So substituting the terms used in RELOAD, this is exactly my point. draft-hu-ppsp-tracker-dht-performance-comparison assumes 20M peers, i.e. nodes used in routing, and bases latency calculations on that number. Not 57K. The draft further works out that with 20M peers storing data, each needs to store 0.01 of a resource.
Even if you do the calculations with a reasonable number of peers (routing nodes), the dht overlay will still obviously have higher latency than a single-server based solution. You select a dht overlay for different reasons than you would select a central server-based solution. Bruce On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:27 PM, jc <[email protected]> wrote: > You need 57,142.857 nodes to route 20M of peer traffic. This is the > algorithm we used in fasttrack and is the same as in skype. This is a > maximum capacity scenario. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 15, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Bruce Lowekamp <[email protected]> wrote: > > They scale fine, but there is a point beyond which adding additional peers > to the overlay routing merely adds latency. Don't have time to look up the > references now, but there are a number of papers discussing the advantages > of different numbers of peers (superpeers in a lot of systems) needed for > overlay routing. You don't need 10M. > > Bruce > > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:55 AM, jc < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 15, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Bruce Lowekamp wrote: >> >> The performance comparison draft compares the performance of a centralized >> lookup server with a P2P DHT system with 10M peers. Since those address >> entirely different use cases, and no one would ever deploy a 10M peer >> distributed tracker, it's not clear what the point of the comparison is. >> This has nothing to do with RELOAD. >> >> >> There are active distributed trackers w/ > 1M peers. Why would you not >> deploy a 10M user distributed tracker? They do inherently scale infinitely >> by nature. >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:55 AM, World < <[email protected]> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I am thinking what P2P Live Streaming and VoD Service can leverage P2PSIP >>> RELOAD. According to some research or proposal report, it seems that P2PSIP >>> RELOAD can be used in P2P-based Tracker and/or chunk description >>> distribution (chunk discovery) at the full distributed deployment. Both >>> P2P-based Tracker and chunk description distribution over P2PSIP overlay >>> were evaluated in performance referred to >>> draft-chen-ppsp-dht-chunk-discovery-evaluation-00.txt and >>> draft-hu-ppsp-tracker-dht-performance-comparison-01.txt. The result showed >>> the performance of DHT-based Tracker and chunk description distribution is >>> worse, even not acceptable for P2P Live Streaming and VoD Service. >>> >>> So can we make such conclusion that P2PSIP RELOAD is not suitable to be >>> leverage for both P2P Live Streaming and VoD Service in case a full >>> distributed deployment is not mandatory? What do you think? >>> >>> Any comments are welcome. Thanks. >>> >>> BR, >>> Jeffrey >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> P2PSIP mailing list >>> <[email protected]>[email protected] >>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> P2PSIP mailing list >> <[email protected]>[email protected] >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip >> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
