35 lines
1.1 KiB
Markdown
35 lines
1.1 KiB
Markdown
|
---
|
||
|
|
tags: [networks]
|
||
|
|
created: Friday, August 09, 2024
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
# Peer to peer network
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
A decentralised network model where each participant (peer) acts as both a
|
||
|
|
client and a server.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Resources are shared directly between peers rather than being coordinated via a
|
||
|
|
server.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Under a server architecture, multiple requests are made from different hosts for
|
||
|
|
resources. The server manages this load and is in control of what is being
|
||
|
|
shared, to whom, and when. With P2P there is no central authority equivalent to
|
||
|
|
this. Each peer both shares and consumes resources and in this sense is both a
|
||
|
|
client and a server.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
A practical example of this is [torrenting](Torrenting.md) - an applicaton of
|
||
|
|
P2P technology to file sharing.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Benefits
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- Decentralisation, no central authority, also means no single point of failure.
|
||
|
|
- Scalable: the network capacity grows with the number of users (contrast
|
||
|
|
servers)
|
||
|
|
- Efficiency: idle resources of peers are put to use
|
||
|
|
- Improved performance for popular content
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Drawbacks
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- Security: potential for malicious peers and content
|
||
|
|
- Inconsistent availability of resources
|