Die Seite wird umgeblättert.
Das nächste Kapitel kommt in Sicht…
Psst… lies auf deine Weise.
Schriften und Designs findest du unter Darstellung. Deine Augen entscheiden mit.
Das nächste Kapitel kommt in Sicht…
A distributed lookup system that assigns responsibility for keys across participating nodes and routes requests to the responsible node.
Vorlesefunktion dieses Browsers wird geprüft…
Diese Lektüre ist derzeit auf Englisch verfügbar. Die Oberfläche verwendet deine gewählte Sprache.
Das englische Original lesen →A distributed hash table (DHT) is a distributed system that provides a lookup service similar to a hash table. Key–value pairs are stored in a DHT, and any participating node can efficiently retrieve the value associated with a given key. The main advantage of a DHT is that nodes can be added or removed with minimum work around re-distributing keys. Keys are unique identifiers which map to particular values, which in turn can be anything from addresses, to documents, to arbitrary data.
Responsibility for maintaining the mapping from keys to values is distributed among the nodes, in such a way that a change in the set of participants causes a minimal amount of disruption. This allows a DHT to scale to extremely large numbers of nodes and to handle continual node arrivals, departures, and failures.
DHTs form an infrastructure that can be used to build more complex services, such as anycast, cooperative web caching, distributed file systems, domain name services, instant messaging, multicast, and also peer-to-peer file sharing and content distribution systems. Notable distributed networks that use DHTs include BitTorrent's distributed tracker, the Kad network, the Storm botnet, the Tox instant messenger, Freenet, the YaCy search engine, and the InterPlanetary File System.
DHT research was originally motivated, in part, by peer-to-peer (P2P) systems such as Freenet, Gnutella, BitTorrent and Napster, which took advantage of resources distributed across the Internet to provide a single useful application. In particular, they took advantage of increased bandwidth and hard disk capacity to provide a file-sharing service.
These systems differed in how they located the data offered by their peers. Napster, the first large-scale P2P content delivery system, required a central index server: each node, upon joining, would send a list of locally held files to the server, which would perform searches and refer the queries to the nodes that held the results. This central component left the system vulnerable to attacks and lawsuits.
Gnutella and similar networks moved to a query flooding model – in essence, each search would result in a message being broadcast to every machine in the network. While avoiding a single point of failure, this method was significantly less efficient than Napster. Later versions of Gnutella clients moved to a dynamic querying model which vastly improved efficiency.
Ausgewählt und neu formatiert aus Distributed hash table, von den Mitwirkenden, unter CC BY-SA 4.0. Revision 1376764733. Abschnitte und Formatierung wurden gekürzt; die verlinkte Revision bietet den vollständigen Kontext und die Beitragshistorie. Der Referenztext behält seine Lizenz. Zusätzliche Quellenlinks stammen aus dieser Revision und wurden hier nicht unabhängig geprüft.