[Gzz-commits] gzz/Documentation/misc/hemppah-progradu mastert...

[Hermanni Hyytiälä]

CVSROOT:        /cvsroot/gzz
Module name:    gzz
Changes by:     Hermanni Hyytiälä <address@hidden>      03/03/21 10:32:46

Modified files:
        Documentation/misc/hemppah-progradu: masterthesis.tex 

Log message:
        More fixes

CVSWeb URLs:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/gzz/gzz/Documentation/misc/hemppah-progradu/masterthesis.tex.diff?tr1=1.171&tr2=1.172&r1=text&r2=text

Patches:
Index: gzz/Documentation/misc/hemppah-progradu/masterthesis.tex
diff -u gzz/Documentation/misc/hemppah-progradu/masterthesis.tex:1.171 
gzz/Documentation/misc/hemppah-progradu/masterthesis.tex:1.172
--- gzz/Documentation/misc/hemppah-progradu/masterthesis.tex:1.171      Fri Mar 
21 09:57:40 2003
+++ gzz/Documentation/misc/hemppah-progradu/masterthesis.tex    Fri Mar 21 
10:32:46 2003
@@ -492,36 +492,33 @@
 the system and $O(\log{n})$ data lookup efficiency.
 
 
-\section{Summary}
-
-In this section we compare the loosely structured approach and the tightly 
structured approach.
-We also summarize proposed Peer-to-Peer algorithms and their key properties 
with regard
-to performance and scalability aspects. 
-
-\subsection{Differences}
+\section{Differences}
 
 Even though the loosely structured and the tightly structured approach are 
both Peer-to-Peer schemes, they 
 have very little in common. Indeed, the only thing they share is the fact that 
no other peer is more
 important than any other in the Peer-to-Peer network. Fault tolerance 
\emph{may}
-be an area, in which approaches have similar properties (e.g., no single point 
of failure).
+be an area, in which approaches have similar properties (e.g., no single point 
of failure) \cite{milojicic02peertopeer}.
 Fault tolerance properties of both approaches are currently only initial 
calculations, or 
 experimented in simulation environments. In real-life, however, measuring 
fault tolerance is a much more 
 challenging task and requires more research to get reliable answers.
  
-The most important difference between approaches is performance and 
scalability properties. Generally 
-tightly structured systems can perform all internal operations in a 
poly-logarithmic time\footnote{However, it is unknown 
-whether all proposed algorithms can preserve logarithmic properties in 
real-life applications or not.}
+The most important difference between approaches is performance and 
scalability properties \cite{balakrishanarticle03lookupp2p}. 
+Generally tightly structured systems can perform all internal operations in a 
poly-logarithmic time 
 while the performance of loosely structured systems is not always even linear.
-Moreover, loosely structured systems scale to millions of peers, whereas 
tightly structured systems are able
-to cope with billions of concurrent peers \cite{osokine02distnetworks}, 
\cite{kubiatowicz00oceanstore}.
+Moreover, loosely structured systems scale to millions of peers, 
+whereas tightly structured systems are able to cope with billions of 
concurrent 
+peers \cite{osokine02distnetworks}, \cite{kubiatowicz00oceanstore}. However, 
it is unknown 
+whether all proposed algorithms can preserve logarithmic efficiency and 
scalability properties 
+in real-life applications or not; several tightly structured systems
+assume that participating peers are homogeneous, and the rate of join or leave 
operation is low \cite{gurmeet03symphony,
+\cite{libennowell01observations}}.  
 
 To end user, the biggest difference between these systems is how data lookups 
are performed. Loosely
 structured systems provide more rich and user friendly way of searching data 
than tightly structured systems 
 as they have a support for keyword searches. Tightly structured 
 systems support only exact key lookups since each data item is identified by 
globally unique keys.
 
-In the end, both systems have open problems and issues. We will discuss these 
aspects more detail in 
-chapter 3. Table \ref{table_comparison_approach} lists the key differences 
between the loosely structured 
+Table \ref{table_comparison_approach} lists the key differences between the 
loosely structured 
 approach and the tightly structured approach.
 
 
@@ -609,7 +606,7 @@
 
 
 
-\subsection{Algorithms}
+\section{Algorithms}
 
 Table \ref{table_Peer-to-Peer_algorithms} lists proposed Peer-to-Peer 
algorithms 
 and their key properties with regard to performance and scalability. The list