ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Contributing storage using the transparent file system
Full text PdfPdf (711 KB)
Source
ACM Transactions on Storage (TOS) archive
Volume 3 ,  Issue 3  (October 2007) table of contents
Article No. 12  
Year of Publication: 2007
ISSN:1553-3077
Authors
James Cipar  University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA
Mark D. Corner  University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA
Emery D. Berger  University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 9,   Downloads (12 Months): 104,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1288783.1288787
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Contributory applications allow users to donate unused resources on their personal computers to a shared pool. Applications such as SETI@home, Folding@home, and Freenet are now in wide use and provide a variety of services, including data processing and content distribution. However, while several research projects have proposed contributory applications that support peer-to-peer storage systems, their adoption has been comparatively limited. We believe that a key barrier to the adoption of contributory storage systems is that contributing a large quantity of local storage interferes with the principal user of the machine.

To overcome this barrier, we introduce the Transparent File System (TFS). TFS provides background tasks with large amounts of unreliable storage—all of the currently available space—without impacting the performance of ordinary file access operations. We show that TFS allows a peer-to-peer contributory storage system to provide 40% more storage at twice the performance when compared to a user-space storage mechanism. We analyze the impact of TFS on replication in peer-to-peer storage systems and show that TFS does not appreciably increase the resources needed for file replication.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
 
2
 
3
4
 
5
Card, R., Ts'o, T., and Tweedie, S. 1994. Design and implementation of the second extended filesystem. In Proceedings of the 1st Dutch International Symposium on Linux, Laboratoire MASI, Institut Blaise Pascal and Massachussets Institute of Technology and University of Edinburgh.
 
6
Chu, J., Labonte, K., and Levine, B. N. 2002. Availability and locality measurements of peer-to-peer file systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Scalability and Traffic Control in IP Networks (ITCom).
 
7
 
8
9
10
 
11
 
12
Freenet. 2007. Freenet FAQ. http://freenetproject.org/faq.html.
13
 
14
Guha, S., Daswani, N., and Jain, R. 2006. An experimental study of the Skype peer-to-peer VoIP system. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS), Santa Barbara, CA.
15
16
 
17
Larson, S. M., Snow, C. D., Shirts, M., and Pande, V. S. 2002. Computational Genomics. Horizon. Folding@Home and Genome@Home: Using distributed computing to tackle previously intractable problems in computational biology.
 
18
Leonard, O. C., Neigh, J., Zadok, E., Osborn, J., Shater, A., and Wright, C. 2002. The design and implementation of elastic quotas. Tech. Rep. CUCS-014-02, Columbia University. June.
 
19
 
20
Mahajan, R., Castro, M., and Rowstron, A. 2003. Controlling the cost of reliability in peer-to-peer overlays. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS).
21
 
22
 
23
Microsoft Corporation. 2007. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/c28621675.mspx.
24
 
25
Ousterhout, J. K. 1990. Why aren't operating systems getting faster as fast as hardware? In Proceedings of the USENIX Summer Conference, 247--256.
26
 
27
Rhea, S., Geels, D., Roscoe, T., and Kubiatowicz, J. 2003. Handling churn in a DHT. Tech. Rep. UCB/CSD-03-1299, EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley.
 
28
Rodrigues, R. and Liskov, B. 2005. High availability in DHTs: Erasure coding vs. replication. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS).
 
29
Rowstron, A. and Druschel, P. 2001a. Pastry: Scalable, decentralized object location, and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems. In Proceedings of the Middleware Conference.
30
 
31
32
 
33
Stutzbach, D. and Rejaie, R. 2004. Towards a better understanding of churn in peer-to-peer networks. Tech. Rep. UO-CIS-TR-04-06, Department of Computer Science, University of Oregon. November.
34

Collaborative Colleagues:
James Cipar: colleagues
Mark D. Corner: colleagues
Emery D. Berger: colleagues