Server handoff in content delivery network

A content delivery method directs a request by a client for an object to a first server in a content delivery network (CDN), regardless of whether the first server has the requested object. If the first server has the requested object, then it is served to the client from the first server; otherwise, the first server redirects the client request to a second server in the CDN to handle the request. The second server may be a peer server of the first server. The first and second servers may be edge servers in the CDN.

Skip to: Description  ·  Claims  ·  References Cited  · Patent History  ·  Patent History
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/715,316, titled “Managed Object Replication And Delivery” filed Mar. 8, 2007, now abandoned which is a continuation of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/073,938 titled “Managed Object Replication And Delivery” filed Feb. 14, 2002, the disclosures of each of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. This application is also related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/980,672, titled “Popularity-based selective replication in Content Delivery Network,” and filed on even date herewith, the entire disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference.

BACKGROUND

This invention relates in general to the field of computer networks. Particularly, aspects of this invention pertain to managed object replication and delivery over a network.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Exemplary embodiments of the invention are illustrated in the accompanying drawings in which like references indicate similar or corresponding elements and in which:

FIG. 1 is a high-level block diagram of a topology of the managed object replication and delivery method and system according to embodiments of the invention;

FIG. 2 is a high-level block diagram illustrating the data flows of managed object replication and delivery method according to embodiments of the invention;

FIGS. 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) are a flow chart of the managed object replication and delivery method and the object purging method according to embodiments of the invention;

FIG. 4 is a flow chart of a popularity computation according to embodiments of the invention;

FIG. 5 is a flow chart of a replication scheme according to embodiments of the invention;

FIG. 6 is a flow chart of a purge scheme according to embodiments of the invention; and

FIG. 7 is a block diagram of the managed object replication and delivery system according to embodiments of the invention.

 DETAILED DESCRIPTION

A typical content delivery network (CDN) operator deploys one or more parent servers, hosting a plurality of objects, in a network and one or more edge servers at the edge of the network to facilitate more cost-effective and efficient delivery of such objects to an end-user (client). End-users or client proxies that access customers' objects are called clients. Content provider companies, organizations, etc. that subscribe to the CDN service are referred to as customers. As used herein, an object includes, without limitation, an audio file (such as, e.g., an MP3 (Motion Picture Experts Group-1 Layer 3) file and a RealNetworks, Inc. Real format file), a video file (such as an MPEG file), an image file (such as, e.g., a BMP (bitmap) file or JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts) file) and any other software or data file or object. It is typically desirable to serve objects from edge servers because the edge servers are typically closer (by various measures of distance) to end-users. For example, streaming content data from edge servers saves parent-to-edge bandwidth. Furthermore, the less the distance objects must travel can also mean reduced network congestion and packet losses, which can lead to a better experience for the end-user through faster response times and better quality of service.

It is typically not feasible to store all objects on the edge servers. The main difficulty is due to the fact that many such objects are very large (typically on the order of 10 MB (10,000,000 bytes)—in the neighborhood of 500 MB for movies). The storage and rack space required to accommodate often large and sometimes rarely requested objects at every edge server can be cost prohibitive as the number of customers grows and the number of their objects increases. It may not even be possible to store a good working set of objects, for example a set of objects thought to be requested often and/or better suited to be served from an edge server, because of the size and changing demand for objects in the working set.

One obvious solution is to pre-populate edge servers with objects for which there will likely be a significant or high demand. However, it is difficult to predict popularity and difficult to manage pre-populating. A related solution is to associate objects with two or more domains depending on popularity of the object, e.g., one domain for popular objects (served from edge servers) and another domain for less popular objects (served from parent servers). However, this requires some way to pre-determine what objects are popular and what objects are less popular statically, and build that popularity into the domain name of the object. As with pre-populating, it is difficult to predict popularity and to manage assignment of domains based on such popularity determinations.

Other solutions fetch objects on demand. In such schemes, when a requested object is not available on a handling edge server, a connection is made between a parent server having the requested object and the handling edge server to fetch the requested object from the parent server. Such fetching suffers however from having to go through the parent path (the network path between the handling edge server and the parent server with the object) whenever a client requests an object that is not already at the particular edge server.

Fetching a large object to the handling edge server through a parent path can be slow. For example, there may be limited available bandwidth from the parent server to the handling edge server, i.e., sometimes the parent path has less bandwidth than even the network path from the edge server to the client (e.g., the “last mile” in a broadband network). If a parent server uses too much bandwidth copying an object to an edge server, this can create congestion at that parent server. If storage fill bandwidth is matched to client bandwidth, it is difficult to handle a second, faster client and if fetch is done using a streaming protocol (for instance, the Real-Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) and Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) standards), the quality of the copy made can be hurt due to lost packets (“thinning”).

Moreover, there may be an unreliable end-to-end parent path due to network congestion. And, if a parent server has to preprocess an object (e.g., to generate an image at a specific bit rate) or is otherwise busy with other tasks, this may further slow its ability to serve the request for the object fast enough. For example, if a client requests a bit rate higher than the parent-to-edge bit rate, delays will likely occur. Under such conditions, the parent server may fail, for example, to stream the object in time or to maintain the stream of an object at a requested bit rate thereby causing a thinned object, i.e., an object with lower quality due to lost packets in its transmission, to be populated at the edge server and delivered to subsequent clients requesting the same object.

Thus, it would be advantageous to populate edge servers with the most popular objects yet somehow serve the rest from parent servers with a goal to maximize the amount of object bits served from edge servers of the network. It would also be advantageous to populate edge servers by, for example, storage fill on demand when an object is popular enough, without having to make the end-user wait for such population. Therefore, it would be advantageous to provide a method and system for managed object replication and delivery over a network.

According to embodiments of the invention, a method and system for managed object replication and delivery over a network redirects, directly or indirectly, a client's request for an object that is not available at a best or optimal handling edge server of the network to a parent server of the network that has the requested object. So, where the requested object is not available at the handling edge server, the client's request is redirected directly to the parent server that can provide the requested object to the client or indirectly via one or more parent servers to a parent server that can provide the requested object to the client. The method and system further intelligently replicates the object to the edge server if the object is popular enough. Likewise, an object is removed from an edge server when the object is no longer popular. All redirection and replication operations are preferably transparent to the end-user and do not degrade the quality of service. Other embodiments of the invention are possible and some are described hereafter.

So, for example, under the framework described herein, a request for a streaming object will be served by a handling edge server if that handling edge server has a copy of that object. Otherwise, the request is redirected, directly or indirectly, to a parent server for service of the requested streaming object to the client. If the requested streaming object is popular, the object is replicated from a parent server that has the requested streaming object to the handling edge server so that the handling edge server will serve the object from the edge of the network when the object is requested in the future. If a streaming object is no longer popular, the object is removed from an edge server.

As used herein, replication generally refers to the permanent and/or volatile storage of an object in a server, particularly an edge server and if applicable, a parent server. Accordingly, the term replication will be considered synonymous to storing, caching and copying. In typical embodiments, replication of an object will usually refer to temporary storage of the object in an edge server and/or a parent server for an undefined duration.

A typical network for the managed object replication and delivery method according to embodiments of the invention is illustrated in FIG. 1. The network 100 comprises one or more parent server sites 120 and one or more edge server sites 130. The network also optionally has access to one or more origin server sites 110. The origin server sites are typically owned and/or maintained by the network provider's customers for storing and serving one or more objects. Each customer (content provider) may have its own origin server site. Furthermore, one or more clients 140 access the network to request one or more objects. A parent server site (or simply parent site or parent server) may comprise one parent server or a cluster of parent servers. Likewise, an edge server site (or simply edge site or edge server) may comprise one edge server or a cluster of edge servers and an origin server site (or simply origin site or origin server) may comprise one origin server or a cluster of origin servers. Typically, the network 100 is configured such that servers in a cluster share a common storage. In any event, configuration details of the parent server site, edge server site, and the origin server site are not important to the present invention.

In the typical network, the parent servers and edge servers are maintained by a network provider, wherein the parent servers are primarily used for storing and managing one or more objects and edge servers are primarily used for serving objects to clients. In some embodiments, all the objects are retrieved from origin servers and stored over one or more parent servers before any end-users can access each such object as the object is stored on the parent servers. Accordingly, in these embodiments, the origin servers play no significant role in the managed object replication and delivery method except to supply new and/or updated objects for storage on the parent servers. Moreover, only the parent servers communicate with the origin servers. In other embodiments, each requested object is replicated from one or more origin servers to one or more parent servers (and/or one or more edge servers) when the requested object becomes popular (as described in more detail below). In these embodiments, the origin servers play a more significant role in the managed object replication and delivery method to supply objects to parent and/or edge servers when requested. So, in these embodiments, the origin servers and parent servers communicate between each other and the origin servers and clients may also communicate between each other. In all of these embodiments, the communications relationships between origin servers and parent servers may be one-to-one, one-to-many or many-to-many.

Further, as shown in FIG. 1, the parent servers and edge servers communicate between each other, edge servers and clients communicate between each other and parent servers and clients communicate between each other. While in embodiments, as shown in FIG. 1, the edge servers have a one-to-one or one-to-many communications relationship with parent servers, edge servers may also have many-to-many communications relationships with parent servers. As discussed in more detail below, the edge servers act as the primary source of serving objects but if a requested object is not available at the edge server a parent server that has the requested object will serve the requested object to the clients. Also, FIG. 1 shows a single layer or level of parent servers and origin servers. As will be apparent to those skilled in the art, more than one layer or level of parent servers and/or origin servers may be used.

According to embodiments of the invention and referring to FIGS. 2, 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c), the method of managed object replication and delivery and the method of object purging is depicted. FIG. 2 depicts embodiments of the method in relation to a portion of the network 100, an origin server 110 and a client 140 as shown in FIG. 1. FIGS. 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) depict embodiments of the method in flowchart form.

Initially, the method of managed object replication and delivery directs (at 200, 300) a client, requesting one or more objects, to an edge server in the network, whether or not the edge server has the requested object(s). Preferably, the client is directed to an optimal edge server, e.g., based on network traffic conditions and server load. As will be apparent to those skilled in the art, any number of currently known or future developed mechanisms may be used to select a best or optimal edge server. Determination of a best or optimal edge server preferably includes selection of an edge server most suitable for delivery of one or more objects to the client according to any number of currently known or future developed algorithms. For example, determination of a best or optimal edge server may be performed based on the likelihood of a copy of the requested object(s) being available at the candidate edge server, on the bandwidth between a candidate edge server and the client, on a best repeater selector (for example, as described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,185,598) and/or on any number of other criteria.

The selected best or optimal edge server 130 determines (at 305) whether the edge server already has the requested object and, if so, serves (at 205, 310) the object to the requesting client 140. For example, the selected edge server 130 will check its storage to determine whether the requested object is available and if so, may serve the object to the requesting client 140.

