasharju Keith W. Ross David A. Turner

2. Content Introduction Related Works Adaptive Algorithms Experimental Results Optimization Theory Conclusion

3. Introduction (1) P2P file sharing is the dominant traffic type in the Internet Two types of P2P system – Unstructured, e.g. KaZaA and Gnutella Nodes are not organized into highly-structured overlays Content is randomly assigned to nodes – Structured, e.g. CAN, Chord Distributed hash table (DHT) substrates are used Nodes are organized into highly-structured overlays Keys are deterministically assigned to nodes

4. Introduction (2) Assume the system is DHT-based P2P file-sharing communities – P2P community: a collection of intermittently-connected nodes – Nodes: contribute storage, content and bandwidth to the rest of the community – A node in the community wants a file Retrieve the file from the other nodes in the community If the file is not found, the community retrieves the file from outside The file will be cached and a copy will be forwarded to the requesting node

5. Introduction (3) Address the problem of content management in P2P file sharing communities Propose algorithms to adaptively manage content – Minimize the average delay: the time from when a node makes a query for a file until the node receives the file in its entirety. – File transfer delay >> lookup delays – Intra-community file transfers occur at relatively fast rates as compared with file transfers into the community

6. Introduction (4) PROBLEM is equivalent to “adaptively managing content to maximize intra-community hit rates” – Replication: how should content be replicated to provide satisfactory hit rates – Replacement: how does a node determine to keep/evict the files Contributions – Algorithms for dynamically replicating and replacing files in a P2P community No a priori assumptions about file request rate or nodal up probabilities Simple, adaptive and fully distributed – Analytical optimization theory to benchmark the adaptive replication algorithms For complete-file replication For the case when files are segmented and erasure codes are used

7. Related Works Squirrel [8] – Distributed, server-less, P2P web caching system – Built on top of the Pastry DHT substrate – Focus on the protocol design and implementation – Not address the issues of replication and file replacement In [13] and [14], it studied optimal replication in an unstructured peer-to-peer network – Reduce random search times

8. DHT Substrate Node has access to the API of a DHT substrate The substrate takes a file j as input and determines an ordered list of the up nodes For a given value of K, (i 1, i 2,…,i K ) i 1 is the first-place winner for file j

9. LRU Algorithms (1) Fundamental Problem: – “How can we adaptively add and remove replicas, in a distributed manner and as a function of evolving demand, to maximize the hit probability?” Suppose X is a node that wants file j Basic LRU Algorithm – X uses the substrate to determine i 1, the first place winner for j – If i 1 doesn’t have j, i 1 retrieves j from outside the community and copies the file in storage – If i 1 needs to make room for j, LRU replacement policy is used – i 1 sends j to X – X does not put j in its storage

10. LRU Algorithms (2) Basic LRU Algorithm – A request can be a “miss” even when the file is cached in some up node within the community Top-K LRU Algorithm – When i 1 doesn’t have j, i 1 determines i 2,…,i K and pings each of these K-1 nodes to see if any of them have j – If so, i 1 retrieves j from one of the nodes and puts a copy in its storage – Otherwise, i 1 retrieves j from outside the community The algorithm replicates content – Without any a priori knowledge of request patterns or nodal up probabilities – Fully distributed

11. Observations Top-K LRU algorithm is simple but its performance is significantly below the theoretical optimal Observed that – LRU let unpopular file linger in nodes. Intuitively, if we do not store the less popular files, the popular files will have more replicas – Searching more than one node is needed to find files under the file-sharing system

12. MFR Algorithm (1) Most Frequently Requested (MFR) Algorithm – Has near optimal performance Each node i maintains an estimate of a j (i), the local request rate for file j a j (i) is the number of requests that node i has seen for file j divided by the amount of time node i has been up Each node i stores the files with the highest a j (i) values, packing in as many files as possible

