152 |
Hybrid: N/A N/A N/A |
Hybrid: N/A N/A N/A |
153 |
Social: N/A*** N/A*** N/A*** |
Social: N/A*** N/A*** N/A*** |
154 |
Skip graphs 1): O(log n) O(log n) O(log n) |
Skip graphs 1): O(log n) O(log n) O(log n) |
155 |
|
Symphony: O(log^2 n) O(log n) O(log n) |
156 |
|
|
157 |
* = In Kademlia, there is no action required when nodes leaves the system |
* = In Kademlia, there is no action required when nodes leaves the system |
158 |
|
|
793 |
Tuomas' example scenario #2: |
Tuomas' example scenario #2: |
794 |
'What will happen if, jyu's network connection is broken ? Inside jyu network, how do we/system will self-organise ?' |
'What will happen if, jyu's network connection is broken ? Inside jyu network, how do we/system will self-organise ?' |
795 |
|
|
796 |
|
It seems to be that DHTs are unable to self-reorganise after a sudden partitioning, because |
797 |
|
a) every node has a fixed space in identifier space |
798 |
|
b) system has a fixed identifier space, e.g. Pastry and Chord require a priori knowledge about the size of the system |
799 |
|
c) even if system is able self-reorganise, the key space is not uniformly distributed anymore -> all nodes have to leave/rejoin --> lot of traffic |
800 |
|
|
801 |
|
The question is: how well SWAN can self-organise ? |
802 |
|
|
803 |
Half-life phenomenon \cite{libennowell01observations} |
Half-life phenomenon \cite{libennowell01observations} |
804 |
Current decentralized, but structured \cite{chord, can, pastry, Tapestry etc.) ignores the fact |
Current decentralized, but structured \cite{chord, can, pastry, Tapestry etc.) ignores the fact |
805 |
that a P2P system is never in 'ideal' state. P2P system is always evolving system. |
that a P2P system is never in 'ideal' state. P2P system is always evolving system. |