If the selected edge server does not have the requested object, a check is initiated (at 315) for the edge server to determine whether the requested object is popular and if so, to replicate the popular requested object to the edge server. In embodiments, the method depicted in FIG. 3(b) and discussed in more detail below is employed to determine whether the requested object is popular and if so, to replicate the popular requested object to the edge server.

In embodiments, the checking of whether the requested object is popular and replicating the popular requested object to the edge server may be performed independently of one or more functions of the method of managed object replication and delivery, such as the checking if a server has the requested object and serving the requested object to the client if the server has the requested object or redirecting the client to a server that has the requested object (and serving the requested object to the client). Thus, in embodiments, the checking of whether the requested object is popular and replicating the popular object to the edge server may be performed in parallel with or before the performance of certain functions of the method of managed object replication and delivery such as the checking if a server has the requested object and serving the requested object to the client if the server has the requested object or redirecting the client to a server that has the requested object (and serving the requested object to the client). Advantageously, should the checking, redirecting and serving of the requested object fail, the checking of whether the requested object is popular and replicating the popular object to the edge server can manage the continued delivery of objects to clients from edge servers. Similarly, if the checking of whether the requested object is popular and replicating the popular object to the edge server should fail, the checking, redirecting and serving of the requested object can manage the continued delivery of objects from servers in the network.

Further, if the selected edge server does not have the requested object, the selected edge server directs (at 210, 320) the requesting client 140 to a parent server 120. Preferably the client 140 is redirected to a parent server that has the requested object and is able to serve (at 215, 345) the requested object to the client. If a parent server does not have (at 325) the requested object, a check is initiated (at 330) for the parent server to determine whether the requested object is popular and if so, to replicate the popular requested object to the parent server. In embodiments, the method depicted in FIG. 3(b) and discussed in more detail below is employed to determine whether the requested object is popular and if so, to replicate the popular requested object to the parent server. As with the check for the edge server, in embodiments, the checking of whether the requested object is popular and replicating the popular requested object to the parent server is performed independently of one or more functions of the method of managed object replication and delivery such as the checking if a server has the requested object and serving the requested object to the client if the server has the requested object or redirecting the client to a server that has the requested object (and serving the requested object to the client). Thus, in embodiments, the checking of whether the requested object is popular and replicating the popular requested object to the parent server may be performed in parallel with or before one or more functions of the method of managed object replication and delivery such as the checking if a server has the requested object and serving the requested object to the client if the server has the requested object or redirecting the client to a server that has the requested object (and serving the requested object to the client).

Further, if a parent server does not have the requested object, the parent server could itself use a redirection technique recursively (at 325, 335, 320) until a final parent server is reached that has the requested object. The parent server that has the requested object serves (at 215, 345) the object to the client. If the object is determined to be unavailable (at 335) (from all parent servers), an error message is returned (at 340) regarding the unavailability of the requested object.

As will be apparent to those skilled in the art, numerous methods are available to redirect a requesting client to another parent server, depending on the protocol(s) used to request the object. A handling edge server may request information from a database about to which parent server the client should be redirected. In an implementation, the edge server might have a local database, populated by pushes of redirection data from one or more servers in the network. The edge server may also simply query one or more servers in the network to identify one or more parent servers to which the client can be directed. When more than one parent server responds, the edge server may redirect the client to the parent server that responds to the query first, the edge server may redirect the client to the parent server that is topologically closest to the edge server in the network or the edge server may redirect the client to the parent server that represents the best or optimal candidate based on criteria such as network efficiency, bandwidth requirement and/or cost. Alternatively, an edge server may always go to default parent servers. Or, as discussed in relation to edge servers, a best or optimal parent server may be determined using any of the techniques outlined above. Redirection may be performed by simply sending the request onto a parent server or returning redirection information to the client for accessing the parent server. As will be apparent to those skilled in the art, any number of implementations may be used to provide the redirection information to the handling edge server.

In other embodiments, where the parent servers collectively are not populated with all of the objects and the network has access to the origin server of a requested object, the client may be redirected (at 225, 320) to the origin server if the requested object is not available on the parent servers. If the origin server has the requested object (at 325), the origin server would serve (at 230, 345) the object directly to the client (not shown in FIG. 1). Otherwise if the object is unavailable (at 335), an error message would be returned (at 340) regarding the unavailability of the requested object.

Referring to FIG. 3(b), when an edge and/or parent server determines (at 350) that a requested object is popular (by some measure of popularity) but the edge and/or parent server does not have a copy of the object, the edge and/or parent server initiates a pull of the object to the edge and/or parent server. So, for example, when the edge server determines (at 350) that a requested object is popular but the edge server does not have a copy of the requested object, the edge server initiates the replicating (at 220, 360) of the popular requested object to the edge server from a parent server that has the requested object. Similarly, for example, when a parent server 120 determines (at 350) that a requested object is popular but the parent server does not have a copy of the requested object, the parent server initiates the replicating (at 240, 360) of the popular requested object to the parent server from an origin server that has the requested object. Alternatively, a parent and/or origin server may receive information regarding object popularity, such as popularity determinations for objects or data about object popularity, from one or more edge and/or parent servers and may push popular objects to the edge and/or parent servers. So, for example, when the parent server determines (at 350) that a requested object is popular at an edge server but the edge server does not have a copy of the requested object, the parent server may initiate the replicating (at 220, 360) of the popular requested object to the edge server from the parent server. Similarly, for example, when the origin server determines (at 350) that a requested object is popular at a parent server but the parent server does not have a copy of the requested object, the origin server initiates the replicating (at 240, 360) of the popular requested object to the parent server from the origin server.

In some embodiments, if none of the parent servers has the requested object, the edge server initiates the replication (at 235, 360) of the popular requested object to the edge server from the origin server having the requested object (if the network has access to the origin server). Preferably, in each case, the replicated object is not served or further replicated until the object has been completely copied to the respective server. Optionally, such replicating may be utilized by and between the parent servers themselves to facilitate the reduction of the traffic to and from the origin server. Further, if the edge and/or parent server does not have adequate space for the popular requested object, one or more objects may be purged (at 355) from the edge and/or parent server to make space for the popular object. In embodiments, the method depicted in FIG. 3(c) and discussed in more detail below is employed to determine whether any object(s) in the edge and/or parent server is no longer popular and if so, to delete the no longer popular object(s) from the edge and/or parent server. Also, as will apparent to those skilled in the art, servers other than the edge and/or parent server for which an object is determined popular may perform the actual determination of whether an object is popular by using for example, popularity information provided by the handling edge and/or parent server. The popularity determinations can then be used to initiate replication (for example, pushing or pulling) of the object to the edge and/or parent server for the which the object is determined popular.

Referring to FIG. 3(c), if an object in a server's storage is no longer popular (at 365), the server may delete the object (at 370) from the storage. For example, an edge server may delete (at 245, 370) any objects from the edge server's storage that are no longer popular. Similarly, a parent server may delete (at 250, 370) any objects from the parent server's storage that are no longer popular. As will be apparent to those skilled in the art, the determining of whether any object(s) in the server's storage is no longer popular and if so, deleting the no longer popular object(s) from the server's storage may be performed independently of, for example in parallel with or before, one or more functions of the method of managed object replication and delivery. In embodiments, the no longer popular objects are removed from edge servers and, if the no longer popular objects are hosted on an origin server, from parent servers.

Determining Popularity

Any number of techniques may be used to determine the popularity of an object. Determining the popularity can be based on the number of requests. Popularity can also be based on the request rate. Popular objects typically have higher request rates or higher number of requests than unpopular objects. Popularity can also be determined by tracking the last X number of request times for an object and then use the difference between the current time and these request times to calculate a running average for how often the object is requested. Determining the popularity can also be gauged on the request rate for an object that is perhaps weighted for more recent requests for the object (which is a predictor that the object will be requested again). An exponential decay method and an artificial neural network could also be used to determine popularity of an object.

According to some embodiments of a popularity computation and referring to FIG. 4, the popularity of an object is based on the request rate of the object and computed over a sliding time window in a discrete manner. In these embodiments, the variable I denotes the time interval over which the popularity of an object is measured. The time interval is divided into N equal sub-intervals of duration I/N. As will be apparent, the time interval is not required to be equally divided and may instead be divided in other manners.

A linked list P of size N is created for each object. The value of N determines the quality of approximation. The smaller the value of N, the coarser the approximation. In some embodiments, the value of N is set to 5.

The first element P[1] of the list records the number of requests that arrived when the current time was within the first sub-interval, the second element P[2] records the number of requests that arrived when the current time was within the 2nd interval, and so on. When a new sub-interval arrives, the list is rotated such that P[I] becomes P[I+1] except for P[N] which becomes P[1], so, e.g., P[1] becomes P[2], P[2] becomes P[3], and P[N] becomes P[1]. After the rotation, the new P[1] is reset to zero. Accordingly, only the end time of the first sub-interval needs to be recorded and compared against the current time to check if the list should be rotated. For each new request within the sub-interval, P[1] is simply incremented by 1. In this way, the arrival time of each request need not be recorded.

In preferred embodiments, the popularity of an object is simply the sum of all numbers in the list. To make the computation more efficient, the sum of P[2]+P[3]+ . . . +P[N] is stored in a register M. The popularity can be then computed by adding P[1] to M. When a rotation occurs, the new value of M becomes M+=P[1]−P[N]. The popularity of an object may be queried constantly. So, to avoid the extra addition involved for each such inquiry, the value of P[1] can be set to M after the rotation. Then, the value of P[1] is the popularity of the object.

The popularity computation algorithm may be summarized as follows. The linked list P of size N for an object, wherein each of P[1] . . . P[N] represents a time sub-interval, is initialized (at 400). The popularity M is also initialized (at 410). If there is a request for the object while the current time is within the current time sub-interval (at 420), then the value of P[1] is incremented (at 430) by 1. If the current time is within a new time sub-interval (at 440), then the value of P[1] is decremented by the value of M, M+=P[1]−P[N], the list P is rotated and P[1] is set to the value of M (at 450). Then, provided the popularity computation is continued (at 460) e.g., the popularity computation is not terminated, the popularity computation algorithm repeats itself.

Initiating Replication

Furthermore, any number of techniques may be used to initiate replication of an object. An edge server and/or a parent server might replicate an object on the first request by a client for the object. Alternatively, the edge server and/or parent server may be tuned to wait until the edge server and/or parent server receives a specific number or range of requests for the object. In other implementations, the object may be pulled if the object is more popular (e.g., a higher request rate) than the least popular object currently in the storage. In yet another alternative, the replicating decision can be a function of the popularity of the object, the cost of storing the object, the cost of pulling the object from the network and any other relevant cost factors. However, the popularity of objects may change significantly with time. Initiating a pull decision of an object purely based on a fixed threshold does not capture this dynamic nature of popularity.

A replication policy that compares against the least popularity of replicated objects has its limitations, although the policy does not use a fixed threshold. Consider where the storage is only half full but all the replicated objects are extremely popular. Since only objects exceeding the least popularity of the replicated objects will be replicated under this replication policy, objects with moderate popularity will be rejected despite that there is plenty of storage space available and that the objects are reasonably popular.

