User:Paulopennings/sandbox: Difference between revisions
first version threats |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Leechers, peers that download more than they upload, are a threat to peer-to-peer file sharing and the practice of seeding. Where the goal of seeding is to upload more than to download, thus contributing to the sharing of content, leechers stop uploading as soon as their download is finished. What this means is that seeders must upload more parts of the data bulk in order to guarantee a healthy download. Leeching is also referred to as free-riding, temporal downloading users that, by not seeding, do not support the distribution of content. |
Leechers, peers that download more than they upload, are a threat to peer-to-peer file sharing and the practice of seeding. Where the goal of seeding is to upload more than to download, thus contributing to the sharing of content, leechers stop uploading as soon as their download is finished. What this means is that seeders must upload more parts of the data bulk in order to guarantee a healthy download. Leeching is also referred to as free-riding, temporal downloading users that, by not seeding, do not support the distribution of content. |
||
Although leeching is a threat to peer-to-peer sharing and an opposite of seeding, it is not regarded as a immediate problem. With downloads rising, upload is still guaranteed, though few contributors in the system |
Although leeching is a threat to peer-to-peer sharing and an opposite of seeding, it is not regarded as a immediate problem. With downloads rising, upload is still guaranteed, though few contributors in the system account for most services.<ref>Yang, S., Jin, H., Liao, X., Yao, H., Huang, Q., Tu, X. (2009). ''Measuring Web Feature Impacts In Peer-To-Peer File Sharing Systems.'' Hushing University of Science and Technology</ref> |
||
== Opportunities == |
== Opportunities == |
||
Revision as of 20:45, 18 November 2015
In computing and specifically peer-to-peer file sharing, seeding is the uploading of already downloaded content for others to download from. A peer, a computer that is connected to the network, becomes a seed when having acquired the entire set of data. This data consists out of small parts so that seeds can effectively share their content with other peers, handing out the missing pieces. A peer deliberately chooses to become a seed by leaving on the upload task when content is downloaded. This means that there should be motivation to seed. The opposite of a seed is a leech (computing), a peer that downloads more than it uploads.
Background
Seeding is a practice within peer-to-peer file sharing, a content distribution model that connects computers with the use of a peer-to-peer (P2P) software program in order to share desired content. An example of such a peer-to-peer software program is BitTorrent. Peer-to-peer file sharing is different from the client-server model, where content is directly distributed from its server to a client. To make peer-to-peer file sharing function effectively, content is divided into parts of 256 kilobyte (KB). This segmented downloading makes the parts that peers miss be allocated by seeds. It also makes downloads go faster, as content can be exchanged between peers. All peers (including seeds) sharing the same content are called a swarm.[1]
Data shared via peer-to-peer file sharing contains shared file content, computing cycles and disk storage, among other resources.[2]
Motivations
In peer-to-peer file sharing, the strength of a swarm depends on user behaviour, as peers ideally upload more than they download. This is done by seeding, and there are different motivations to do this. There are two popular motivations to seed, of which one is the reputation-based incentive mechanism and the other is the tit for tat mechanism. As the name reveals, it is based on the reputation of a peer, meaning that those peers who have a good reputation will get a better treatment from the uploader.[3] The tit for tat mechanism prevents peers from downloading content if they do not upload to the peers they download from. The latter forces a peer to upload.[4]
Though it only is a social norm to seed, some scholars see the practice of uploading parts of the data bulk to others as a duty, claiming that “downloaders are forced to reward uploads in order to compensate for their resource consumption and encourage further altruistic behaviour.”[5] Other scholars are milder and believe that a group of highly motivated seeders could already provide a notion of fairness by scheduling when to seed.
Threats
Leechers, peers that download more than they upload, are a threat to peer-to-peer file sharing and the practice of seeding. Where the goal of seeding is to upload more than to download, thus contributing to the sharing of content, leechers stop uploading as soon as their download is finished. What this means is that seeders must upload more parts of the data bulk in order to guarantee a healthy download. Leeching is also referred to as free-riding, temporal downloading users that, by not seeding, do not support the distribution of content.
Although leeching is a threat to peer-to-peer sharing and an opposite of seeding, it is not regarded as a immediate problem. With downloads rising, upload is still guaranteed, though few contributors in the system account for most services.[6]
Opportunities
Opportunities.
Legal issues
Legal issues.
See also
Threats.
This is my first reference[7]. This is my second reference[8]. This is my third reference[9]. This is my fourth reference[10]. This is my fifth reference[11]. This is my sixth reference[12]. This is my seventh reference[13]. This is my eight reference[14].
References
- ^ Bera, D., Esposito, F., Matta, I., Michiardi, P. (2011). On The Impact Of Seed Scheduling In Peer-To-Peer Networks. Computer Science Department, Boston University
- ^ As-Sayid-Ahmad, L., Hawa, M., Khalif, L. (2012). On Enhancing Reputation Management Using Peer-To-Peer Interaction History. Springer Science and Business Media
- ^ As-Sayid-Ahmad, L., Hawa, M., Khalif, L. (2012). On Enhancing Reputation Management Using Peer-To-Peer Interaction History. Springer Science and Business Media
- ^ Hajek, B., Zhu, Ji. (2011). The Missing Piece Syndrome In Peer-To-Peer Communication. Department of Electrical And Computer Engineering
- ^ As-Sayid-Ahmad, L., Hawa, M., Khalif, L. (2012). On Enhancing Reputation Management Using Peer-To-Peer Interaction History. Springer Science and Business Media
- ^ Yang, S., Jin, H., Liao, X., Yao, H., Huang, Q., Tu, X. (2009). Measuring Web Feature Impacts In Peer-To-Peer File Sharing Systems. Hushing University of Science and Technology
- ^ Yang, S., Jin, H., Liao, X., Yao, H., Huang, Q., Tu, X. (2009). Measuring Web Feature Impacts In Peer-To-Peer File Sharing Systems. Hushing University of Science and Technology
- ^ Halldorson, U., Hasslinger, G., Sigurdsson, M. (2007). Potentials And Challenges Of Peer-To-Peer Based Content Distribution. Telematics And Informatics 24
- ^ Bera, D., Esposito, F., Matta, I., Michiardi, P. (2011). On The Impact Of Seed Scheduling In Peer-To-Peer Networks. Computer Science Department, Boston University
- ^ Hajek, B., Zhu, Ji. (2011). The Missing Piece Syndrome In Peer-To-Peer Communication. Department of Electrical And Computer Engineering
- ^ Hlavacs, H., Wiedlich, R., Treutner, T. (2011). Energy efficient peer-to-peer file sharing. Springer Science and Business Media
- ^ As-Sayid-Ahmad, L., Hawa, M., Khalif, L. (2012). On Enhancing Reputation Management Using Peer-To-Peer Interaction History. Springer Science and Business Media
- ^ Despotovic, Z., Hossfeld, T., Kellerer, W., Lehrieder, F., Oechsner, S., Michel, M. (2011). Mitigating Unfairness In Locality-Aware Peer-To-Peer Networks. International Journal Of Network Management
- ^ Epema, D., Meester, L., Meulpolder, M. (2012). The Problem Of Upload Competition In Peer-To-Peer Systems With Incentive Mechanisms. Concurrency And Computation: Practice And Experience