AN EFFICIENT AND DELAY TOLERANT PEER-TO ...

ISSN 2277-2685 IJESR/May 2015/ Vol-5/Issue-5/256-264 V. Sachin et. al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

AN EFFICIENT AND DELAY TOLERANT PEER-TO-PEER FILE SHARING IN DISCONNECTED MANETS V. Sachin*1, S. Venu Gopal2 1

M Tech Student, Dept. of CSE, Vardhaman College of Engineering, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. 2

Assoc. Prof, Vardhaman College of Engineering, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.

ABSTRACT New services offered by telecommunication firms and content suppliers that expose customers to spatial data have already arrived. Such services offer news, traffic or weather reports, maps, guide books, music and video files, games, notifications concerning changes in environmental conditions and points of interest. Access to data can become as necessary as voice communications for wireless roaming through metropolitan areas. This paper presents 7DS, a unique peer-to-peer knowledge sharing system. Peers are often either mobile or stationary and also the exchange of knowledge among peers that aren't essentially connected to the net.In MANETs consisting of digital devices, nodes area unit perpetually moving, forming disconnected MANETs with timeserving node encountering. During this paper, we have a tendency to propose a P2P content-based file sharing system, particularly SPOON, for disconnected MANETs. The system uses associate degree interest extraction formula to derive a node’s interests from its files for content-based file looking.

INTRODUCTION A computer network, or simply a network, is a collection of computers and other hardware components interconnected by communication channels that allow sharing of resources and information. Where at least one process in one device is able to send/receive data to/from at least one process residing in a remote device, then the two devices are said to be in a network. Simply, more than one computer interconnected through a communication medium for information interchange is called a computer network. In client-server network architecture, however, certain computers are designated for full-time server duty, while others (such as user workstations) are full-time clients. For example, a file server will house hard drives containing files that all network users can access from their personal workstations. After working on a file, the user can then save the changes back to the server for safekeeping and collaboration. Another example would be a server set up as a dedicated 'post office' for an entire organization, collecting everyone's email from outside sources for internal distribution and serving as the transporter for all outgoing email. In this case each user's computer would be a client of the mail server. The client/server model is a computing model that acts as a distributed application which partitions tasks or workloads between the providers of a resource or service, called servers, and service requesters, called clients. Often clients and servers communicate over a computer network on separate hardware, but both client and server may reside in the same system. A server machine is a host that is running one or more server programs which share their resources with clients. A client does not share any of its resources, but requests a server's content or service function. Clients therefore initiate communication sessions with servers which await incoming requests. The client/server characteristic describes the relationship of cooperating programs in an application. The server component provides a function or service to one or many clients, which initiate requests for such services. A notable example of this is the way OpenGL treats the video card of a computer as a server, with the actual application making rendering requests to it. This model is further solidified with the OpenGL Shading

