2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.comcom.2007.05.039
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fair resource allocation in peer-to-peer networks (extended version)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
16
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In reality, it is hard to measure both c j and µ j accurately, and hence it is difficult to pre-allocate F j . Even if we were able to allocate each F j precisely proportional to µ j c j , the possible temporal correlation of fluctuation in the service capacity of each source peer will result in a strict inequality in (11) and so does the heterogeneity in the average capacity with different source peers for the inequality in (14). The naive "connect-and-wait" strategy for each of the parallel connections is thus unlikely to achieve an equality in (8), and therefore we need to consider different algorithms to achieve such equality if at all possible.…”
Section: Achievable Minimum Average Download Timementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In reality, it is hard to measure both c j and µ j accurately, and hence it is difficult to pre-allocate F j . Even if we were able to allocate each F j precisely proportional to µ j c j , the possible temporal correlation of fluctuation in the service capacity of each source peer will result in a strict inequality in (11) and so does the heterogeneity in the average capacity with different source peers for the inequality in (14). The naive "connect-and-wait" strategy for each of the parallel connections is thus unlikely to achieve an equality in (8), and therefore we need to consider different algorithms to achieve such equality if at all possible.…”
Section: Achievable Minimum Average Download Timementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accordingly, many incentive algorithms have been developed so as to encourage peers to contribute to the network [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. However, even if all peers in the network are altruistic, we are still far away from enjoying the performance predicted by [5], [14].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Eger and Killat (2007) applied resource pricing into P2P networks to ensure fair allocation of resources based on the congestion pricing principle known from IP networks. Zghaibeh and Harmantzis (2008) proposed a lottery-based pricing mechanism to enhance the sharing level in P2P networks and help increase the number of objects disseminated.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Generally, pricing mechanisms mainly concentrate on motivating users to share resource with others and not declining other users' requests by relating their behaviors to a financial utility or mechanism. Several interesting pricing approaches have been presented for P2Ps in recent years, for example, the lottery-based scheme (Zghaibeh and Harmantzis, 2008), the Lagrangian multiplier method (Eger and Killat, 2007;Koutsopoulos and Iosifidis, 2010;Neely and Golubchik, 2011), the microeconomics-based approach (Kumar et al, 2011;Analoui and Rezvani, 2011), auction-based mechanisms Zuo and Zhang, 2013), and game-based ones (Park and Van Der Schaar, 2010;Nakano and Okaie, 2010;Okaie and Nakano, 2012;Kang and Wu, 2015;Lin et al, 2015). In this paper we propose a pricing scheme to achieve reasonable resource allocation in P2P file-sharing networks.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[6] proposes a service differentiated peer selection algorithm that gives peers with higher contributions more flexibility in choosing neighbors, thus obtain better viewing quality. Some measurement and theoretical studies on P2P incentives can be found in [5,19]. We use taxation mechanisms to strike the right balance between social welfare and individual welfare.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%