13. MFR Algorithm (2) MFR retrieval and replacement policy – Node i receives a request for file j, it updates a j (i) – If i doesn’t have j and MFR say it should, i retrieves j from the outside and puts j in its storage – If i needs to make room for j, MFR replacement policy is used Searching more than one node is needed – “Ping” dynamics to influence a j (i) so that the number of replicas across all nodes become nearly optimal

14. MFR Algorithm (3) “Ping” the top-K winners in parallel – Retrieve the file from any node that has the file – Each “Ping” could be considered a request – Nodes update their request rate and manage their storage with MFR – However, this approach doesn’t give better performance Sequentially request j from the top-K winners – Stop the sequential requests once j is found

15. Experiment Results (1) Run simulation experiments – 100 nodes and 10000 files – Request probabilities follow a Zipf distribution with parameters 0.8 and 1.2 – All file sizes are the same – Each node contributes the same amount of storage Measure the hit performance of the algorithm

16. Experiment Results (2) LRU performs better than non-cooperative algorithm but significantly worse than the theoretical optimal

17. Experiment Results (3)

18. Experiment Results (4) Using a K greater than 1 improves the hit probability K beyond 5 gives insignificant improvement

19. Experiment Results (5) The number of replicas is changing over time, the graphs report the average values The optimal scheme replicates the more popular files much more aggressively The optimal scheme does not store the less popular files

20. Experiment Results (6)

21. Experiment Results (7) The MFR algorithm is very close to optimal Thus, the hit rates also are very close to optimal

22. Analysis of MFR (1) Analytical procedure for calculating the steady-state replica profile and hit probability for Top-K MFR for the case K=I The results still serve as excellent approximations for when K is small Assume – I is the number of nodes – J is the number of distinct files – p i is “up” probability of node i – S i is the amount of shared storage (in bytes) in node i – b j is the size (in bytes) of file j – q j is the request probability for file j The request probability for the J files are known

23. Analysis of MFR (2) The procedure sequentially places copies of files into the nodes – T i is the remaining unallocated storage – x ij is equal to 1 if a copy of file j has been placed in node i Initializes T i =S i, x ij =0 and v j =q j /b j – Find file j that has the largest value of v j – Sequentially examine the winning nodes for j until a node is found such that T i >=b j and x ij =0 Set x ij =1; Set v j =v j (1-p i ); Set T i =T i -b j – If there is no node such that T i >=b j and x ij =0, remove file j from further consideration – Return to Step 1 if all files have not been removed from consideration

24. Optimization Theory (1) Analytical theory for optimal replication in P2P communities – Complete-File Replication (No Fragmentation) – File are segmented and erasure coded No Fragmentation Subject to

25. Optimization Theory (2) The problem is NP-complete Consider a special case – p i =p – n j =number of replicas for file j The problem can be efficiently solved by dynamic programming Subject to

26. Optimization Theory (3) Upper bound on the performance of adaptive management algorithms for the case of erasures – File j is made up of R j erasures – Any M j of the R j erasures are needed to reconstruct the file – Size of each erasure is b j /M j – Assume homogenous “up” probabilities, p i =p – r th erasure of file j as erasure jr, r=1,…,R j – n jr is the number of erasures jr stored in the community of nodes

27. Optimization Theory (4) 0-1 random variable which is 1 if any of the n jr erasures jr is in some up node A hit for a request for file j if any M j of the R j erasures for file j are available

28. Optimization Theory (5) Theorem 2.2 of Boland et al [24], the function is Shur concave Subject to

29. Optimization Theory (6) Special case: No erasures – R j =M j =1 where q j /b j plays a key role in influencing the number of replicas It is upper bound on the true optimal because it is the optimal over continuous variables rather than integer variables

30. Conclusion Claim that structured/DHT-designs will potentially improve search and download performance Proposed the Top-K MFR algorithm, which is simple, fully distributed, adaptive, near-optimal Introduce an optimization methodology for bench- marking the performance of adaptive algorithms The methodology can also be applied to designs that use erasures