I've decided to put both DHT papers into the same post, as they covered a lot of the same material.
These were papers on distributed hash tables. They what they seem to be, but there are some clever tricks in each individual one. You hash an address and this then maps to another machine via a series of lookups.
What I don't understand is how these things help P2P, as is argued at such depth. Since you don't get to organize the data in a pure P2P network, you can't really create any address -> data mappings. Both are handed to you, you can only create a search service that gives you one if given the other.
I do like DHTs as DNS replacements though, that seems like the proper model of usage. This is an actual problem too, as I can remember comcast's DNS server choking and access to goggle being hindered.
I guess I don't have much to write as we read the Chord paper for 262. All of my clever insight is gone.
2 comments:
The idea is that you organize the index, not the data. The "value" at key Foo isn't the song named Foo, it's a list of nodes that have it.
That makes more sense.
I'm not sure if the supernode model makes more sense though, the locality gains would be great.
The cost of entering the network with this is likely huge as well, as you have to inform many nodes of what files you have.
Post a Comment