Accordingly, a replication scheme should be able to automatically adjust the replication threshold by taking into consideration the dynamic nature of popularity and the fullness of the storage. If there are more popular objects than the storage capacity allows, the replication scheme should raise the threshold. If there is more available storage capacity, the replication scheme should decrease the threshold so that more objects can be stored.

According to embodiments of a replication scheme and referring to FIG. 5, an object is replicated (at 520) into storage when the popularity P of the object is greater (at 500) than the initial threshold PI and when there is enough space (at 510) in the storage to replicate the object. If there is not enough storage to replicate the requested object, a replacement algorithm is performed in which the popularity P of the object is compared (at 530) against the popularity PL of the least popular object in the storage. If P is greater than PL, the current least popular object is removed (at 540) from the storage to free up more storage space, the next least popular object is identified (at 540), the value of the least popularity is updated (at 550), and a new iteration begins by checking if there is enough storage space to store the requested object (at 510). The storage space freeing iteration is terminated when either 1) enough storage space has been freed up to accommodate the requested object or 2) the requested object is not as popular as the least popular object in the storage. In embodiments, the least popular objects are removed from edge servers and, if there are origin servers with a copy of the least popular objects, from parent servers. Where no origin servers exist with a copy of the least popular objects, least popular objects are not removed from parent servers in order to keep a copy of the least popular objects in the network.

Purging

In some embodiments, the managed object replication and delivery method and system records the time on which an object was last requested. A purge scheme is invoked to clean up the storage of servers, for example, on a regular time interval basis or when a popular object is replicated to an edge and/or parent server but there is inadequate space at the edge and/or parent server. Referring to FIG. 6, in the purge scheme, all stale objects are removed from the storage (at 600), the remaining objects are sorted based on popularity (at 610), and the new values of PL and PI are determined (at 620, 630). An object is stale if its age (that is the time since the object was last requested) is over a pre-defined value, typically set to the duration of the sliding window used to measure the popularity multiplied by an adjustable factor. As will be apparent to those skilled in the art, the value may vary and indeed other staleness algorithms may be used. The popularity of the least popular object in the storage after purging is assigned as the new PL. The new PI is determined by using the sorted popularity and is set to the popularity of the last object that can fit into the storage if more popular objects are replicated first. Typically, PL should be greater than or equal to PI. If not, the value of PL is assigned to be the new PI. In some embodiments, the purge process is implemented as a separate thread in a multi-thread system. In embodiments, the stale objects are removed from edge servers and, if there are origin servers with a copy of the stale objects, from parent servers. Where no origin servers exist with a copy of the stale objects, stale objects are not removed from parent servers in order to keep a copy of the stale objects in the network.

At the outset when the system starts and there is no popularity data available yet, the initial values of both PL and PI can be set to zero. This forces the replication scheme to store the objects on their first request, but the purge scheme that is run on a regular basis will adjust the values of PL and PI automatically. The initial values of PL and PI can also be set to other values. Indeed, the initial values of PL and PI can be determined by taking into consideration the cost of storage, the cost of fetching, and the cost difference in deliveries from different servers. In any case, the system allows the specification of minimum PL and PI. If a computed PL or PI is smaller than the minimum specification, PL or PI is set to the minimum specification.

In some embodiments, to avoid or minimize stream thinning and other quality problems, storage fill is separated from data delivery. In this way, the data transfer between multiple sets of storages can tolerate a slower connection, and a server never streams an object unless the object is entirely in the storage. As will be apparent to those skilled in the art, it is possible to start streaming an object when there is enough data in the storage and that replication need not be completed before serving the object. Further, storage fill may be staged by copying to a separate location, then moving the copied data to a servable location when the data is complete.

Further, if an object is changed at an origin server, there may be a need to broadcast a message to remove the object at one or more parent servers and/or one or more edge servers. Similarly, if an object is changed at the parent server(s), there may be a need to broadcast a message to remove the object at one or more edge servers. In each case, future requests for the removed object would be handled as in the normal case where a requested object is not available at an edge server and/or a parent server.

Hardware and Software

In embodiments of the invention, referring to FIGS. 1 and 7, the system of managed object replication and delivery comprises one or more servers in a network designated as parent servers and one or more servers in the network designated as edge servers. In some embodiments, referring to FIG. 1, parent servers 120 have large storage capacity (on the order of 5 terabytes (TB)) while edge servers 130 have smaller storage space (ranging from 1 TB to 500 GB). One or more redirectors for implementing the method of managed object replication and delivery are installed on each edge server cluster. In some embodiments, one or more objects are replicated to one or more of the parent servers from the origin servers and then pulled from the parent servers to the edge servers as needed. In other embodiments, one or more objects are replicated to one or more of the edge servers and/or to one or more of the parent servers, from the origin servers as needed.

In some embodiments, a data transfer method 700, 710 is implemented to transfer data between parent servers and edge servers. The data transfer method supports the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol (described in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) RFC 2246, located at “http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2246.txt”, incorporated by reference herein) to ensure communication privacy. Further, the implementation of the method for managed object replication and delivery supports three popular object formats, namely Apple Computer, Inc.'s QuickTime™, RealNetworks, Inc.'s Real™, and Microsoft Corporation's WindowsMedia™ formats for streaming of requested object(s). As will be apparent to those skilled in the art, any number of other protocols and object formats may be used.

Further, in some embodiments, a number of software components are used to facilitate the method of managed object replication and delivery. A first component is a WindowsMedia redirector 720, 760 which is a service running on the Microsoft Windows NT operating system that processes requests from a Windows Media player and performs the redirection of the request for Windows Media objects. The WindowsMedia redirector is provided on edge servers and parent servers. Currently, the Microsoft Media Server (MMS) protocol is used for streaming of Windows Media objects and that protocol does not support redirection. To provide redirection for the streaming of Windows Media objects, the uniform resource identifier (URI) hyperlinks at the customer's site for such streaming Windows Media objects are modified. URIs as used herein generally have the following form (defined in detail in T. Berners-Lee et al, Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI), IETF RFC 2396, August 1998, located at “http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt”, incorporated by reference herein):
scheme://host[port]/uri-path
where “scheme” can be a symbol such as “http” (see Hypertext Transfer Protocol—HTTP/1.1, IETF RFC 2616, located at “http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt”, incorporated by reference herein) for an object on a Web server or “rtsp” (see Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP), IETF RFC 2326, located at “http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2326.txt”, incorporated by reference herein) for an object on a streaming server. Other schemes can also be used and new schemes may be added in the future. The port number “port” is optional, the system substituting a default port number (depending on the scheme) if none is provided. The “host” field maps to a particular network address for a particular computer. The “uri-path” is relative to the computer specified in the “host” field. An uri-path is typically, but not necessarily, the path-name of a file in a media server directory. In a preferred embodiment, the HTTP protocol is used to effect the redirection of WindowsMedia objects. Therefore, the “scheme” field of the URIs of the WindowsMedia objects is changed from “mms” to “http”. For example, the URI for a sample object “sample.asf” in the Windows Media Advanced Streaming Format (ASF) will have a new URI of the form “http://host/path/sample.asf”. For objects using Windows Media ASX scripting, a sample URI for the “meta.asx” object will be in the form “http://host/?www.customer.com/path/meta.asx”, where “customer” is the name of the content provider of “meta.asx”. All URIs contained within the “meta.asx” object remain unchanged. Upon receiving the request “http://host/path/sample.asf”, the WindowsMedia redirector would respond to the request with the following example ASX script:

<ASX version = “3.0”> <Entry><Ref href= “mms://servername/path/sample.asf” /></Entry> </ASX>

in the message body, if the requested object is found available either locally or on another server (parent or origin). In this example, “servemame” is or resolves to the Internet Protocol (IP) address of a media server that will serve the requested object to the requesting client. If the requested object cannot be found, the WindowsMedia redirector would respond to the request with the following example ASX script:

<ASX version = “3.0”> <Entry><Ref href= “http://redirname/path/sample.asf” /></Entry> </ASX>

in the message body, where “redimame” is or resolves to the IP address of the redirector of a parent server, to trigger another round of redirection. A final round of redirection is reached when none of the parent servers (and the origin server, if applicable) has the requested object. In this case, the redirection process is terminated, and a “not found” error message is sent to the requesting client. Requests for ASX objects are processed in a similar way. Upon receiving the request for the sample object “meta.asx”, the WindowsMedia redirector checks the availability of the object pointed to by each URI inside “meta.asx” and rewrites the URI of each object accordingly. Then the WindowsMedia redirector sends a response to the request with the rewritten “meta.asx” in the message body of the response. The URI rewriting is done as follows. If a requested object, for example, “file.asf”, is found available locally or on another server, the corresponding URI would be rewritten to “mms://servemame/path/file.asf”, where “servemame” is or resolves to the IP address of the media server that will serve the requested object to the requesting client. If “file.asf” cannot be found, the corresponding URI is rewritten to “http://redirectomame/path/file.asf”, where “redimame” is or resolves to the IP address of a parent server redirector.

Another component is a Real/QuickTime redirector 730, 770 which is an application that processes Real-Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) requests from a Real or QuickTime player for one or more objects and performs the redirection of the method for Real and QuickTime objects. The Real/QuickTime redirector is provided on edge servers and parent servers. The RTSP, described in detail in the IETF RFC 2326, is used for streaming Real and QuickTime objects, and the “REDIRECT” method supported in that protocol is used to effect redirection. A redirect request informs the client that it must reconnect to another server location and provides for the client the URI of that new server in the redirect request.

A best or optimal server selection mechanism is also provided (not shown in FIG. 7). The best or optimal server selection mechanism includes selection of an edge server most suitable for delivery of one or more objects to the client according to any number of currently known or future developed algorithms. In addition to redirection to a best or optimal edge server for handling a client request for an object, the best or optimal server mechanism may also be applied to trigger one or more further redirections to one or more parent server(s) when a requested object is not available at the handling edge server. In an implementation, to effect this operation, the hostname part of the URI for a requested object is modified. For example, in the link “http://customer-wm.fpondemand.net/customer/sample.asf”, “customer-wm.fpondemand.net” would be changed to “parent-wm.fpondemand.net” forcing the request to go through a further round of best or optimal server selection against parent servers only. In such embodiments, to effect best or optimal parent server selection, the parent-edge server topology is defined and the best or optimal server selection mechanism is provided a parent server table defining the relationships of such a topology. In some embodiments, the best or optimal server selection mechanism is similar to the best repeater selector described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,185,598.

A file replication manager application 740, 750 is also provided that manages object replication to and object removal from storage, retrieves objects from parent servers for replication to edge server storage, and performs storage cleanup as needed. The file replication manager is provided on edge servers and parent servers. In some embodiments, the file replication manager application uses the data transfer method and is in communication with the WindowsMedia and Real/QuickTime redirectors to provide, if available in the storage, objects requested by those redirectors.