*Corresponding Author

www.ijesr.org

256

V. Sachin et. al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research Language, with the user writing small programs that live in video memory, and are requested from the main program through the graphics driver. Functions such as email exchange, web access and database access are built on the client/server model. Users accessing banking services from their computer use a web browser client to send a request to a web server at a bank. That web server runs a program which may in turn, forward the request to its own database client program, which sends a request to the bank's database server (which runs on another computer) to retrieve the account information. The balance and transaction records are returned to the bank database client, which in turn serves it back to the user's web browser client, displaying the results to the user. The client to server model has become one of the central ideas of network computing. Many business applications being written today use the client to server model, as do the Internet's main application protocols, such as HTTP, SMTP, Telnet, and DNS. P2P is a distributed application architecture that partitions tasks or workloads among peers. Peers are equally privileged participants in the application. Each computer in the network is referred to as a node. The owner of each computer on a P2P network would set aside a portion of its resources - such as processing power, disk storage, or network bandwidth - to be made directly available to other network participant, without the need for central coordination by servers or stable hosts. With this model, peers are both suppliers and consumers of resources, in contrast to the traditional client to server model where only the server supply (send), and clients consume (receive). Emerging collaborative P2P systems are going beyond the era of peers doing similar things while sharing resources, and are looking for diverse peers that can bring in unique resources and capabilities to a virtual community thereby empowering it to engage in greater tasks beyond that can be accomplished by individual peers, yet are beneficial to all the peers. Peer-to-peer systems often implement an abstract overlay network, built at Application Layer, on top of the native or physical network topology. Such overlays are used for indexing and peer discovery and make the P2P system independent from the physical network topology. Content is typically exchanged directly over the underlying Internet Protocol (IP) network. Anonymous peer-to-peer systems are an exception, and implement extra routing layers to obscure the identity of the source or destination user/node. A pure P2P network does not have the notion of clients or servers but only equal peer nodes that simultaneously function as both "clients" and "servers" to the other nodes on the network. This model of network arrangement differs from the client to server model where communication is usually to and from a central server. A typical example of a file transfer that does not use the P2P model is the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service in which the client and server programs are distinct: the clients initiate the transfer, and the servers satisfy these requests. The P2P overlay network consists of all the participating peers as network nodes. There are links between any two nodes that know each other: i.e. if a participating peer knows the location of another peer in the P2P network, then there is a directed edge from the former node to the latter in the overlay network. Based on how the nodes in the overlay network are linked to each other, we can classify the P2P networks as structured or unstructured. In structured P2P networks, peers are organized following specific criteria and algorithms, which lead to overlays with specific topologies and properties. They typically use distributed hash table (DHT) based indexing, such as in the Chord system (MIT). Structured P2P systems are appropriate for large-scale implementations due to high scalability and some guarantees on performance (typically approximating O(log N), where N is the number of nodes in the P2P system). Unstructured P2P networks do not impose any structure on the overlay networks. Peers in these networks connect in an ad-hoc fashion based on some loose set of rules. Ideally, unstructured P2P systems would have absolutely no centralized elements/nodes, but in practice there are several types of unstructured systems with various degrees of centralization. Three categories can easily be seen: In pure peer-to-peer systems the entire network consists solely of equipotent peers. There is only one routing layer, as there are no preferred nodes with any special infrastructure function.

Copyright © 2015 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved

257

V. Sachin et. al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research In centralized peer-to-peer systems, a central server is used for indexing functions and to bootstrap the entire system. Although this has similarities with a structured architecture, the connections between peers are not determined by any algorithm. Hybrid peer-to-peer systems allow such infrastructure nodes to exist often called super nodes. The first prominent and popular peer-to-peer file sharing system, Napster, was an example of the centralized model. Free net and early implementations of the gnutella protocol, on the other hand, are examples of the decentralized model. Modern gnutella implementations, Gnutella2, as well as the now deprecated Kazaa network are examples of the hybrid model.

STRUCTURED SYSTEMS Structured P2P networks employ a globally consistent protocol to ensure that any node can efficiently route a search to some peer that has the desired file/resource, even if the resource is extremely rare. Such a guarantee necessitates a more structured pattern of overlay links. The most common type of structured P2P networks implement a distributed hash table (DHT), in which a variant of consistent hashing is used to assign ownership of each file to a particular peer, in a way analogous to a traditional hash table's assignment of each key to a particular array slot. Though the term DHT is commonly used to refer to the structured overlay, in practice, DHT is a data structure implemented on top of a structured overlay.

UNSTRUCTURED SYSTEMS An unstructured P2P network is formed when the overlay links are established arbitrarily. Such networks can be easily constructed as a new peer that wants to join the network can copy existing links of another node and then form its own links over time. In an unstructured P2P network, if a peer wants to find a desired piece of data in the network, the query has to be flooded through the network to find as many peers as possible that share the data. The main disadvantage with such networks is that the queries may not always be resolved. Popular content is likely to be available at several peers and any peer searching for it is likely to find the same thing. But if a peer is looking for rare data shared by only a few other peers, then it is highly unlikely that search will be successful. Since there is no correlation between a peer and the content managed by it, there is no guarantee that flooding will find a peer that has the desired data. Flooding also causes a high amount of signaling traffic in the network and hence such networks typically have very poor search efficiency. Many of the popular P2P networks are unstructured. In pure P2P networks: Peers act as equals, merging the roles of clients and server. In such networks, there is no central server managing the network, neither is there a central router. Some examples of pure P2P Application Layer networks designed for peer-to-peer file sharing are gnutella (pre v0.4) and Freenet. There also exist hybrid P2P systems, which distribute their clients into two groups: client nodes and overlay nodes. Typically, each client is able to act according to the momentary need of the network and can become part of the respective overlay network used to coordinate the P2P structure. This division between normal and 'better' nodes is done in order to address the scaling problems on early pure P2P networks. As examples for such networks can be named modern implementations of gnutella (after v0.4) and Gnutella2 Another type of hybrid P2P network are networks using on the one hand central server(s) or bootstrapping mechanisms, on the other hand P2P for their data transfers. These networks are in general called 'centralized networks' because of their lack of ability to work without their central server(s). An example for such a network is the eDonkey network (often also called eD2k).

