Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring the complexity of adaptive peer-to-peer systems

  • Published:
Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To improve the efficiency of peer-to-peer (P2P) systems while adapting to changing environmental conditions, static peer-to-peer protocols can be replaced by adaptive plans. The resulting systems are inherently complex, which makes their development and characterization a challenge for traditional methods. Here we propose the design and analysis of adaptive P2P systems using measures of complexity, emergence, self-organization, and homeostasis based on information theory. These measures allow the evaluation of adaptive P2P systems and thus can be used to guide their design. We evaluate the proposal with a P2P computing system provided with adaptation mechanisms. We show the evolution of the system with static and also changing workload, using different fitness functions. When the adaptive plan forces the system to converge to a predefined performance level, the nodes may result in highly unstable configurations, which correspond to a high variance in time of the measured complexity. Conversely, if the adaptive plan is less “aggressive”, the system may be more stable, but the optimal performance may not be achieved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gershenson C, Heylighen F (2005) How can we think the complex? In: Richardson K. (ed) Managing organizational complexity: philosophy, theory and application. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, pp 47–61

  2. Gershenson C (2013) The implications of interactions for science and philosophy. Found Sci 18(4):781–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gershenson C (2007) Design and control of self-organizing systems. CopIt Arxives, Mexico

    Google Scholar 

  4. Psaier H, Dustdar S (2011) A survey on self-healing systems: approaches and systems. Computing 91(1):43–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dobson S, Sterritt R, Nixon P, Hinchey M (2010) Fulfilling the vision of autonomic computing. IEEE Comput Mag 43(1): 35–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gershenson C, Fernández N (2012) Complexity and information: measuring emergence, self-organization, and homeostasis at multiple scales. Complexity 18(2):29–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fernández N, Maldonado C, Gershenson C (2014) Information measures of complexity, emergence, self-organization, homeostasis, and autopoiesis. In: Prokopenko M (ed) Guided self-organization: inception. Springer, Berlin, pp 19–51

  8. Amoretti M (2013) Introducing artificial evolution into peer-to-peer networks with the distributed remodeling framework. Genet Programm Evolvable Mach 14(2):127–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. IBM: An architectural blueprint for autonomic computing. http://www-03.ibm.com/autonomic/pdfs/AC%20Blueprint%20White%20Paper%20V7.pdf (2003). Accessed 17 Jan 2015

  10. Huebscher MC, McCann JA (2008) A survey of autonomic computing — degrees, models, and applications. ACM Comput Surv 40(3):7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Müller-Schloer C, Schmeck H (2011) Organic computing - quo vadis? In: Müller-Schloer C, Schmeck H, Ungerer T (eds) Organic computing — a paradigm shift for complex systems. Basel, Birkhäuser Verlag, pp 615–627

  12. Bruni R, Corradini A, Gadducci F, Lluch Lafuente A, Vandin A (2012) A conceptual framework for adaptation. In: Proc. 15th int.’l conf. on the fundamentals of software engineering (FASE’12), pp 240–254

  13. Nakano T, Suda T (2005) Self-organizing network services with evolutionary adaptation. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 16(5):1269–1278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hales D (2004) From selfish nodes to cooperative networks — emergent link-based incentives in peer-to-peer networks. In: Proceedings 4th IEEE international conference on peer-to-peer computing (P2P’04), pp 151–158

  15. Tyson G, Grace P, Mauthe A, Kaune S (2008) The survival of the fittest: an evolutionary approach to deploying adaptive functionality in peer-to-peer systems. In: Proceedings 7th workshop on reflective and adaptive middleware (ARM’08), pp 23–28

  16. Amoretti M (2009) A survey of peer-to-peer overlay schemes: effectiveness, efficiency and security. Recent Patents Comput Sci 2(3):195–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cooper BF, Garcia-Molina H (2006) SIL: a model for analyzing scalable peer-to-peer search networks. Comput Netw 50(13):2380–2400

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Karakaya M, Korpeoglu I, Ulusoy O (2008) Counteracting free riding in peer-to-peer networks. Comput Netw 52((3) 22):675–694

