![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Return to Session 4. Caching and Replication This study investigates alternative continuous media replication techniques and their impact on content availability in a mobile car-to-car peer-to-peer (C2P2) network of devices. Using aggregate availability latency as a metric, we compare a simple random replication mechanism with a family of techniques that compute the degree of replication for each title based on its popularity, i.e., frequency of access. We use a simulation study along with some supporting analytical analysis for this comparison. Obtained results demonstrate the following key lesson. When total storage capacity of the network is significantly larger than the clip repository size, a random replication technique is sufficient. Otherwise, there is a large parameter space where the frequency-based replication schemes provide superior performance. ![]() ©2006 Association for Computing Machinery |