Copyright © 2015 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved

258

V. Sachin et. al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

ADVANTAGES In a peer to peer network, a software application can be installed on a single computer and shared by every computer in the network. They also are cheaper to set up because most desktop operating systems have the software required for the network installed by default. Client-server networks tend to have faster access speeds because of the large number of clients they are designed to support. The clients are allowed to function as workstations without sharing any resources. It is easier to upgrade software applications and files because they are held on one single computer. Systemwide services can be provided through the server software. Security is enhanced on a client server network because the security is handled by the server. Client-server networks can be extended in order to handle organizational growth. The extent of the growth is only dependent on the hardware available.

COMPARISON B/W CLIENT SERVER AND PEER-TO-PEER ARCHITECTURE A client/server network involves multiple clients connecting to a single, central server. The file server on a client/server network must have robust hardware configurations to handle large volumes of client service requests. Hence servers usually are high speed computers with large hard disk capacity. By contrast, peer-to-peer networks involve two or more computers pooling individual resources such as disk drives, CD-ROMs and printers. These shared resources are available to every computer in the network, while each of them communicates in a session. Each computer acts as both the client and the server which means all the computers on the network are equals, that is where the term peer-to-peer comes from. The advantage of peer-to-peer networking is the easier control concept not requiring any additional coordination entity and not delaying transfers by routing via server entities. However, the collision of session may be larger than with routing via server nodes. In the peer to peer network, software applications can be installed on the single computer and shared by every computer in the network. They are also cheaper to set up because most desktop operating systems have the software required for the network installed by default. On the other hand, the client/server model works with any size or physical layout of LAN and doesn't tend to slow down with a heavy use. Peer-to-peer networks are typically less secure than a client/server networks because security is handled by the individual computers, not controlled and supervised on the network as a whole. The resources of the computers in the network can become congested as they have to support not only the workstation user, but also the requests from network users. It may be difficult to provide system wide services when the client operating system typically used in this type of network is incapable of hosting the service. Client/server networks with their additional capacities have a higher initial setup cost for networking than peer to peer networks. The long-term aspect of administering a client/server network with applications largely serverhosted surely saves administering effort compared to administering the application settings per each client. In addition the concentration of functions in performance servers allows for lower grade performance qualification of the clients.

Copyright © 2015 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved

259

V. Sachin et. al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research It is possible to set up a server on a modern desktop computer, but it is recommended to consider investment in enterprise-wide server facilities with standardized choice of hardware and software and with a systematic and remotely operable administering strategy. It is easier to configure and manage the server hardware and software compared to the distributed administering requirements with a flock of computers.

LITERATURE SURVEY 1) A Reputation-Based Approach for Choosing Reliable Resources in Peer-to-Peer Networks---> Ernesto, Damiani Sabrina, De Capitani di Vimercati Stefano Paraboschi. In this paper, we propose an approach that uses combined reputations of servants and resources, providing more informative polling’s and overcoming the limitations of servant based only solutions. Servant reputations are associated with the servant identifier, which has to be tamper resistant. 2) Trust and Reputation Model in Peer-to-Peer Networks---> Yao Wang, Julita Vassileva In this paper, author proposes a Bayesian network-based trust model and a method for building reputation based on recommendations in peer-to-peer networks. Since trust is multi-faceted, peers need to develop differentiated trust in different aspects of other peers’ capability. The peer’s needs are different in different situations. Depending on the situation, a peer may need to consider its trust in a specific aspect of another peer’s capability or in multiple aspects. 3) Trust Me: Anonymous Management of Trust Relationships in Decentralized P2P Systems--> Aameek Singh, Ling Liu In this paper, we motivate the importance of anonymity, especially in such trust based systems. We then present TrustMe a secure and anonymous underlying protocol for trust management. The protocol provides mutual anonymity for both the trust host and the trust querying peer. 4) Managing Trust in a Peer-2-Peer Information System ---> Karl Aberer, Zoran Despotovic In this paper, author presents an approach that addresses the problem of reputation based trust management and the semantic level. Author employs at both levels scalable data structures and allow to access trust by computing an agents reputation from its former interaction with other agent

