Almost every description of P2P in the context of business infrastructure starts something like this: "P2P is notorious for..." This comes from many years of people associating P2P with illegal downloading, to the point that the terms are now almost synonymous. Such an association is inherently unfair, however, because no one equates TCP/IP and crime, despite the fact that TCP/IP is the protocol of choice for many cyber-criminals.
Rather than resorting to out-dated and inaccurate definitions, let's start from scratch and consider the following: what is P2P, really? What is it good for? How can we use it to save and earn money?
P2P stands for "peer to peer." Put simply, it's one method of establishing communication between parties. Uploading information to Google Docs to share it with colleagues is not P2P, but sending the same information as an attachment to email is, despite the fact that mail servers are involved. In this context, P2P doesn't mean "serverless communication" so much as "communication that is perceived to be serverless." Like email, instant messaging (IM) is considered P2P technology because even though servers are used quite extensively, there is no explicit act of uploading data to an intermediate location. With both email and IM, servers are used behind the scenes, so to speak.
Thus, "P2P" is as much a social term as a technical one. It connotes a grid or cloud of devices that are more or less equal, rather than a constellation of star-like servers with clusters of clients surrounding them. But from the purely technical point of view, there is a distinct difference between true P2P (in which data is not relayed through a server) and perceived P2P (in which data is relayed through a server, but we don't see it happen).
As currently implemented, "cloud computing" is really just a new name for old-school client-server computing, except that the servers pretend to be redundant. Clients have little or no actual control over this redundancy and cannot even verify its existence. When a cloud-based service tells you that your data is stored securely, you have no choice but to trust it... or not.
Compare that with a P2P file-sharing network. On a P2P network, every peer can tell who has complete or partial copies of a given file, what percentage of the file is stored locally, as well as many other details. Doesn't that seem like a better example of cloud storage? If not, then what is?
Even better, with this set-up you can easily control the level of redundancy: just add another client instance, have it share the same file, and you've increased your redundancy by one. However, you can't reduce redundancy beyond the peers under your influence. If all peers don't agree to remove a given file, no one can. There have been many ideas about implementing a kind of "delete button" for the web, but the closer we move towards cloud computing, the less likely such a scenario becomes.
Cloud services are chosen for their convenience (being accessible from everywhere with simple tools) and reliability (with redundant storage in stable data centers). P2P technologies increase both factors: they increase convenience because there is no uploading or downloading to and from the cloud, and they provide directly controllable redundancy and, thus, cost control.
In most cases, more reliability means higher prices, and not all data deserves the same level of service. With P2P platforms behind cloud services, developers could implement applications that allow multiple storage and processing schemes without much hassle. This is not always good for service providers, because flexible cost control means that customers can scale up and down freely as business and economic conditions demand. But for the industry as a whole, it is definitely a good thing because it stiffens competition and enables customers to better survive.
What is perhaps more significant about introducing P2P technology into cloud computing is that the P2P cloud would truly be a cloud, not just a 15-year-old client-server technology with a new sticker. If you are inviting us into the cloud, then let us truly be a part of it, instead of remaining a client that we can neither see nor control.
Next page: P2P as a Social Tool
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteEnterprise posts
I am convinced that P2P could be "Synonymous" with cloud storage. But going from cloud storage to cloud computing would be difficult (if not impossible).
In addition, a bad image has been created around P2P - that "illegal" thing. How do you change people's perception about something so negative?
"Uploading information to Google Docs to share it with colleagues is not P2P" - Yep with you there...
"but sending the same information as an attachment to email is" Huh? What?
I suppose you did say that you are trying to redefine the term?
I prefer the old "inaccurate" [sic] definition of P2P where at some point there is direct communications between the Peers. And this never happens with email.
Yes there may be servers involved, but these provide directory type services. They tell you where to find a peer and give you some information about the peer. They might even help you establish initial communication between peers, but then they get out of the way.
My advice, sleep off the Web 2.0 Kool-Aid and try to think about the subject in a broader sense. With metered access about to make a come-back you cant continue to ignore that P2P shifts the bandwidth costs from the publisher to the user. And think also about what shifting the applications from specialised, energy efficient data centre hardware to much less efficient, generic PC means. The incremental costs to each end user may or may not be significant. But add up all of those PCs with power supplies 5-10% less efficient, with card readers, high end graphics and other peripherals servers don't have or need; and you do have the potential for significant environmental impact.
#1 In addition, a bad image has been created around P2P - that "illegal" thing. How do you change people's perception about something so negative?
Depends on who are those 'people'. People were watching Beijing Olympic Games using p2p plugin. Did they know that they're using p2p? I bet no. Selling p2p-based technology to enterprises is different, but those companies which actually care is it p2p or not are the companies which understand benefits of p2p. And companies which just buy 'remote access solution' don't care is it p2p or not. They're buying a product, not a technology.
#2 I prefer the old "inaccurate" [sic] definition of P2P where at some point there is direct communications between the Peers.
How do you know? All sufficiently mature p2p technologies establish a relayed communication when they can't connect both peers directly. It's completely transparent to the user, and sometimes even to the developer. Sometimes these relays are provided by the vendor, sometimes (as with Skype) they're being chosen from the peers.
With metered access about to make a come-back you cant continue to ignore that P2P shifts the bandwidth costs from the publisher to the user. mIRC