In some embodiments, the message communicated between a WindowsMedia or a Real/QuickTime redirector and a file replication manager and between file replication managers is encapsulated using the User Datagram Protocol (UDP). This allows address handling and delivery to be handled by UDP and facilitates fast communication. Since UDP does not guarantee delivery, the message header contains a message number to be used to confirm that a response is to the current query, and not to a previous query. In addition, MD5 (See, e.g., Rivest, R., “The MD5 Message Digest Algorithm”, IETF RFC 1321, April 1992) is supported to provide a basic level of security. The MD5 hash is generated by running a MD5 hash algorithm on the message number, message, and a secret pass phrase only shared by components of the system of managed object replication and delivery. When a message is received, the MD5 hash of the message number, message, and secret pass phrase, is computed and compared against the MD5 hash provided in the message. If these two MD5 hashes do not match, the message is invalid, and will be discarded.

As will be apparent to those skilled in the art, FIG. 7 represents only some embodiments of the system according to the present invention. Many variations for implementing the system according to the teachings of the present invention are possible and are all within the scope of the invention.

Chunking

An extension of the above method and system is to provide chunking. Studies of log data show that, even for popular objects, a good percentage of requests for such objects exit before the object is completely served. To exploit this kind of object usage and further enhance the performance of the network, objects can be segmented into chunks and initial chunks of an object can be given preferential treatment in the replication scheme. For example, only the initial chunks of a object are replicated when a replication admission decision is made and the remaining chunks of the object are pulled to the storage only if the client does not exit before a certain amount or number (e.g., 90%) of the initial chunks of the object are served. The initial chunks of an object can be left in the storage even when the object becomes unpopular. By partitioning streams in this manner, a first part of an object can be served from edge servers quickly, even if most of the object stream must be fetched from a parent server or origin server.

Object Retention and Staleness

Optionally, some or all of the objects may be permanently retained in edge server storage or be retained depending on a quota. Similarly, a configurable or automatically adjusting threshold for storage filling and deletion may be provided.

Also, an edge server may be configured to determine whether a requested object in a server's storage is fresh and serve the requested object only when the object is not stale. In some embodiments, a file is maintained which lists the maximum storage age and storage quota in order to facilitate determining whether a requested object is fresh. If a request is received for a stale object a redirect is initiated to the relevant parent server or origin server to provide the requested object and a storage refresh will be performed if the requested object is popular.

Peers

Also, edge server storage fills of objects may be served by other peer edge servers instead of a relevant parent server or origin server. If a popular object has already been replicated to an edge server filling a new edge server request for that object from one of the peer edge servers may be more efficient than the parent server or origin server. Since there are typically more edge servers than parent servers and origin servers, there is an increased likelihood that a peer edge server may be closer in terms of network distance than a relevant parent server or origin server. Moreover, such peer edge server storage fills could also lessen the burden on the parent servers or origin servers.

The detailed descriptions may have been presented in terms of program procedures executed on a computer or network of computers. These procedural descriptions and representations are the means used by those skilled in the art to most effectively convey the substance of their work to others skilled in the art. The embodiments of the invention may be implemented as apparent to those skilled in the art in hardware or software, or any combination thereof. The actual software code or hardware used to implement the invention is not limiting of the invention. Thus, the operation and behavior of the embodiments often will be described without specific reference to the actual software code or hardware components. The absence of such specific references is feasible because it is clearly understood that artisans of ordinary skill would be able to design software and hardware to implement the embodiments of the invention based on the description herein with only a reasonable effort and without undue experimentation.

A procedure is here, and generally, conceived to be a self-consistent sequence of operations leading to a desired result. These operations comprise physical manipulations of physical quantities. Usually, though not necessarily, these quantities take the form of electrical or magnetic signals capable of being stored, transferred, combined, compared, and otherwise manipulated. It proves convenient at times, principally for reasons of common usage, to refer to these signals as bits, values, elements, symbols, characters, terms, numbers, objects, attributes or the like. It should be noted, however, that all of these and similar terms are to be associated with the appropriate physical quantities and are merely convenient labels applied to these quantities.

Further, the manipulations performed are often referred to in terms, such as adding or comparing, which are commonly associated with mental operations performed by a human operator. No such capability of a human operator is necessary, or desirable in most cases, in any of the operations of the invention described herein; the operations are machine operations. Useful machines for performing the operations of the invention include general purpose digital computers, special purpose computers or similar devices.

Each operation of the method may be executed on any general computer, such as a mainframe computer, personal computer or the like and pursuant to one or more, or a part of one or more, program modules or objects generated from any programming language, such as C++, Perl, Java™, Fortran, etc. And still further, each operation, or a file, module, object or the like implementing each operation, may be executed by special purpose hardware or a circuit module designed for that purpose. For example, the invention may be implemented as a firmware program loaded into non-volatile storage or a software program loaded from or into a data storage medium as machine-readable code, such code being instructions executable by an array of logic elements such as a processor or other digital signal processing unit. Any data handled in such processing or created as a result of such processing can be stored in any memory as is conventional in the art. By way of example, such data may be stored in a temporary memory, such as in the RAM of a given computer system or subsystem. In addition, or in the alternative, such data may be stored in longer-term storage devices, for example, magnetic disks, rewritable optical disks, and so on.

In the case of diagrams depicted herein, they are provided by way of example. There may be variations to these diagrams or the operations described herein without departing from the spirit of the invention. For instance, in certain cases, the operations may be performed in differing order, or operations may be added, deleted or modified.

Embodiments of the invention may be implemented as an article of manufacture comprising a computer usable medium having computer readable program code means therein for executing the method operations of the invention, a program storage device readable by a machine, tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by a machine to perform the method operations of the invention, or a computer program product. Such an article of manufacture, program storage device or computer program product may include, but is not limited to, CD-ROM, CD-R, CD-RW, diskettes, tapes, hard drives, computer system memory (e.g., RAM or ROM), and/or the electronic, magnetic, optical, biological or other similar embodiments of the program (including, but not limited to, a carrier wave modulated, or otherwise manipulated, to convey instructions that can be read, demodulated/decoded and executed by a computer). Indeed, the article of manufacture, program storage device or computer program product may include any solid or fluid transmission medium, whether magnetic, biological, optical, or the like, for storing or transmitting signals readable by a machine for controlling the operation of a general or special purpose computer according to any or all methods of the invention and/or to structure its components in accordance with a system of the invention.

Embodiments of the invention may also be implemented in a system. A system may comprise a computer that includes a processor and a memory device and optionally, a storage device, an output device such as a video display and/or an input device such as a keyboard or computer mouse. Moreover, a system may comprise an interconnected network of computers. Computers may equally be in stand-alone form (such as the traditional desktop personal computer) or integrated into another apparatus (such as a cellular telephone).

The system may be specially constructed for the required purposes to perform, for example, the method of the invention or the system may comprise one or more general purpose computers as selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program in accordance with the teachings herein stored in the computer(s). The system could also be implemented in whole or in part as a hard-wired circuit or as a circuit configuration fabricated into an application-specific integrated circuit. The invention presented herein is not inherently related to a particular computer system or other apparatus. The required structure for a variety of these systems will appear from the description given.

While this invention has been described in relation to certain embodiments, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that other embodiments according to the generic principles disclosed herein, modifications to the disclosed embodiments and changes in the details of construction, arrangement of parts, compositions, processes, structures and materials selection all may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention Changes, including equivalent structures, acts, materials, etc., may be made, within the purview of the appended claims, without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention in its aspects. Thus, it should be understood that the above described embodiments have been provided by way of example rather than as a limitation of the invention and that the specification and drawing(s) are, accordingly, to be regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictive sense. As such, the invention is not intended to be limited to the embodiments shown above but rather is to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and novel features disclosed in any fashion herein.

Claims

1. A content delivery method for distributing objects maintained on at least one origin server via a content delivery network (CDN), the method comprising:

providing a plurality of servers in the CDN, wherein each of the plurality of servers is distinct from the at least one origin server, the plurality of servers comprising a plurality of edge servers and a plurality of parent servers;
directing a request by a client for an object to a first edge server in the CDN, regardless of whether the first edge server has the requested object, wherein said first edge server was selected based at least in part on network traffic conditions;
if the first edge server has the requested object, serving the requested object to the client from the first edge server;
otherwise, sending the client a response that causes the client to be redirected to a second server in the CDN to handle the request, wherein the second server comprises a parent server of the first edge server; and
receiving, at the second server, a second request for the object from the client and serving the requested object to the client from the second server, wherein if a copy of the requested object is not stored on the second server, directing the client to another server in the CDN.

2. A method as recited in claim 1, wherein said serving the requested object to the client from the second server is responsive to said second request.

3. A method as recited in claim 1, wherein the object is a streaming object.

4. A method as recited in claim 1, wherein said first edge server was selected based at least in part on server load.

5. A method as recited in claim 1, further comprising:

attempting to serve the requested object to the client from the second server in the CDN.

6. A method as recited in claim 1, wherein the step of directing is repeated for a plurality of other servers in the CDN.

7. A method, in a framework in which resources maintained on one or more origin servers of content providers are delivered to end user clients via a shared content delivery network (CDN), the method comprising:

providing a plurality of server sites in the CDN, wherein each of the plurality of server sites comprises one or more servers distinct from the one or more origin servers, the plurality of server sites comprising a plurality of edge server sites and a plurality of parent server sites;
causing a client request for a resource to be directed to a first edge server site in said CDN, without consideration as to whether the first edge server site has a copy of the requested resource, wherein said first edge server site was selected based at least in part on network traffic conditions;
if the first edge server site has a copy of the requested resource, then serving the requested resource to the client from the first edge server site; otherwise,
if the first edge server site does not have a copy of the requested resource, sending the client a response that causes the client to be directed to a second server site in the CDN, wherein the second server site comprises a parent server site of the first edge server site; and
receiving, at the second server site, a second request for the resource from the client and serving the requested resource to the client from the second server site, wherein if a copy of the requested resource is not stored on the second server site, directing the client to another server site in the CDN.

8. A method as recited in claim 7, further comprising:

attempting to serve the requested resource to the client from the second server site in the CDN.

9. A method as recited in claim 7, wherein a copy of the requested resource is stored at the second server site prior to the issuance of the resource request by the client.

10. A method, in a framework in which resources maintained on one or more origin servers of at least one content provider are delivered to end user clients via a content delivery network (CDN), the method comprising:

providing a plurality of server sites in CDN, wherein each of the plurality of server sites comprises one or more servers distinct from the one or more origin servers, the plurality of server sites comprising a plurality of edge server sites and a plurality of parent server sites;
receiving a client request for a resource at a first edge server site in said CDN, wherein said first edge server site was selected based at least in part on network traffic conditions;
if the first edge server site has a copy of the requested resource, then serving the requested resource to the client from the first edge server site; otherwise,
if the first edge server site does not have a copy of the requested resource, then sending the client a response that causes the client to retrieve the requested resource from a second server site in the CDN, wherein the second server site comprises a parent server site of the first edge server site; and
receiving, at the second server site, a second request for the resource from the client and serving the requested resource to the client from the second server site, wherein if a copy of the requested resource is not stored on the second server site, directing the client to another server site in the CDN.

