Dominik Stingl
ABSTRACT
Decentralized monitoring mechanisms enable obtaining a global view on different attributes and the state of Peer-to-Peer systems. Therefore, such mechanisms are essential for managing and optimizing Peer-to-Peer systems. Nonetheless, when deciding on an appropriate mechanism, system designers are faced with a major challenge. Comparing different existing monitoring mechanisms is complex because evaluation methodologies differ widely. To overcome this challenge and to achieve a fair evaluation and comparison, we present a set of dedicated benchmarks for monitoring mechanisms. These benchmarks evaluate relevant functional and non-functional requirements of monitoring mechanisms using appropriate workloads and metrics. We demonstrate the feasibility and expressiveness of our benchmarks by evaluating and comparing three different monitoring mechanisms and highlighting their performance and overhead.
- K. Albrecht, R. Arnold, M. Gahwiler, and R. Wattenhofer. Aggregating Information in Peer-to-Peer Systems for Improved Join and Leave. In Proc. of the 4th Internat. Conf. on Peer-to-Peer Computing, pages 227--234, 2004. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- M. S. Artigas, P. García, and A. F. G. Skarmeta. DECA: A Hierarchical Framework for DECentralized Aggregation in DHTs. In Large Scale Management of Distributed Systems, volume 4269, pages 246--257. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Bawa, H. Garcia-Molina, A. Gionis, and R. Motwani. Estimating Aggregates on a Peer-to-Peer Network. Tech. Rep. 2003-24, Stanford InfoLab, 2003.Google Scholar
- J. Cappos and J. H. Hartman. San Fermín: Aggregating Large Data Sets Using a Binomial Swap Forest. In Proc. of the 5th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, pages 147--160, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. T. Eugster, R. Guerraoui, A.-M. Kermarrec, and L. Massoulié. Epidemic Information Dissemination in Distributed Systems. IEEE Computer, 37(5):60--67, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Graffi. Monitoring and Management of Peer-to-Peer Systems. PhD thesis, Technische Universtiät Darmstadt, 2010.Google Scholar
- K. Graffi, D. Stingl, J. Rueckert, A. Kovacevic, and R. Steinmetz. Monitoring and Management of Structured Peer-to-Peer Systems. In Proc. of the 9th Internat. Conf. on Peer-to-Peer Computing, pages 311--320, 2009.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Gross, M. Lehn, C. Münker, A. Buchmann, and R. Steinmetz. Towards a Comparative Performance Evaluation of Overlays for Networked Virtual Environments. In Proc. of the 11th Internat. Conf. on Peer-to-Peer Computing, pages 34--43, 2011.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Haeberlen, A. Mislove, A. Post, and P. Druschel. Fallacies in Evaluating Decentralized Systems. In Proc. of the 5th Internat. Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems, 2006.Google Scholar
- M. Jelasity, R. Guerraoui, A.-M. Kermarrec, and M. van Steen. The Peer Sampling Service: Experimental Evaluation of Unstructured Gossip-Based Implementations. In Proc. of the 5th ACM/IFIP/USENIX Internat. Conf. on Middleware, pages 79--98, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Jelasity, A. Montresor, and O. Babaoglu. Gossip-Based Aggregation in Large Dynamic Networks. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 23(3):219--252, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Kempe, A. Dobra, and J. Gehrke. Gossip-based computation of aggregate information. In Proc. of the 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 482--491, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Kovacevic, K. Graffi, S. Kaune, C. Leng, and R. Steinmetz. Towards Benchmarking of Structured Peer-to-Peer Overlays for Network Virtual Environments. In Proc. of the 14th Internat. Conf. on Parallel and Distributed Systems, pages 799--804, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Lehn, T. Triebel, C. Gross, D. Stingl, K. Saller, W. Effelsberg, A. Kovacevic, and R. Steinmetz. Designing Benchmarks for P2P Systems. In From Active Data Management to Event-Based Systems and More, volume 6462, pages 209--229. Springer, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Li, J. Stribling, R. Morris, M. F. Kaashoek, and T. M. Gil. A Performance vs. Cost Framework for Evaluating DHT Design Tradeoffs Under Churn. In Proc. of the 24th Annual Joint Conf. of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, pages 225--236, 2005.Google Scholar
- S. Madden, M. J. Franklin, J. M. Hellerstein, and W. Hong. Tag: A Tiny AGgregation Service for Ad-hoc Sensor Networks. In ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, volume 36, pages 131--146, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Makhloufi, G. Bonnet, G. Doyen, and D. Gaiti. Decentralized Aggregation Protocols in Peer-to-Peer Networks : A Survey. In Modelling Autonomic Communications Environments, volume 5844, pages 111--116. Springer, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. L. Massie, B. N. Chun, and D. E. Culler. The Ganglia Distributed Monitoring System: Design, Implementation, and Experience. Parallel Computing, 30(7):817--840, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Rhea, T. Roscoe, and J. Kubiatowicz. Structured Peer-to-Peer Overlays Need Application-Driven Benchmarks. In Peer-to-Peer Systems II, pages 56--67. Springer, 2003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Saller, D. Stingl, and A. Schürr. D4M, a Self-Adapting Decentralized Derived Data Collection and Monitoring Framework. In Workshops der wissenschaftlichen Konferenz Kommunikation in Verteilten Systemen, pages 245--256, 2011.Google Scholar
- D. Stingl, C. Gross, J. Rückert, L. Nobach, A. Kovacevic, and R. Steinmetz. PeerfactSim.KOM: A Simulation Framework for Peer-to-Peer Systems. In Proc. of the Internat. Conf. on High Performance Computing and Simulation, pages 577--584, 2011.Google ScholarCross Ref
- I. Stoica, R. Morris, D. Karger, M. F. Kaashoek, and H. Balakrishnan. Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-Peer Lookup Service for Internet Applications. In Proc. of the Conf. on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communications, pages 149--160, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Van Renesse, K. P. Birman, and W. Vogels. Astrolabe: A Robust and Scalable Technology for Distributed System Monitoring, Management, and Data Mining. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 21(2):164--206, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Yalagandula and M. Dahlin. A Scalable Distributed Information Management System. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 34(4):379--390, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Benchmarking decentralized monitoring mechanisms in peer-to-peer systems
Recommendations
An Efficient Hybrid Peer-to-Peer System for Distributed Data Sharing
Peer-to-peer overlay networks are widely used in distributed systems. Based on whether a regular topology is maintained among peers, peer-to-peer networks can be divided into two categories: structured peer-to-peer networks in which peers are connected ...
On Optimizing Overlay Topologies for Search in Unstructured Peer-to-Peer Networks
Unstructured peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing networks are popular in the mass market. As the peers participating in unstructured networks interconnect randomly, they rely on flooding query messages to discover objects of interest and thus introduce ...
Using locality of reference to improve performance of peer-to-peer applications
WOSP '04: Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on Software and performancePeer-to-peer, or simply P2P, systems have recently emerged as a popular paradigm for building distributed applications. One key aspect of the P2P system design is the mechanism used for content location. A number of different approaches are currently in ...
Comments