[p2p-hackers] Keep Alive and network performance

[Daniel B.]

Keep alive is both a missing component in practical P2P and a reason  
why P2P is also hard to make practical.

The trap is that the keep-alive is between two machines. Imagine  
hundreds of thousands of machines!!!! Even with small signatures  
matching each machine, we are talking about a flooded network. A  
secondary trap is managing reliability. Reliability in P2P is not  
moving bytes back and forth, but also taking into account the machine  
may be a laptop or other personal computer that has a pathetic uptime.

The better choice is online/offline signaling and optimistic  
communications with good error control.



On Feb 8, 2006, at 12:03 PM, Matthew Gertner wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We have a straightforward P2P topology with each peer in the  
> network attached to hub. We want to detect efficiently that a peer  
> has disconnected from the hub. The obvious way to do this would be  
> to use our current TCP connection with a relatively short Keep  
> Alive value (a few seconds so we could see the peer's presence  
> updated quickly if they don't disconnect cleanly). Does anyone have  
> a feeling for the performance implications of this approach if many  
> peers are attached to a single hub? Is there another approach that  
> is recommend (such as using a custom UDP-based keep alive protocol)?
>
> Regards,
> Matt
> _______________________________________________
> p2p-hackers mailing list
> p2p-hackers at zgp.org
> http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
> _______________________________________________
> Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
> http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
>