11. A method as recited in claim 10, a copy of the requested resource is stored at the second server site prior to receipt of the client request by the first server site.

Referenced Cited
U.S. Patent Documents
4495570 January 22, 1985 Kitajima et al.
4591983 May 27, 1986 Bennett et al.
4594704 June 10, 1986 Ollivier
4726017 February 16, 1988 Krum et al.
4803641 February 7, 1989 Hardy et al.
4839798 June 13, 1989 Eguchi et al.
4847784 July 11, 1989 Clancey
4920432 April 24, 1990 Eggers et al.
4922417 May 1, 1990 Churm et al.
4943932 July 24, 1990 Lark et al.
4949187 August 14, 1990 Cohen
4949248 August 14, 1990 Caro
5029232 July 2, 1991 Nall
5130792 July 14, 1992 Tindell et al.
5132992 July 21, 1992 Yurt et al.
5136716 August 4, 1992 Harvey
5172413 December 15, 1992 Bradley
5191573 March 2, 1993 Hair
5253275 October 12, 1993 Yurt et al.
5253341 October 12, 1993 Rozmanith
5287499 February 15, 1994 Nemes
5287537 February 15, 1994 Newmark et al.
5291554 March 1, 1994 Morales
5341477 August 23, 1994 Pitkin et al.
5371532 December 6, 1994 Gelman
5410343 April 25, 1995 Coddington
5414455 May 9, 1995 Hooper
5442389 August 15, 1995 Blahut
5442390 August 15, 1995 Hooper
5442749 August 15, 1995 Northcutt
5471622 November 28, 1995 Eadline
5475615 December 12, 1995 Lin
5508732 April 16, 1996 Bottomley
5515511 May 7, 1996 Nguyen
5519435 May 21, 1996 Anderson
5528281 June 18, 1996 Grady
5539621 July 23, 1996 Kikinis
5542087 July 30, 1996 Neimat et al.
5544313 August 6, 1996 Shachnai
5544327 August 6, 1996 Dan
5550577 August 27, 1996 Verbiest
5550863 August 27, 1996 Yurt
5550982 August 27, 1996 Long
5557317 September 17, 1996 Nishio
5568181 October 22, 1996 Greenwood et al.
5572643 November 5, 1996 Judson
5590288 December 31, 1996 Castor
5592611 January 7, 1997 Midgely
5594910 January 14, 1997 Filepp et al.
5603026 February 11, 1997 Demers et al.
5614940 March 25, 1997 Cobbley et al.
5619648 April 8, 1997 Canale
5623656 April 22, 1997 Lyons
5625781 April 29, 1997 Cline
5627829 May 6, 1997 Gleeson et al.
5630067 May 13, 1997 Kindell
5633999 May 27, 1997 Clowes
5634006 May 27, 1997 Baugher et al.
5638443 June 10, 1997 Stefik et al.
5644714 July 1, 1997 Kikinis
5646676 July 8, 1997 Dewkett et al.
5649186 July 15, 1997 Ferguson
5659729 August 19, 1997 Nielsen
5666362 September 9, 1997 Chen
5671279 September 23, 1997 Elgamal
5675734 October 7, 1997 Hair
5682512 October 28, 1997 Tetrick
5699513 December 16, 1997 Feigen et al.
5712979 January 27, 1998 Graber et al.
5715453 February 3, 1998 Stewart
5721914 February 24, 1998 DeVries
5734719 March 31, 1998 Tsevdos et al.
5734831 March 31, 1998 Sanders
5740423 April 14, 1998 Logan et al.
5742762 April 21, 1998 Scholl
5751961 May 12, 1998 Smyk
5761507 June 2, 1998 Govett
5761663 June 2, 1998 Lagarde et al.
5764906 June 9, 1998 Edelstein et al.
5774660 June 30, 1998 Brendel et al.
5774668 June 30, 1998 Choquier et al.
5777988 July 7, 1998 Cisneros
5777989 July 7, 1998 McGarvey
5778187 July 7, 1998 Monteiro et al.
5781909 July 14, 1998 Logan et al.
5784058 July 21, 1998 LaStrange et al.
5796952 August 18, 1998 Davis
5799141 August 25, 1998 Galipeau et al.
5802106 September 1, 1998 Packer
5802291 September 1, 1998 Balick et al.
5812769 September 22, 1998 Graber
5815662 September 29, 1998 Ong
5815664 September 29, 1998 Asano
5819092 October 6, 1998 Ferguson et al.
5828847 October 27, 1998 Gehr
5832069 November 3, 1998 Waters et al.
5832506 November 3, 1998 Kuzma
5832514 November 3, 1998 Norin et al.
5835718 November 10, 1998 Blewett
5845090 December 1, 1998 Collins, III et al.
5845303 December 1, 1998 Templeman
5856974 January 5, 1999 Gervais et al.
5862339 January 19, 1999 Bonnaure
5867706 February 2, 1999 Martin et al.
5867799 February 2, 1999 Lang et al.
5870546 February 9, 1999 Kirsch
5870559 February 9, 1999 Leshem et al.
5878212 March 2, 1999 Civanlar et al.
5884038 March 16, 1999 Kapoor
5890171 March 30, 1999 Blumer et al.
5893116 April 6, 1999 Simmonds et al.
5894554 April 13, 1999 Lowery et al.
5896533 April 20, 1999 Ramos et al.
5898456 April 27, 1999 Wahl
5903723 May 11, 1999 Beck et al.
5907704 May 25, 1999 Gudmundson et al.
5913028 June 15, 1999 Wang et al.
5913033 June 15, 1999 Grout
5918010 June 29, 1999 Appleman et al.
5919247 July 6, 1999 Van Hoff et al.
5920701 July 6, 1999 Miller et al.
5931904 August 3, 1999 Banga
5933832 August 3, 1999 Suzuoka et al.
5933835 August 3, 1999 Adams et al.
5935207 August 10, 1999 Logue et al.
5940831 August 17, 1999 Takano
5944780 August 31, 1999 Chase
5945989 August 31, 1999 Freishtat et al.
5951694 September 14, 1999 Choquier et al.
5956489 September 21, 1999 San Andres et al.
5956716 September 21, 1999 Kenner
5958008 September 28, 1999 Pogrebisky et al.
5961596 October 5, 1999 Takubo et al.
5966440 October 12, 1999 Hair
5968121 October 19, 1999 Logan et al.
5973696 October 26, 1999 Agranat et al.
5978791 November 2, 1999 Farber et al.
5983214 November 9, 1999 Lang et al.
5983227 November 9, 1999 Nazem et al.
5987606 November 16, 1999 Cirasole et al.
5991809 November 23, 1999 Kriegsman
5996025 November 30, 1999 Day
6002720 December 14, 1999 Yurt et al.
6003030 December 14, 1999 Kenner et al.
6012090 January 4, 2000 Chung et al.
6014686 January 11, 2000 Elnozahy et al.
6014698 January 11, 2000 Griffiths
6016509 January 18, 2000 Dedrick
6016512 January 18, 2000 Huitema
6018516 January 25, 2000 Packer
6021426 February 1, 2000 Douglis
6023470 February 8, 2000 Lee et al.
6026440 February 15, 2000 Shrader et al.
6029175 February 22, 2000 Chow et al.
6029176 February 22, 2000 Cannon
6035332 March 7, 2000 Ingrassia, Jr. et al.
6038216 March 14, 2000 Packer
6038310 March 14, 2000 Hollywood et al.
6038610 March 14, 2000 Belfiore et al.
6041324 March 21, 2000 Earl et al.
6044405 March 28, 2000 Driscoll, III et al.
6046980 April 4, 2000 Packer
6049831 April 11, 2000 Gardell et al.
6052718 April 18, 2000 Gifford
6052730 April 18, 2000 Felciano et al.
6065051 May 16, 2000 Steele et al.
6065062 May 16, 2000 Periasamy et al.
6070191 May 30, 2000 Narendran et al.
6078943 June 20, 2000 Yu
6081829 June 27, 2000 Sidana
6081835 June 27, 2000 Antcliff et al.
6081840 June 27, 2000 Zhao
6085193 July 4, 2000 Malkin et al.
6092112 July 18, 2000 Fukushige
6092204 July 18, 2000 Baker
6094706 July 25, 2000 Factor et al.
6098078 August 1, 2000 Gehani et al.
6098096 August 1, 2000 Tsirigotis et al.
6105028 August 15, 2000 Sullivan et al.
6108673 August 22, 2000 Brandt et al.
6108703 August 22, 2000 Leighton et al.
6112231 August 29, 2000 DeSimone et al.
6112239 August 29, 2000 Kenner et al.
6112240 August 29, 2000 Pogue et al.
6115357 September 5, 2000 Packer et al.
6115752 September 5, 2000 Chauhan
6119143 September 12, 2000 Dias et al.
6125388 September 26, 2000 Reisman
6125394 September 26, 2000 Rabinovich
6128601 October 3, 2000 Van Horne et al.
6128623 October 3, 2000 Mattis et al.
6128660 October 3, 2000 Grimm et al.
6130890 October 10, 2000 Leinwand et al.
6131095 October 10, 2000 Low et al.
6134583 October 17, 2000 Herriot
6144375 November 7, 2000 Jain et al.
6144702 November 7, 2000 Yurt et al.
6151624 November 21, 2000 Teare et al.
6154744 November 28, 2000 Kenner et al.
6154753 November 28, 2000 McFarland
6161137 December 12, 2000 Ogdon et al.
6163779 December 19, 2000 Mantha et al.
6167427 December 26, 2000 Rabinovich et al.
6173311 January 9, 2001 Hassett et al.
6173322 January 9, 2001 Hu
6178160 January 23, 2001 Bolton et al.
6181867 January 30, 2001 Kenner et al.
6185598 February 6, 2001 Farber et al.
6185619 February 6, 2001 Joffe et al.
6189030 February 13, 2001 Kirsch et al.
6189039 February 13, 2001 Harvey
6195680 February 27, 2001 Goldszmidt et al.
6205120 March 20, 2001 Packer et al.
6212565 April 3, 2001 Gupta
6226618 May 1, 2001 Downs
6226642 May 1, 2001 Beranek et al.
6230196 May 8, 2001 Guenthner et al.
6233623 May 15, 2001 Jeffords et al.
6240462 May 29, 2001 Agraharam et al.
6243760 June 5, 2001 Armbruster et al.
6249810 June 19, 2001 Kiraly
6256675 July 3, 2001 Rabinovich
6263313 July 17, 2001 Milsted
6266335 July 24, 2001 Bhaskaran
6266699 July 24, 2001 Sevcik
6269394 July 31, 2001 Kenner et al.
6272566 August 7, 2001 Craft
6275470 August 14, 2001 Ricciulli
6282569 August 28, 2001 Wallis et al.
6286045 September 4, 2001 Griffiths et al.
6298041 October 2, 2001 Packer
6314565 November 6, 2001 Kenner et al.
6317787 November 13, 2001 Boyd et al.
6324580 November 27, 2001 Jindal
6324582 November 27, 2001 Sridhar et al.
6330602 December 11, 2001 Law et al.
6332157 December 18, 2001 Mighdoll et al.
6338044 January 8, 2002 Cook et al.
6343298 January 29, 2002 Savchenko et al.
6345294 February 5, 2002 O'Toole et al.
6347085 February 12, 2002 Kelly
6351775 February 26, 2002 Yu
6351776 February 26, 2002 O'Brien et al.
6360256 March 19, 2002 Lim
6370571 April 9, 2002 Medin, Jr.
6370580 April 9, 2002 Kriegsman
6389462 May 14, 2002 Cohen et al.
6398245 June 4, 2002 Gruse et al.
6405252 June 11, 2002 Gupta et al.
6405257 June 11, 2002 Gersht et al.
6412000 June 25, 2002 Riddle et al.
6415280 July 2, 2002 Farber et al.
6415368 July 2, 2002 Glance et al.
6418421 July 9, 2002 Hurtado
6421714 July 16, 2002 Rai et al.
6421726 July 16, 2002 Kenner et al.