EXISTING SYSTEM In flooding-based methods exploits the mobility of nodes within a geographic area to disseminate web content among neighbors. It uses local broadcasting for content searching and sets up content indexes on nodes along the reply path to guide subsequent searching. In another method each file holder regularly broadcasts an advertisement message to inform surrounding nodes about its files. These flooding-based methods produce high overhead due to broadcasting. Though the advertisement-based methods reduce the overhead of flooding-based methods, but they still generate high overhead for advertising and cannot guarantee the success of file searching due to node mobility.

PROPOSED SYSTEM In our proposed method, the file is contented based on the frequent query processes regarding the files. In our proposed technique, we are considering the disconnected MANET as community. In our proposed system, we take advantage of different types of node mobility for file sharing We define community coordinator and ambassador nodes in the view of a social network. A community coordinator is an important and popular node in the community. It keeps indexes of all files in its community. Each community has one ambassador for each known foreign community, which serves as the bridge to the community.

ALGORITHM 1) Set Interest I, set the timer Ti, neighbor list as empty Nbi=={} 2) If timer expire a. Update Pos ----->Px, Py b. Attach c. Check the neighbor count Copyright © 2015 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved

260

V. Sachin et. al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research d.

If

// count is greater than threshold normal user count i. If 1.

Set as coordinator

1.

Set as Normal node

1.

// amb node not exist Set Amb

ii. Else e.

If i. If ii. Else

1. Set as Normal node f. Attach node type in Hello g. Broadcast Hello 3) If node needs file a. Generate the search query with content info b. Broadcast query 4) If pkt recv a. Pkt is Hello i. Update the neighbor info b. Pkt is search query i. If the node is normal node 1. If File_name a. Ignore the query 2. Else a. Send reply ii. If node is (coordinator | amb) 1. If File_name a. ReBroadcast 2. Else a. Send reply c. Pkt is reply i. If node is requested node 1. Send data req ii. Else 1. Forward req d. Pkt is Data req i. If nodes is dst of Req 1. Send the file ii. Else 1. Forward e. Pkt is Data i. If data is frequently queried 1. Cache the data ii. Else 1. Forward iii. If node is dest 1. Accept the data

Copyright © 2015 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved

261

V. Sachin et. al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

In the figure the outer color indicates the grade of the nodes. The Blue Color indicated the normal nodes. The red color node indicates the ambassador node and the yellow color indicates the co-coordinator node.

The normal nodes are in the same coordinator and with the same coverage range they can communicate with each other. Suppose if they are in the different range and different co coordinator means, the normal nodes can communicate with the coordinator node, the coordinator node will communicate the ambassador node. The ambassador will communicate with the destination coordinator and the destination coordinator will communicate with the destinations.

Copyright © 2015 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved

262

V. Sachin et. al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

CONCLUSION In this proposed work we have done the efficient communication and high security and we reduced the delay compared with the existing one. It keeps the index of all the files so we can easily access the data from the peers so that we improved the performance of the network.

FUTURE WORK As we have done the proposed work with the efficient manager in future we are going to save the energy efficient in the network. To do this achievement we are going to select the path based on the energy level.

REFERENCES [1] Cerf V. Et. al. Delay-Tolerant Networking Architecture. IETF RFC 4838, 2007. [2] Helgason OR, Yavuz EA, Kouyoumdjieva ST, Pajevic L, Karlsson G. A mobile peer-to-peer system for opportunistic content-centric networking. Proc. ACM SIGCOMM Workshop Networking, Systems, and Applications MobiHeld, New Delhi, India, 2010; 21–26. [3] CROWD: Consumer Generated crowd.lip6.fr/index.php/Main/HomePage

Mobile

Wireless

Media

[Online].

Available:

http://anr-

[4] Herve N, Marco Z, Bjorn P. Delay tolerant network on smartphones: Applications for communication challenged areas. Proc. Extreme Com, Manaus, Brazil, 2011. [5] Kounev S, Buchmann A. SimQPN: A tool and methodology for analyzing queueing petri net models by means of simulation. Perf. Evaluat. 2006; 63(4–5): 364–394. [6] Keranen A, Ott J, Karkkainen T. The ONE simulator for DTN protocol evaluation. Proc. Int. Conf. SIMUTools, Rome, Italy, 2009; 55: 1–55:10. [7] Matsuda T, Takine T. (p,q)-Epidemic routing for sparsely populated mobile ad hoc networks. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun 2008; 26(5): 783–793. [8] Spyropoulos T, Member S, Psounis K, Raghavendra C. Single-copy routing in intermittently connected mobile networks. Proc. SECON, 2004; 235–244. [9] Groenevelt R, Nain P, Koole G. The message delay in mobile ad hoc networks. Perf. Eval 2005; 62(1–4): 210–228. [10] Small TM. Modeling tradeoffs in intermittent-connectivity networks, Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA, 2005. [11] Zhang X, Neglia G, Kurose J, Towsley D. Performance modeling of epidemic routing. Comput. Netw. 2007; 51(10): 2867–2891. [12] Haas P. Stochastic Petri Nets: Modelling, Stability, Simulation. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag, 2002. [13] Li Y, Hui P, Jin D, Su L, Zeng L. Performance evaluation of routing schemes for energy-constrained delay tolerant networks. Proc. IEEE ICC, Kyoto, Japan, 2011; 1–5. [14] Mahendran V, Praveen T, Murthy CSR. Buffer dimensioning of delay-tolerant network nodes - A large deviations approach. Proc. ICDCN, 2012;502–512. [15] Pitkanen M, Keranen A, Ott J. Message fragmentation in opportunistic DTNs. Proc. Int. Symp. WoWMoM, Newport Beach, CA, USA, 2008; 1–7. [16] Chen IR, Bao F, Chang M, Cho JH. Trust management for encounter-based routing in delay tolerant networks. Proc. GLOBECOM, Miami, FL, USA, 2010; 1–6.

Copyright © 2015 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved

263

V. Sachin et. al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research [17] Garetto M, Gribaudo M. Performance analysis of delay tolerant networks with model checking techniques. Proc. Int. Conf. QEST, Riverside, CA, USA, 2006; 73–82. [18] Lindgren A, Phanse K. Evaluation of queueing policies and forwarding strategies for routing in intermittently connected networks. Proc. Int. Conf. COMSWARE, New Delhi, India, 2006; 1–10. [19] Mahendran V, Praveen T, Murthy CSR. Impact of persistent storage on the DTN routing performance. Proc. ICDCN, 2012, Hong Kong, China, 513–524. [20] Zeng R, Lin C, Jiang Y, Chu X, Liu F. Performance analysis of data management in sensor data storage via stochastic petri nets. Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM, Miami, FL, USA, 2010; 1–5. [21] Xiong C, Murata T, Tsai J. Modeling and simulation of routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks using colored petri nets. Proc. CRPIT, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia, 2002; 145–153. [22] Zhang C, Zhou M. A stochastic petri net-approach to modeling and analysis of ad hoc network. Proc. Int. Conf. ITRE, 2003; 152–156. [23] Bettstetter C, Hartenstein H, Perez-Costa X. Stochastic properties of the random waypoint mobility model. Wireless Netw 2004; 10(5): 555–567. [24] Groenevelt R. Stochastic models for mobile ad hoc networks, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France, 2005. [25] Sridhar K, Chan MC. Modeling link lifetime data with parametric regression models in MANETs. IEEE Commun. Lett. 2009; 13(12): 983-985. [26] Ibe O. Markov Processes for Stochastic Modeling, 1st ed. London, U.K.: Academic Press, 2008. [27] Papoulis A. Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes, 4th ed. Boston, MA, USA: McGrawHill Companies, 2002.

Copyright © 2015 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved

264