This report studies the performance of Peer-to-Peer storage and backup systems (P2PSS). These systems are based on three pillars: data fragmentation and dissemination among the peers, redundancy mechanisms to cope with peers churn, and repair mechanisms to recover lost or temporarily unavailable data. Usually, redundancy is achieved either by using replication or by using erasure codes. A new class of network coding (regenerating codes) has been proposed recently. Therefore, we will adapt our work to these three redundancy schemes. We introduce two mechanisms for recovering lost data and evaluate their performance by modeling them through absorbing Markov chains. Specifically, we evaluate the quality of service provided to users in terms of durability and availability of stored data for each recovery mechanism and deduce the impact of its parameters on the system performance. The first mechanism is centralized and based on the use of a single server that can recover multiple losses at once. The second mechanism is distributed: reconstruction of lost fragments is iterated sequentially on many peers until the required level of redundancy is attained. The key assumptions made in this work, in particular, the assumptions made on the recovery process and peer on-times distribution, are in agreement with the analysis in [11] and in [20] respectively. The models are thereby general enough to be applicable to many distributed environments as shown through numerical computations. We find that, in stable environments such as local area or research institute networks where machines are usually highly available, the distributed-repair scheme in erasure-coded systems offers a reliable, scalable and cheap storage/backup solution. For the case of highly dynamic environments, in general, the distributed-repair scheme is inefficient, in particular to maintain high data availability, unless the data redundancy is high. Using regenerating codes overcomes this limitation of the distributed-repair scheme. P2PSS with centralized-repair scheme are efficient in any environment but have the disadvantage of relying on a centralized authority. However, the analysis of the overhead cost (e.g. computation, bandwidth cost and complexity) resulting from the different redundancy schemes with respect to their advantages (e.g. simplicity), is left for future work.