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Esposito F, Matta I, Bera D, Michiardi P (2011) On the impact of seed scheduling in peer-to-peer networks. Comput Netw 55(15):3303–3317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen Y, Le Merrer E, Li Z, Liu Y, Simon G (2012) OAZE: A network-friendly distributed zapping system for peer-to-peer IPTV. Comput Netw 56(1):365–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Onana Alima L, El-Ansary S, Brand P, Haridi S (2003) DKS(N,k,f): a family of low communication, scalable and fault-tolerant infrastructures for p2p communications. In: Proceedings 3rd IEEE/ACM inter symposium on cluster computing and the grid (CCGRID’03), pp 344–350

  22. Paechter B, Back T, Schoenauer M, Sebag M, Eiben AE, Merelo JJ, Fogarty TC (2000) A distributed resource evolutionary algorithm machine (DREAM). In: Proceedings IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC 2000), pp 951–958

  23. Prokopenko M, Boschetti F, Ryan AJ (2009) An information-theoretic primer on complexity, self-organisation and emergence. Complexity 15(1):11–28

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Langton C (1990) Computation at the edge of chaos: Phase transitions and emergent computation. Physica D 42:12–37

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Kauffman SA (1993) The origins of order. Oxford University Press

  26. Gershenson C (2007) The World as evolving information. In: Proceedings International conference on complex systems (ICCS), pp 100–115

  27. Gershenson C, Heylighen F (2003) When can we call a system self-organizing? In: Proceedings 7th European conference on advances in artificial life (ECAL 2003), pp 606–614

  28. Eugster PT, Guerraoui R, Kermarrec A-M, Massoulie L (2004) From epidemics to distributed computing. IEEE Comput 37(5)

  29. Ahi E, Caglar M, Ozkasap O (2007) Stepwise fair-share buffering underneath bio-inspired P2P data dissemination. In: Proceedings 6th international symposium on parallel and distributed computing (ISPDC’07), pp 177–184

  30. The Gnutella Developer Forum (GDF): the annotated gnutella protocol specification v0.4. http://rfc-gnutella.sourceforge.net/developer/stable/index.html (2003). Accessed 17 Jan 2015

  31. Laredo JL, Eiben AE, Steen M, Merelo JJ (2010) EvAg: a scalable peer-to-peer evolutionary algorithm. Genet Programm Evolvable Mach 11(2):227–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Amoretti M (2009) A framework for evolutionary peer-to-peer overlay schemes. In: Proceedings European workshops on the applications of evolutionary computation (EvoWorkshops 2009), pp 61–70

  33. Amoretti M, Agosti M, Zanichelli F (March 2009) DEUS: a discrete event universal simulator. In: 2nd ICST/ACM International conference on simulation tools and techniques (SIMUTools 2009). Roma

  34. Amoretti M, Picone M, Zanichelli F, Ferrari G (2013) Simulating mobile and distributed systems with DEUS and ns-3. In: Proceedings international conference on high performance computing and simulation (HPCS 2013), pp 107–114

  35. Montresor A, Jelasity M (2009) PeerSim: a scalable P2P simulator. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on peer-to-peer (P2P’09), pp 99–100

  36. Barabasi A-L, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286:509–512

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Zubillaga D, Cruz G, Aguilar LD, Zapotécatl J, Fernández N, Aguilar J, Rosenblueth DA, Gershenson C (2014) Measuring the complexity of self-organizing traffic lights. Entropy 16(5):2384–2407

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Informazione, Università degli Studi di Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze, 181A, 43124, Parma, Italy

    Michele Amoretti

  2. Instituto de Investigaciones en Matemáticas Aplicadas y en Sistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, A.P. 20-126, 01000, México, D.F., México

    Carlos Gershenson

Authors
  1. Michele Amoretti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlos Gershenson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michele Amoretti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amoretti, M., Gershenson, C. Measuring the complexity of adaptive peer-to-peer systems. Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl. 9, 1031–1046 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12083-015-0385-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12083-015-0385-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation