Hive-based peer-to-peer network

• US 20080062870A1
• Filed: 09/12/2007
• Published: 03/13/2008
• Est. Priority Date: 09/12/2006
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Foleeo Incorporated
• Original Assignee: Foleeo Incorporated
• Inventors: Clower, Matthew J., Dean, Vada W., Parman, Ryan, Ross, Joseph E.
• Granted Patent: US 8,103,870 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 370/230
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 61/457 containing identifiers of data entities on a computer, e.g. file names
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 67/104 Peer-to-peer [P2P] networks
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 67/1061 using node-based peer discovery mechanisms static access to replicated servers H04L67/1006; service discovery H04L67/51
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 67/1063 Discovery through centralising entities
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 67/108 characterised by resources being split in blocks or fragments

Abstract

A collaborative data transferring process can combine segments from all known servers and peer-to-peer (P2P) sources simultaneously, regardless of their native protocols. The process uses variable data block size that can be dynamically selected according to sizes provided by sources, e.g., according to the protocol of the source, and can generate hash values or validation codes on the fly so that compliance with validation techniques (if any) of other protocols is not required. The process may be classified as a P2P protocol, although it also contains centralized elements. Machine language implementations and low syntax overhead allow file exchanges over a homogeneous network with high throughput and low bandwidth consumption.

Claims

1. A process comprising:

(a) identifying nodes on a network that have copies of desired content;

(b) requesting a first plurality of the nodes to respectively send pieces of the desired content to a requesting node;

(c) requesting that a second plurality of the nodes return remotely-calculated hash values for a portion of the desired content;

(d) calculating a local hash value from the portion as received at the requesting node; and

(e) comparing the local hash value and the remotely calculated hash values to determine whether the portion as received at the requesting node is valid.

2. The process of claim 1, wherein identifying the nodes comprises the requesting node contacting a centralized server that holds a list of the nodes having copies of the desired content.

3. The process of claim 1, wherein requesting that the first plurality of the nodes send the pieces of the desired content comprises requesting a first set of the pieces from a set of first nodes that implement a first peer-to-peer network protocol that includes calculation of the remotely-calculated hash values and requesting a second set of the pieces from a set of second nodes that do not implement the calculation of the remotely-calculated hash values,

4. The process of claim 3, wherein each the second nodes implements a peer-to-peer network protocol other than the first peer-to-peer network protocol.

5. The process of claim 3, wherein at least one of the second nodes implements a transfer protocol but does not implement a peer-to-peer network protocol.

6. The process of claim 1, wherein requesting that the first plurality of the nodes send the pieces of the desired content comprises requesting different size pieces respectively from the nodes.

7. The process of claim 6, wherein for each of the nodes, the requesting node selects the size of the piece requested according to capabilities of the node.

8. The process of claim 1, wherein the portion of the desired content for which the remotely-calculated hash values are requested is one of the pieces.

9. The process of claim 8, wherein the second plurality of the nodes does not include the node requested to send the piece.

10. The process of claim 1, wherein the portion of the desired content for which the remotely-calculated hash values are requested is not one of the pieces.

11. The process of claim 1, further comprising:

(f) determining that the portion as received at the requesting node is invalid in response to the local hash value differing from the remotely calculated hash values; and

(g) requesting the portion from one of the nodes when the portion as received at the requesting node is determined to be invalid.

12. The process of claim 11, further comprising repeating steps (d) to (g) until portions that collectively make up all of the desired content are received at the requesting node and are determined to be valid.

13. A computer readable media containing instructions that when executed perform the process of claim 1.

14. A process comprising:

(a) identifying nodes on a network that have copies of desired content;

(b) requesting that a first of the nodes send a first piece of the desired content to a requesting node, the first piece having a first size;

(c) requesting that a second of the nodes send a second piece of the desired content to the requesting node, the second piece having a second size that differs from the first size;

(d) requesting that a plurality of the nodes return first remotely-calculated hash values for the first piece of the desired content;

(e) calculating a first local hash value from the first piece as received at the requesting node;

(f) comparing the first local hash value and the first remotely calculated hash values to determine whether the first piece as received at the requesting node is valid.

(g) requesting that a plurality of the nodes return second remotely-calculated hash values for the second piece of the desired content;

(h) calculating a second local hash value from the second piece as received at the requesting node; and

(i) comparing the second local hash value and the second remotely calculated hash values to determine whether the second piece as received at the requesting node is valid.

15. The process of claim 14, wherein the first of the nodes implements a first peer-to-peer protocol allowing transfers of pieces of sizes selected on the fly.

16. The process of claim 15, wherein the second of the nodes implements a second peer-to-peer protocol that requires transfers of pieces having the second size.

17. The process of claim 15, wherein the second of the nodes implements a data transfer protocol and is not compliant with any peer-to-peer protocol.

18. A computer readable media containing instructions that when executed perform the process of claim 14.

19. A process comprising:

(a) sending a peer list from a hive node to a requesting node;

(b) identifying at the requesting node peers that are to be included in a swarm for content to be transferred, wherein identifying includes the requesting node requesting from peers on the peer list information that identifies peers to be included in the swarm;

(c) transferring pieces of the content to the requesting node respectively from peers in the swarm;

(d) removing one of the peers from the swarm in response to the requesting node detecting a condition associated with the peer during the transferring of pieces; and

(e) sending information from the requesting node for updating of the peer list at the hive node according to the peers that are in the swarm after the transferring of the content to the requesting node.

20. The process of claim 19, wherein the hive node and the requesting node are compliant with a first peer-to-peer protocol, and at least one of the peers included in the swarm is not compliant with the first a first peer-to-peer protocol.

21. The process of claim 20, wherein at least one of the peers that is not compliant with the first peer-to-peer protocol complies with a data transfer protocol and is not compliant with any peer-to-peer protocol.

22. The process of claim 19, wherein at least one of the peers that is not compliant with the first peer-to-peer protocol is compliant with a second peer-to-peer protocol.

23. The process of claim 19, wherein the condition for removing one of the peers comprises the peer providing content containing a detected error.

24. The process of claim 23, further comprising the hive flagging a peer on the peer list in response to the information sent from the requesting node indicating that the peer is unreliable.

25. A computer readable media containing instructions that when executed perform the process of claim 19.