2005
DOI: 10.1007/11558989_21
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

High Availability in DHTs: Erasure Coding vs. Replication

Abstract: High availability in peer-to-peer DHTs requires data redundancy. This paper compares two popular redundancy schemes: replication and erasure coding. Unlike previous comparisons, we take the characteristics of the nodes that comprise the overlay into account, and conclude that in some cases the benefits from coding are limited, and may not be worth its disadvantages.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
235
0
10

Year Published

2005
2005
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 282 publications
(247 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
2
235
0
10
Order By: Relevance
“…The closest related works are on the repair problem, providing mechanisms for preserving the level of redundancy when one or more nodes fail or leave the system [25]. To this end, different symmetric and asymmetric network and erasure coding mechanisms have been proposed [26], [22], [27] that either rebuild a node with the same functionality as the failed node (functional repair) from the surviving nodes [22], [27], or reconstruct an exact copy of the failed node (exact repair) [28]. In [22], the notion of regenerating codes has been introduced to decrease the repair bandwidth by allowing a new node to communicate functions of the stored data from the surviving nodes.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The closest related works are on the repair problem, providing mechanisms for preserving the level of redundancy when one or more nodes fail or leave the system [25]. To this end, different symmetric and asymmetric network and erasure coding mechanisms have been proposed [26], [22], [27] that either rebuild a node with the same functionality as the failed node (functional repair) from the surviving nodes [22], [27], or reconstruct an exact copy of the failed node (exact repair) [28]. In [22], the notion of regenerating codes has been introduced to decrease the repair bandwidth by allowing a new node to communicate functions of the stored data from the surviving nodes.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Examples of erasure codes are Reed Solomon codes (Plank, 1997), and RNNS (Barsi & Maestrini, 1973). In (Rodrigues & Liskov, 2005), the authors studied the use of erasure codes in peer-to-peer networks with frequent changes in peers' membership. Previous comparisons (Weatherspoon & Kubiatowicz, 2002) mostly argue that erasure coding is the clear victor, due to huge storage savings for the same availability levels (or conversely, huge availability gains for the same storage levels).…”
Section: Dependability Mechanismsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Assume a five years MTTF unit , under the exponential assumption we calculate the probabilities that a data can survive a four months epoch and a 12 months epoch respectively, and get 91.1% and 75.6%. However the real probability is greater than [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] 16 for four months, and greater than 1-10 8 for 12 months.…”
Section: Impact Of Session Durability On System Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a result, how to improve the availability and the reliability has become a critical and heated issue in the system design. Some approaches, such as TotalRecall [1] and OceanStore [2], have been proposed to improve the reliability as well as availability, and some analytical works have been done, for instance, [3], [4] and [5].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%