6427170 July 30, 2002 Sitaraman et al.
6430618 August 6, 2002 Karger et al.
6442588 August 27, 2002 Clark et al.
6453319 September 17, 2002 Mattis et al.
6456630 September 24, 2002 Packer et al.
6460082 October 1, 2002 Lumelsky
6460085 October 1, 2002 Toporek et al.
6463454 October 8, 2002 Lumelsky et al.
6463508 October 8, 2002 Wolf
6466949 October 15, 2002 Yang et al.
6470389 October 22, 2002 Chung et al.
6473405 October 29, 2002 Ricciulli
6480893 November 12, 2002 Kriegsman
6484143 November 19, 2002 Swildens et al.
6484204 November 19, 2002 Rabinovich
6487555 November 26, 2002 Bharat et al.
6490580 December 3, 2002 Dey et al.
6493707 December 10, 2002 Dey et al.
6496856 December 17, 2002 Kenner et al.
6502125 December 31, 2002 Kenner et al.
6502205 December 31, 2002 Yanai et al.
6502215 December 31, 2002 Raad et al.
6505248 January 7, 2003 Casper et al.
6529477 March 4, 2003 Toporek et al.
6553413 April 22, 2003 Lewin et al.
6553420 April 22, 2003 Karger et al.
6557054 April 29, 2003 Reisman
6564251 May 13, 2003 Katariya et al.
6577595 June 10, 2003 Counterman
6581090 June 17, 2003 Lindbo et al.
6584083 June 24, 2003 Toporek et al.
6587837 July 1, 2003 Spagna
6591288 July 8, 2003 Edwards et al.
6591299 July 8, 2003 Riddle et al.
6594260 July 15, 2003 Aviani et al.
6598121 July 22, 2003 Challenger et al.
6611862 August 26, 2003 Reisman
6625643 September 23, 2003 Colby et al.
6651141 November 18, 2003 Adrangi
6654344 November 25, 2003 Toporek et al.
6654807 November 25, 2003 Farber et al.
6658464 December 2, 2003 Reisman
6665706 December 16, 2003 Kenner et al.
6665726 December 16, 2003 Leighton et al.
6678659 January 13, 2004 Van Kommer
6691148 February 10, 2004 Loyall et al.
6694358 February 17, 2004 Swildens et al.
6699418 March 2, 2004 Okada et al.
6708137 March 16, 2004 Carley
6718328 April 6, 2004 Norris
6732237 May 4, 2004 Jacobs et al.
6741563 May 25, 2004 Packer
6741990 May 25, 2004 Nair et al.
6751673 June 15, 2004 Shaw
6754699 June 22, 2004 Swildens et al.
6754706 June 22, 2004 Swildens et al.
6763377 July 13, 2004 Belknap et al.
6763388 July 13, 2004 Tsimelzon
6778502 August 17, 2004 Ricciulli
6785704 August 31, 2004 McCanne
6799221 September 28, 2004 Kenner et al.
6801576 October 5, 2004 Haldeman et al.
6834306 December 21, 2004 Tsimelzon
6839758 January 4, 2005 SØrensen
6842604 January 11, 2005 Cook et al.
6859791 February 22, 2005 Spagna
6859840 February 22, 2005 Singal et al.
6870851 March 22, 2005 Leinwand et al.
6874032 March 29, 2005 Gersht et al.
6901604 May 31, 2005 Kiraly
6915307 July 5, 2005 Mattis et al.
6915329 July 5, 2005 Kriegsman
6928442 August 9, 2005 Farber et al.
6934255 August 23, 2005 Toporek et al.
6950623 September 27, 2005 Brown et al.
6963910 November 8, 2005 Belknap
6963980 November 8, 2005 Mattsson
6963981 November 8, 2005 Bailey et al.
6965890 November 15, 2005 Dey et al.
6970432 November 29, 2005 Hankins et al.
6973490 December 6, 2005 Robertson et al.
6976090 December 13, 2005 Ben-Shaul et al.
6981050 December 27, 2005 Tobias et al.
6981180 December 27, 2005 Bailey et al.
6996616 February 7, 2006 Leighton et al.
6999988 February 14, 2006 Buddhikot et al.
7003572 February 21, 2006 Lownsbrough et al.
7007089 February 28, 2006 Freedman
7010578 March 7, 2006 Lewin et al.
7012900 March 14, 2006 Riddle
7013342 March 14, 2006 Riddle
7024466 April 4, 2006 Outten et al.
7032072 April 18, 2006 Quinn et al.
7039633 May 2, 2006 Dey et al.
7047300 May 16, 2006 Oehrke et al.
7054902 May 30, 2006 Toporek et al.
7054935 May 30, 2006 Farber et al.
7058706 June 6, 2006 Iyer et al.
7069177 June 27, 2006 Carley
7096266 August 22, 2006 Lewin et al.
7103564 September 5, 2006 Ehnebuske
7103645 September 5, 2006 Leighton et al.
7110984 September 19, 2006 Spagna
7117259 October 3, 2006 Rohwer
7188085 March 6, 2007 Pelletier
7206748 April 17, 2007 Gruse
7254645 August 7, 2007 Nishi
7562153 July 14, 2009 Biliris et al.
20010027491 October 4, 2001 Terretta et al.
20010029525 October 11, 2001 Lahr
20010049732 December 6, 2001 Raciborski et al.
20010051980 December 13, 2001 Raciborski et al.
20010056500 December 27, 2001 Farber et al.
20020010798 January 24, 2002 Ben-Shaul et al.
20020016831 February 7, 2002 Peled et al.
20020016835 February 7, 2002 Gamerman
20020018449 February 14, 2002 Ricciulli
20020023164 February 21, 2002 Lahr
20020023165 February 21, 2002 Lahr
20020040404 April 4, 2002 Lahr
20020042817 April 11, 2002 Lahr
20020046273 April 18, 2002 Lahr et al.
20020046405 April 18, 2002 Lahr
20020049857 April 25, 2002 Farber et al.
20020059592 May 16, 2002 Kiraly
20020066038 May 30, 2002 Mattsson et al.
20020073199 June 13, 2002 Levine et al.
20020078233 June 20, 2002 Biliris
20020082999 June 27, 2002 Lee et al.
20020083124 June 27, 2002 Knox et al.
20020087797 July 4, 2002 Adrangi
20020089470 July 11, 2002 Raman et al.
20020092026 July 11, 2002 Janniello et al.
20020099850 July 25, 2002 Farber et al.
20020116444 August 22, 2002 Chaudhri et al.
20020124080 September 5, 2002 Leighton et al.
20020129134 September 12, 2002 Leighton et al.
20020131645 September 19, 2002 Hamilton
20020133537 September 19, 2002 Lau et al.
20020143798 October 3, 2002 Lisiecki et al.
20020143888 October 3, 2002 Lisiecki et al.
20020147774 October 10, 2002 Lisiecki et al.
20020152318 October 17, 2002 Menon et al.
20020163882 November 7, 2002 Bornstein et al.
20020198953 December 26, 2002 O'Rourke et al.
20020199016 December 26, 2002 Freedman
20030009444 January 9, 2003 Eidler et al.
20030018966 January 23, 2003 Cook et al.
20030028623 February 6, 2003 Hennessey et al.
20030028626 February 6, 2003 Hennessey et al.
20030028777 February 6, 2003 Hennessey et al.
20030031176 February 13, 2003 Sim
20030055972 March 20, 2003 Fuller et al.
20030061263 March 27, 2003 Riddle
20030061280 March 27, 2003 Bulson et al.
20030065703 April 3, 2003 Aborn
20030065762 April 3, 2003 Stolorz et al.
20030078888 April 24, 2003 Lee et al.
20030078889 April 24, 2003 Lee et al.
20030079027 April 24, 2003 Slocombe et al.
20030095660 May 22, 2003 Lee et al.
20030105604 June 5, 2003 Ash et al.
20030112792 June 19, 2003 Cranor et al.
20030149581 August 7, 2003 Chaudhri
20030154239 August 14, 2003 Davis et al.
20030158923 August 21, 2003 Burkhart
20030158928 August 21, 2003 Knox et al.
20040022194 February 5, 2004 Ricciulli
20040139097 July 15, 2004 Farber et al.
20040177148 September 9, 2004 Tsimelzon
20050021863 January 27, 2005 Jungck
20050033858 February 10, 2005 Swildens et al.
20050038851 February 17, 2005 Kriegsman
20050100027 May 12, 2005 Leinwand et al.
20050114296 May 26, 2005 Farber et al.
20050262104 November 24, 2005 Robertson et al.
20060143293 June 29, 2006 Freedman
20070055764 March 8, 2007 Dilley et al.
20090254661 October 8, 2009 Fullagar et al.
20100312861 December 9, 2010 Kolhi et al.
20100332595 December 30, 2010 Fullagar et al.
Foreign Patent Documents
763380 November 2003 AU
2202572 October 1998 CA
2288488 June 2000 CA
2335661 September 2001 CA
2335662 September 2001 CA
2467998 April 2006 CA
1264476 August 2000 CN
ZL99810853.7 August 2004 CN
0 649 121 October 1994 EP
0 651 554 October 1994 EP
0801487 October 1997 EP
0817444 January 1998 EP
0824236 February 1998 EP
0865180 September 1998 EP
1063831 December 2000 EP
1104555 June 2001 EP
2 281 793 March 1995 GB
2353877 March 2004 GB
140935 March 2006 IL
05162529 June 1993 JP
7066829 March 1995 JP
08328583 September 1996 JP
10-027148 January 1998 JP
10-093552 April 1998 JP
2000-207270 July 2000 JP
2001-7844 January 2001 JP
2001-290787 October 2001 JP
2001-312434 November 2001 JP
2002522995 July 2002 JP
3566626 June 2004 JP
2005124165 May 2005 JP
3762649 January 2006 JP
2001-0023599 March 2001 KR
176482 August 2003 NI
WO 96/42041 December 1996 WO
WO 97/11429 March 1997 WO
WO 97/29423 August 1997 WO
WO 09742582 November 1997 WO
WO 98/04985 February 1998 WO
WO 98/06033 February 1998 WO
WO 9859486 December 1998 WO
WO 99/017227 April 1999 WO
WO 99 48246 September 1999 WO
WO09953422 October 1999 WO
WO 00/29990 May 2000 WO
WO 00/60861 October 2000 WO
WO0193533 December 2001 WO
Other references
  • U.S. Appl. No. 10/073,938, filed Feb. 14, 2002.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 11/715,316, filed Mar. 8, 2007.
  • U.S. Appl. No. 11/980,672, filed Oct. 31, 2007.
  • USPTO, Official Action, Final Rejection dated Jan. 21, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 10/073,938, filed Feb. 14, 2002.
  • USPTO, Official Action, Final Rejection dated Sep. 11, 2006 in U.S. Appl. No. 10/073,938, filed Feb. 14, 2002.
  • USPTO, Official Action, Non-Final Rejection dated Jan. 12, 2006 in U.S. Appl. No. 10/073,938, filed Feb. 14, 2002.
  • USPTO, Official Action, Non-Final Rejection dated Mar. 29, 2005 in U.S. Appl. No. 10/073,938, filed Feb. 14, 2002.
  • USPTO, Official Action, Non-Final Rejection dated Apr. 29, 2008 in U.S. Appl. No. 10/073,938, filed Feb. 14, 2002.
  • USPTO, Official Action, Non-Final Rejection dated Oct. 31, 2008 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/715,316, filed Mar. 8, 2007.
  • Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), Notice of Preliminary Rejection (Non-Final)) for Korean Patent Application No. KR Oct. 2004-7012607, Jan. 19, 2010 [6 pgs.] plus English translation (provided by foreign associate) [5 pgs.].
