Talk:Peer-to-peer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as Top-importance).
 

OLTP[edit]

The article implies that P2P is a fairly recent invention utilizing the Internet. However, I recall first hearing the term "peer-to-peer" (before 1990) in the context of OLTP systems (primarily mainframe systems, such as CICS). Peer-to-peer was meant to replace the client-server model of programming, eliminating the restrictions placed on each process, so that it could operate on one context as a client and in other context as a server when communicating with multiple other processes. The article makes no mention of this history. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You are certainly right about earlier usages of these concepts and some are mentioned in the article (earlier today I tried to emphasize that in a new section). It will take some time to rework the article and balance out some of the bias that's presented. Contributing reliable sources would help the effort. Kbrose (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer[edit]

Peer are the persons who are same like you (like your age, abilities, rank or position) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.243.87 (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, and a server is a person who brings you food. I guess we should more explicitly define peer, though.   M   20:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Mesh and MANET articles[edit]

Mesh networking and Mobile ad hoc networks are two closely related concepts. These ad hoc networks do implement P2P principles, however since they are often embedded in hardware and deal with actual physical networks and not overlay networks they are seen as distinct from P2P.

In a sense, all digital networks are overlay networks, we just need a layer diagram to situate all of them... Anyone got a good one to share?

And so where should Ad hoc network redirect to? Ooskapenaar (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments in the article[edit]

I've rewritten (a bit) the first section, trying to semplify it. I've found some HTML comments, criticizing some sentence in the article. I don't know who wrote them, but I think they make some confusion. I list them here, with my opinion about them. My opinion is not explained with citations, if you think I'm wrong feel free to say it here.

Comment: Most DHTs are not 'structured'.
My opinion: I know that DHTs are structured by definition. The use itself of DHTs makes a network structured.
Comment: huh? all of them [Unstructured P2P systems] do [have an algorithm for organization of network connections], except direct connect/darknet-like networks, where people select their own peers. And is not this just ad-hoc?
My opinion: Unstructured P2P are systems where there is no algorithm for organization of topology and/or resource location. Think of launching sensors off a plane to a forrest. Every sensor is connected to other sensors within its range. The resulting P2P network can use P2P techniques (such as flooding) to operate, but its topology is clearly unstructured.
Comment: these categories are much too vague to be formally defined by us.
My opinion: Ok, "pure", "hybrid", "centralized", ... categories are a bit vague and sometimes overlapping, but we should give a yet vague definition, basing on how the terms are often used in scientific articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4nT0 (talkcontribs) 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I concur with your comments. These comments where added HERE after the article was cleanup previously. Kbrose (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! Hope to have some time in the near future to cleanup the whole page completely. --4nT0 (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Very good. This article topic was taken over at some point by file-sharing zealots with limited real knowledge who would like it that P2P has only that meaning. Kbrose (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree to your comments, 4nT0. Whoever made them didn't know much about the background of this topic...
mfg, OldDeath - 15:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


Proposed edits[edit]

Course Assignment[edit]

We will be editing this page over the next few weeks as part of our Online Communities course assignment at Cornell University. The course site can be found here.


Here are some potential plans that we currently have in mind for the article:

  • Some sections have already been designates as "requiring expansion". We intend to expand the "hybrid models" subsection and the "current research" section.
  • We want to add sections such as the "Social Impacts" & "Political Impacts" and subsections like "Legal Issues". The addition of these sections will make the article more connected as subsections such as "Incentivizing resource sharing and cooperation" would more appropriately fit under the Social Impacts, or under a more general subsection entitled "online collaboration.
  • Many of the subsections can be further developed and expanded, using some of the sources which we have outlined below.
  • We plan to implement some of the suggestions of other wikipedians in this talk page, and will work with other editors to improve this article.

Some sources which we would like to include to support our article include:

  • Networked Publics by Kazys Varnelis - a secondary work about new media trends which we see today in
  • Lawrence Lessig's work surrounding Remix Culture and its implications. His book will provide much support for discussing the paradigm shift that peer-to-peer collaboration has caused in modern society. We are considering including a video file of his TED talk, if we are able to get permission to post in on Wikipedia.
  • Zizi Papacharissi has several recent research papers which can help us develop the sections on the "Social Effects" and the "Political Implications"
  • There are multiple research papers available to help us as we develop the sections designated as "Requiring Expansion". Specifically, we are looking at papers such as Yang's (ref: http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/727/1/2001-36.pdf) to expand the Hybrid Models subsection.


Christian will oversee a restructuring of the article, and modification of the organizational structure in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. He will also assist the rest of the group in finding high quality sources, and assure the article's neutrality.

Josh will primarily create the new sections that we plan to add and citations to support the newly generated content.

Alyssa will primarily expand the existing sections in the article, ensuring that each subsection fits into the hierarchy of the article.


We look forward to working with you all! Please contact us with any feedback as we update the article!

CBCompton (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK Nomination[edit]

Just wanted to let you all know that we recently nominated this article for Did You Know Status. Please help us to continue to make this article great!


CBCompton (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


Hey guys, I'm gonna be editing the page in a few days. I was wondering what you thought of my edits right now. Feel free to modify them as you like. Cp123127 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Niteshgoyalwiki (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Feedback from Niteshgoyalwiki (talk)

  • Move the Template for Educational Assignment to the top of the Talk Page. Done. Good Job.
  • I'd advise being more proactive and talking to other users on the talk page by commenting back to them suggesting how you would like to incorporate their comments and suggestions. This should improve chances of communication.
  • Try to write content in an understandable language when you discuss some of the content (research papers etc.) Also discuss why these papers in particular are more important to be covered here than the rest of the research work.
  • Remember to nominate your article to did you know by the end of class on Oct 1.

