Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement 2006
DOI: 10.1145/1177080.1177106
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Rarest first and choke algorithms are enough

Abstract: The performance of peer-to-peer file replication comes from its piece and peer selection strategies. Two such strategies have been introduced by the BitTorrent protocol: the rarest first and choke algorithms. Whereas it is commonly admitted that BitTorrent performs well, recent studies have proposed the replacement of the rarest first and choke algorithms in order to improve efficiency and fairness. In this paper, we use results from real experiments to advocate that the replacement of the rarest first and cho… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
236
0
11

Year Published

2007
2007
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 302 publications
(254 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
236
0
11
Order By: Relevance
“…In contrast, the second policy, called weight by maximum excess wait (EW), weights files not by the number of "excess-wait" requesting peers, but according to the longest excess wait time (i.e., time-in-system beyond the expected download time for a self-sustaining torrent), among such peers, with weight zero given if there is no such peer. 5 Finally, we define a policy called weight by product of the maximum excess wait and number of excess-wait peers (EW x NEWP) that uses the product of the two preceding metrics to determine its weights. Similar to RxW [19], this policy attempts to strike a balance between considerations of time in system, and number of requesters, in determining its weights.…”
Section: Prioritized Server Schedulingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, the second policy, called weight by maximum excess wait (EW), weights files not by the number of "excess-wait" requesting peers, but according to the longest excess wait time (i.e., time-in-system beyond the expected download time for a self-sustaining torrent), among such peers, with weight zero given if there is no such peer. 5 Finally, we define a policy called weight by product of the maximum excess wait and number of excess-wait peers (EW x NEWP) that uses the product of the two preceding metrics to determine its weights. Similar to RxW [19], this policy attempts to strike a balance between considerations of time in system, and number of requesters, in determining its weights.…”
Section: Prioritized Server Schedulingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our aim is to come up with a solution that minimizes the content download time while at the same time improving collaboration by enforcing fair sharing among peers. As efficient and fair content sharing is targeted, we choose to adapt BitTorrent [1] as a file sharing protocol given its large usage and its known close to optimal performances in the wired Internet [13]. When data is distributed using BitTorrent, interested peers supply pieces of the data to other peers, reducing the burden on any individual peer, providing redundancy in the network, and reducing dependency on the original seed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…BitTorrent (see e.g., [1], [13]) is a scalable P2P content distribution protocol. Each client shares some of its upload bandwidth with other peers interested in the same content in order to increase the global system capacity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When selecting a piece, a peer chooses the piece with the least redundancy in its neighborhood. Rarest first is supposed to increase the diversity of pieces [6].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%