  • USPTO, Non-Final Office Action mailed Oct. 7, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/980,672.
  • “Exporting Web Server Final Report,” http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/Labs/Lccn/projects/spring97/project4/final—report.html, Spring 1997 (downloaded Jul. 7, 2007).
  • “Local Area Network Server Replacement Procedure”, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 38, No. 1, (Jan. 1995), 235-236.
  • “Patent Abstracts of Japan, Electronic Mail Multiplexing System and Communication Control Method in the System” (Appln. No. JP19930162529), (Jun. 30, 1993) (Pub. No. JP 7066829).
  • “Patent Abstracts of Japan, Method and Device for Repeating and Converting Information”, (Appln. No. JP19960328583) (Pub. No. JP10171727), Jun. 26, 1998.
  • Adler, R. M., “Distributed Coordination Models for Client/Server Computing,” Computer 28, 4 (Apr. 1995), 14-22.
  • Aggarwal, A. et al., “Performance of Dynamic Replication Schemes for an Internet Hosting Service”. Technical Report, At&T Labs, Oct. 1998.
  • Andresen et al., “SWEB: Towards a Scalable World Wide Web Server on Multicomputers”, Proc. IPPS, (Apr. 15, 1996), 850-856.
  • Andresen, D., et al., Multiprocessor scheduling with client resources to improve the response time of WWW applications, Proc. 11th Int'l Conf. on Supercomputing (Austria, Jul. 1997). ICS '97. ACM Press, NY, NY, 92-99.
  • Awerbuch, B. et al., Distributed Paging for General Networks. In Proc. of the 7th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 574-583, Jan. 1996.
  • Baentsch, M, et al. “Enhancing the Web's Infrastructure: From Caching to Replication.” IEEE Internet Computing, 1(2): Mar. 18-27, 1997.
  • Basturk, E., et al., “Using network layer anycast for load distribution in the Internet,” Tech. Rep., IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Jul., 1997 (21 pgs.).
  • Bestavros, A., “Speculative Data Dissemination and Service to Reduce Server Load, Network Traffic and Service Time in Distributed Information Systems”, In Proc. ICDE '96: The 1996 Int'l Conf. on Data Engineering, (Mar. 1996), 4 pages.
  • Bestavros, et al., “Server-Initiated Document Dissemination for the WWW,” IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 19(3): Sep. 3-11, 1996.
  • Bhattacharjee et al., “Application-layer anycasting,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM '97, Apr. 1997.
  • Braun, H., et al., “Web traffic characterization: an assessment of the impact of caching documents from NCSA's web server,” Comput. Netw. ISDN Syst. 28, (Dec. 1-2, 1995), 37-51.
  • Carter et al., “Dynamic server selection using bandwidth probing in wide-area networks,” Tech. Rep. BU-CS-96-007, Comp. Sci. Dept., Boston University, Mar. 1996.
  • Carter et al., Server selection using dynamic path characterization in Wide-Area Networks, IEEE INFOCOM '97, 1997 (pp. 1014-1021).
  • Carter, J. Lawrence et al., “Universal Classes of Hash Functions”, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, vol. 18, No. 2, (Apr. 1979), 143-154.
  • Chankhunthod, A. et al., “A Hierarchical Internet Object Cache”, Proc. of the 1996 USENIX Technical Conf., Jan. 1996, pp. 153-163.
  • Cohen, J., et al., “Cache Array Routing Protocol v1.1”, Sep. 29, 1997; http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-vinod-carp-v1-01.txt (Last-Modified: Wed, Oct. 1, 1997).
  • Colajanni, M. and Yu, P. S. 1997. Adaptive TTL schemes for load balancing of distributed Web servers. SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev. 25, 2 (Sep. 1997), 36-42.
  • Crovella et al., Dynamic server selection in the Internet, 3rd IEEE Workshop on the Arch. and Implementation of High Performance Computer Sys. '95, pp. 158-162, Aug. 1995.
  • De Bra, P.M.E., et al., “Information Retrieval in the World Wide Web: Making Client-Based Searching Feasible”, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, NL, North Holland Publishing, Amsterdam, vol. 27, No. 2, ISSN: 0169-7552, (Nov. 1, 1994), 183-192.
  • Deering, S. E., et al, “Multicast routing in datagram internetworks and extended LANs,” ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 8, (May. 2, 1990), 85-110.
  • Doi, K. “Super Proxy Script—How to make distributed proxy servers by URL hashing,” Sharp Corp., http://naragw.sharp.co.jp/sps/, dates unknown (1996-2000), download Jul. 7, 2007.
  • Feeley, M., et al., “Implementing Global Memory Management in a Workstation Cluster”, In Proc. 15th ACM Symp. on Operating Systems Principles, (Dec. 1995), 201-212.
  • Floyd, S., et al., “A Reliable Multicast Framework for Light-Weight Sessions and Application Level Framing”, In Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM '95, 342-356, Aug. 1995.
  • Fox, A., “A Framework for Separating Server Scalability and Availability from Internet Application Functionality,” PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1998.
  • Fox, A., et al “Cluster-based scalable network services”, Proc. 16th ACM Symp. on Operating Systems Principles (Saint Malo, France, Oct. 5-8, 1997). W. M. Waite, Ed. SOSP '97. ACM Press, New York, NY, 78-91.
  • Goldszmidt, et al., “Load Distribution for Scalable Web Servers: Summer Olympics 1996—A Case Study,” In Proc. 8th IFIP/IEEE Int'l Workshop on Distributed Systems: Operations and Management, Sydney, Australia, Oct. 1997.
  • Grigni, M., et al., “Tight Bounds on Minimum Broadcasts Networks”, SIAM J. Disc. Math. 4 (May, 1991), 207-222.
  • Guyton et al., “Locating nearby copies of replicated Internet servers,” Proc. ACM SIGCOMM '95, pp. 288-298, Oct. 1995.
  • Gwertzman, J., et al., “The Case for Geographical Push-Caching”, Proc. Workshop on Hot OS '95, (May 4, 1995), 51-55.
  • Gwertzman, J., et al., “World-Wide Web Cache Consistency”, Proc. 1996 USENIX Tech. Conf., pp. 141-151, San Diego, CA, Jan. 1996.
  • Jeffery, C., et al., “Proxy sharing proxy servers.” In Proc. IEEE etaCOM Conf., pp. 116-119, May 1996.
  • JP 10(1998)—27148 machine translation prepared by Japanese Patent Office (JPO), published Jan. 27, 1998, Title: “Server System for Internet”, Applicant: Hitachi [23 pages].
  • Karger, D., et al., “Consistent Hashing and Random Trees: Distributed Caching Protocols for Relieving Hot Spots on the World Wide Web”, in Proc. 29th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, (May 1997), 654-663.
  • Korkea-aho, M. (1995). Scalability in Distributed Multimedia Systems, Technical report TKO-B128, Helsinki University of Technology.
  • Kwan et al., NCSA's World Wide Web Server: Design and Performance, IEEE, pp. 68-74, Nov. 1995.
  • Luotonen et al., World-Wide Web Proxies, CERN, Apr. 1994 (modified May 24, 1994).
  • Malpani, R., et al., “Making World Wide Web Caching Servers Cooperate”, in Proc. 4th Int3 l. World Wide Web Conf. (Dec. 1995), 10 pages (downloaded from http://www.w3.org/Conferences/WWW4/Papers/59/ on Jul. 7, 2007).
  • Mourad et al., “Scalable Web Server Architectures,” iscc, 2nd IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC '97), Jul. 1997, pp. 12-16.
  • Niki, Hitoshi, “Storage Network”, Computopia vol. 36, No. 415, Japan, Computer Age. Co., Ltd., Apr. 1, 2001, p. 52 (translation).
  • Oguchi et al., A Study of Caching Proxy Mechanisms Realized on Wide Area Distributed Networks, High Performance Distributed Computing, 5th Int'l Symp., pp. 443-449, Aug. 1996.
  • Palmer, M., et al., “Fido: A Cache that Learns to Fetch”, in Proc. The 17th Int'l Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, (Sep. 1991), 255-264.
  • Panigrahy, R., “Relieving Hot Spots on the World Wide Web”, Master's thesis, MIT EECS, Jun. 1997, pp. 1-66.
  • Patent Abstracts of Japan, “Server System for Internet”, Pub. No. 10-027148, pub. date Jan. 27, 1998, Applicant: Hitachi, computer translation, 12 pgs.
  • Petri S., et al., “Load Balancing and Fault Tolerance in Workstation Clusters. Migrating Groups of Communicating Processes.”, Operating Systems Review, vol. 29, No. 4, Oct. 1995, pp. 25-36.
  • Plaxton, G. C., et al., “Fast Fault-Tolerant Concurrent Access to Shared Objects”, In Proc. 37th IEEE Symp. of Foundations of Computer Science, (Oct. 1996), 570-579.
  • Rabin, M. O., 1989, “Efficient dispersal of information for security, load balancing, and fault tolerance,” J. ACM 36, 2 (Apr. 1989), 335-348.
  • Rabinovich, M. et al., “Dynamic Replication on the Internet Work Project No. 3116-17-7006”, AT&T Labs Research, Mar. 5, 1998.
  • Rabinovich, M. et al., RaDaR: A Scalable Architecture for a Global Web Hosting Service, WWW8, May 1999.
  • Ross, K.W., “Hash-Routing for Collections of Shared Web Caches”, IEEE Network Magazine, 11, 7:37-44, Nov.-Dec. 1997.
  • Smith, “What can Archives offer the World Wide Web?”, Technical Report 11, University of Kent, Computing Laboratory, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK, Mar. 1994.
  • Takahashi, Takao, “How to customize Apache Q&a,—Web server using Apache” Al Publishing, Apr. 30, 1999, First Edition, pp. 63-64 (translation).