Major edits[edit]

  • The Distributed hash tables section is much too technical. This should be left to the actual article to explain. On the peer to peer article, it should only serve to put peer to peer in more context. Additionally there is already a very good mention of distributed hash tables in Structured systems and I'm not sure whether that should serve as the only mention of DHTs in the article. Perhaps this section should be moved to the actual DHT page.
  • The Unstructured systems section in marginally inaccurate, as it says little about the bandwidth inefficiencies of flooding the network with a query, and makes no mention of Gossip protocol, though it is very relevant.
  • Social and economic impact is a little lacking and needs to be expanded.
  • Applications needs to be updated with new, relevant software using p2p, because there are not many new pieces of software there now.

Minor edits[edit]

  • The Advantages and Weaknesses section needs more structuring, and needs to be separated out into individual advantages and weaknesses.
  • The introduction lacks certain citations, uses unprofessional words: "the first P2P killer application", basic grammar mistakes, etc.
  • Perhaps there should be a new section under Architecture of P2P systems named "Hybrid systems", as after the portion on unstructured systems, it names hybrid systems but does not create a separate section for them.
  • Many of the projects referred to in Applications are not notable enough to warrant inclusion.
  • The article contains a couple of citation needed tags which need to be cleaned up.
  • Rename Peer-to-Peer (meme) to Social peer-to-peer processes, as it fits better



Feedback from Prof. Leshed
You are on the right path to making substantial improvements to this article. Good job! Here are two suggestions to ensure that your project is successful:
  • Reach out to other editors of this article to get their help, advice, and feedback on changes you are making or proposing to make. This means, going to their talk pages and posting a message there.
  • Ensure at least one of the group members is comfortable with the wiki markup language and is getting familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines and standards. This will make your contributions more substantial, and avoid mistakes such as User:CBCompton instead of CBCompton or Christian.
  • Sign all posts on the talk page with four tildes ~~~~ to avoid "unsigned" posts.
Happy editing! LeshedInstructor (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. You should post your planned outline on this talk page. It's always best to get some discussion before you make major changes to any article. That being said, your structure looks good. Also be sure to include information that's already in the page, making any corrections as necessary; restructuring a page should not remove anything of value, but should present existing (as well as new) info in a more readable way. Also be aware of the more general editing guidelines for Wikipedia. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hierarchy Changes[edit]

This is the new template we were considering implementing

 1. Historical Development
 2. Current Applications
   a. Communications
       i. Other P2P Applications
   b. Content Delivery
   c. File Sharing Networks
       i. Streaming Media
 3. Architecture
   a. Routing and Resource Recovery
       i. Hybrid Models
       ii. Structured Networks
       iii. Unstructured Networks
   b. Security and Trust
       i. Routing Attacks
       ii. Corrupted Data and Malware
   c. Creating more resilient and scalable computer networks
   d. Distributed storage and search
 4. Social Implications
   a. Demographics and Usage stats
   b. Incentivizing resource sharing and cooperation
   c. Privacy and Anonymity
   d. Economic Implications
       i. Music/Film
 5. Political Implications
   a. Network Politics
   b. Network neutrality
   c. Intellectual Property law and illegal sharing
 6. Current Research
   a. Future Trends


This change was implemented on 10/1 after consulting several Wikipedia editors who had previously made edits on the page. Feedback is greatly appreciated for our course project!

CBCompton (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Social Peer-to-peer processes integration?[edit]

As part of our course assignment, we were considering merging this article on Social peer-to-peer processes into this one. Please let us know your thoughts! CBCompton (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Information on the process can be seen at Wikipedia:Merging.. You can also propose a merger of the two pages by place the template {{merge| Social peer-to-peer processes|discuss=Talk:Peer-to-peer#Social Peer-to-peer processes integration?|date=November 2014}} at the top of each page - that links back to this page and this tlak. -- Moxy (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
In general, there are two approaches: 1. Combine the two articles, and 2. Reference one article from the other. It appears that the second approach is best, adding some material and links in the "Social implications" section in the p-to-p article, but leaving the two as separate articles. If you find too much duplication, and you think the two articles should be combined, then you should start a new discussion topic here to get other opinions. (Follow the process, as Moxy pointed out.) A cursory reading of the two articles, though, seems to indicate that they are different enough that they should be separate articles (to me, anyway). Others may feel differently, especially if they can find a logical way to combine the two concepts into a single article. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Confusion among multiple meanings of peer-to-peer[edit]

There are multiple meanings of "peer-to-peer" in the computer networking world, and this article creates confusion by lumping them together. A similar observation was noted in 2009 on this Talk page (see section "OLTP", above). The disambiguation page points out some of the multiple meanings, the first one (the one that links to this article) being "a distributed computing architecture." While that isn't very specific, it seems to refer to the notion of peer-to-peer in terms of the architecture of the network itself (e.g., network layer), not the applications that run on it. This is what was achieved in the early days by (if I'm not mistaken) network architectures such as ARPANET (Internet technology), X.25, XNS, and DECnet -- as opposed to, for example, IBM's SNA, which was hierarchical rather than peer-to-peer. This article fails to make this distinction. Note that both the DECnet and SNA articles link to this page, because those articles are using the term in the context of contrasting peer-to-peer vs. hierarchical network architectures.

Therefore, this article should focus mainly on "peer-to-peer" in the network architecture sense, and the other senses can be dealt with in other articles (like peer-to-peer file sharing). Either that, or this article should disambiguate the different meanings. As it stands, this article gives credit to such things as Napster and PeerLogic for being among the "earliest" peer-to-peer systems (which may be true in the sense of application architecture), when in reality, the earliest peer-to-peer systems were those network technologies being developed and used in the 70s and 80s (DECnet, etc.). -- HLachman (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)