  • Thaler, D. G. And Ravishankar, C. V. 1998. Using name-based mappings to increase hit rates. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 6, (Feb. 1, 1998), 1-14.
  • Vitter, J. S., et al., “Optimal Prefetching via Data Compression,” Proc. 32nd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Oct. 1991).
  • Wessels, Intelligent Caching for World-Wide Web Objects, Masters Thesis, University of Colorado, Jan. 1995 (also presented at INET '95 in Jun. 1995).
  • Wolfson, O., et al., an Adaptive Data Replication Algorithm, ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), vol. 22(4), Jun. 1997, pp. 255-314.
  • International Preliminary Examination Report (IPER), Form PCT/IPEA/409, WIPO, for PCT/US03/04108, Oct. 2003 [3 pgs.].
  • International Search Report (ISR), Form PCT/ISA/210, WIPO, for PCT/US03/04108, Aug. 2003 [3 pgs.].
  • Sen, S., et al., “Proxy Prefix Caching for Multimedia Streams”, IEEE, 1999, Jun. 1999.
  • Berra, P.B., et al., “Architecture for Distributed Database Systems,” Computer Communications, vol. 13, No. 4, May 1, 1990, pp. 217-231.
  • Little, T.D.C., et al., “Selection and Dissemination of Digital Video via the Virtual Video Browser,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 1, No. 2, Jun. 1995 (Netherlands), pp. 149-172.
  • Rodriguez, P. et al, “Improving the WWW: Caching or Multicast?”, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, North Holland Publishing. Amsterdam, NL, vol. 30, No. 22-23 Nov. 1998, pp. 2223-2243, ISSN: 0169-7552.
  • Vin, H., Multimedia Broadcasting Over the Internet: Part 1, Oct. 1998, IEEE Multimedia, IEEE Computer Society, US, vol. 5, NR.4, pp. 78-82.
  • Martin Reisslein et al., “Interactive Video Streaming With Proxy Servers,” INFOCOM 2000, pp. 1-11.
  • Almeroth, K., et al. “Scalable Delivery of Web Pages Using Cyclic Best-Effort (UDP) Multicast”, IEEE INFOCOM, San Francisco, California, USA, Jun. 1998.
  • Awerbuch, et al., Competitive Distributed File Allocation. In Proc. of the 25th Ann. ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, pp. 164-173, May 1993.
  • Baentsch, M., et al., “Introducing Application-Level Replication and Naming into Today's Web,” Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 28, No. 7-11, pp. 921-930, May 1996.
  • Bartal, Y., et al., “Competitive Algorithms for Distributed Data Management”, 24th Annual ACM STOC, May 1992, Victoria, B.C. Canada.
  • Berners-Lee, T. & Connolly, D., “Hypertext Markup Language—2.0,” Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1866, Nov. 1995.
  • Berners-Lee, T., et al., “Hypertext Transfer Protocol—HTTP/1.0,” Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Internet Draft, draft-ieff-http-v10-spec-00.ps, Mar. 1995.
  • Berners-Lee, T., et al., “Hypertext Transfer Protocol—HTTP/1.0,” Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1945, May 1996.
  • Berners-Lee, T., et al., RFC 1738—Uniform Resource Locators, Dec. 1994.
  • Bestavros, A. Demand-based document dissemination to reduce traffic and balance load in distributed information systems. In Proc. IEEE Symp. on Parallel and Distributed Processing, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 1995.
  • Brisco, T. P. RFC 1794: DNS support for load balancing, Apr. 1995.
  • Cate, V. “Alex: a global file system”, in Proc. Usenix Conf. on File Systems, May, 1992, pp. 1-11.
  • Colajanni, M., et al., “Scheduling Algorithms for Distributed Web Servers,” International Conf. on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), Baltimore, Maryland, USA, May 1997.
  • Danzig, P. B., et al., “An analysis of wide-area name server traffic: a study of the Internet Domain Name System,” Conf. Proc. Communications Architectures & Protocols (Aug. 1992). D. Oran, Ed. SIGCOMM '92. ACM Press, New York, NY, 281-292.
  • Eriksson, H., “MBONE: The Multicast Backbone,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 37, No. 8, p. 54-60, Aug. 1994.
  • Fielding, R., et al., “Hypertext Transfer Protocol—HTTP/1.1,” Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Internet Draft, draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-00.txt, Nov. 1995.
  • Fielding, R., et al., “Hypertext Transfer Protocol—HTTP/1.1,” Internet Engineering Task Force(IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 2068, Jan. 1997.
  • Gadde, S., et al., “Reduce, reuse, recycle: An approach to building large internet caches,” in Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems (HotOS), Apr. 1997, pp. 93-98.
  • Kim, Y. J., et al., “Clustered multi-media NOD: Popularity-based article prefetching and placement,” Sixteenth IEEE Symp. on Mass Storage Systems, San Diego, CA, pp. 194-202 (Mar. 15-18, 1999).
  • Krishnamurthy, B. et al., Study of piggyback cache validation for proxy caches in the World Wide Web, in: Symp. on Internet Technology and Systems, USENIX Association, Dec. 1997.
  • Kroeger, T. M. et al., “Exploring the Bounds of Web Latency Reduction from Caching and Prefetching,” Proc. Usenix Symp. Internet Technologies and Systems, Usenix, Dec. 1997, pp. 13-22.
  • Li Xiao and Xiaodong Zhang, Exploiting neglected data locality in browsers, in Proc. 10th Int'l World Wide Web Conference, (WWW10), Hong Kong, May 1-5, 2001 (extended abstract) [2 pgs.].
  • Malkin, G., “RIP Version 2 Carrying Additional Information,” Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1388, Jan. 1993.
  • Mockapetris, P., RFC 1034: Domain Names—Concepts and Facilities, Nov. 1987.
  • Mockapetris, P., RFC 1035: Domain Names—Implementation and Specification, Nov. 1987.
  • Moy, J., “OSPF Version 2,” Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1583, Mar. 1994.
  • Office Action (Final) for corresponding Japanese application, JP 2003-568495, from Japanese Patent Office, dated Feb. 12, 2008 (organized translation, 2 pgs.).
  • Office Action for corresponding Chinese (PRC) patent application No. 03806039.6, from the Patent Office of the People's Republic of China, dated Jul. 13, 2007 (translation, 28 pgs., including 2 pg. summary).
  • Office Action for corresponding Japanese application, JP 2003-568495, from Japanese Patent Office, dated Sep. 11, 2007 (organized translation, 2 pgs.).
  • Parris C., et al, “A Dynamic Connection Management Scheme for Guaranteed Performance Services in Packet-Switching Integrated Services Networks,” UC Berkeley Computer Science Division Tech. Report TR-93-005, 1993.
  • Parris C., et al, “The Dynamic Management of Guaranteed Performance Connections in Packet Switched Integrated Service Networks,” UC Berkeley Computer Science Division and International Computer Science Institute Tech. Report CSD-94-859, 1994.
  • Partridge, C., et al., “Host Anycasting Service,” Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1546, Nov. 1993.
  • Povey, D. et al., “A distributed internet cache,” in Proc. Of the 20th Australasian Computer Science Conf., Feb. 1997.
  • Second Office Action for corresponding Chinese (PRC) patent application No. 03806039.6, from the Patent Office of The People's Republic of China, dated Feb. 22, 2008 (translation, 4 pgs., including 2 pg. summary).
  • Third Office Action for corresponding Chinese (PRC) patent application No. 03806039.6, from the Patent Office of The People's Republic of China, dated Aug. 8, 2008 (translation, 27 pgs. including 2 pg. summary).
  • Topolcic, C., “Experimental Internet Stream Protocol, Version 2 (ST-II),” Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1190, Oct. 1990.
  • Touch, J. et al., “The X-Bone,”. Third Global Internet Mini-Conference at Globecom '98. Sydney, Australia, Nov. 1998, pp. 59-68 (pp. 44-52 of the mini-conference).
  • Traina, P., “BGP-4 Protocol Analysis,” Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1774, Mar. 1995.
  • Wessels, D. “Configuring Hierarchical Squid Caches”, Aug. 19, 1997.
  • Wessels, D. et al., RFC2186, “Internet Cache Protocol (ICP), Version 2”, Sep. 1997, Memo; Internet RFC/STD/FYI/BCP Archives, Network Working Group.
  • European Patent Office (EPO), Communication for Application No. EP03739748 dated Oct. 28, 2010, [1 pg.], including European Search Report [1 pg.], Annex to European Search Report [1 pg.].
  • Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), Notice of Final Rejection [3 pgs.] (with unofficial translation [2 pgs.]) for Korean Patent Application No. KR 10-2004-7012607, Sep. 30, 2010.
  • “European Exam Report, dated Apr. 29, 2011”, EP App. No. 03739748.6, 5 pgs.
  • European Examination Report, dated Nov. 28, 2012, Application No. 03739748.6, 6 pgs.
  • Summons to Attend Oral Proceedings, dated Jun. 28, 2013, EP Application No. 03739748.6, 6 pgs.
Patent History
Patent number: 8782123
Type: Grant
Filed: Oct 30, 2007
Date of Patent: Jul 15, 2014
Patent Publication Number: 20080065724
Assignee: Level 3 Communications, LLC (Broomfield, CO)
Inventors: Steven L. Seed (Woodland Hills, CA), Kevin Hobbs (Vista, CA), Shane M. Glynn (Culver City, CA), Isaac W. Foraker (Winnetka, CA), Peter J. Jones (Thousand Oaks, CA), Homer H. Chen (Thousand Oaks, CA)
Primary Examiner: Sulaiman Nooristany
Application Number: 11/978,656
Classifications
Current U.S. Class: Client/server (709/203)
International Classification: G06F 15/16 (20060101);