Speaking Of: Torrent Sites

[RedPillow]

First thing to say, is that I don`t want anything illegal here - as the torrent-sites are not illegal.

I actually made this topic up, because I wanted to ask you, that what do you think about sharing programs, videos, music and other stuff MADE BY YOURSELF on the torrent-sites?
I think those sites should really be used more to ship legal stuff since they have easy search-method and lots of stuff gathered to one place - and lets not remember user-supported dl/ul`s.

It would be hell of a lot easier to find that album made by your neightbor by searching it from these sites that surfing on google and stuff and not finding anything at all.

So, post your thoughts and so on..

[JavaJones]

Personally I think Bittorrent is a fantastic content *distribution* system, but not really a good content *discovery* system, and existing indexing sites are fairly good at indexing content and providing basic info about it, but they're not at all a good promotional or even informational platform for the content. In other words if your neighbor is making good music and wants to tell the world about it, the last thing I'd recommend is just to put it up in Bittorrent and hope people will find it. Leveraging Bittorrent for content distribution for his music is a great idea, but nobody will really *find* him that way. So BT is an adjunct to other systems, not a replacement. Use BT for what it's good at - data transfer - and pair it with effective use of other tools, a website, a facebook page, etc. and I think you have a good platform for success with minimal cost and other overhead.

- Oshyan

[RedPillow]

Might it work for companies, which need to transfer different files and stuff all the day?
Please note, that this doesn`t happend only inside the company, so network-drives wont work.
If we leave out Ftp-servers, how would it work with torrents then?

[f0dder]

What JavaJones said.

Nine Inch Nails used ThePirateBay to distribute some of their free stuff - but advertised it on their site.

Dunno about using the torrent protocol as a replacement for FTP... it would require writing new software and a pretty alternative tracker for it to work - and there's the issue of authentication and, to a degree, encryption. Also, the torrent protocol is better suited for multiple-peers - but because of it's per-chunk hashing and reliable resume, it might be better than ftp for single server->client as well.

[Innuendo]

Might it work for companies, which need to transfer different files and stuff all the day?
Please note, that this doesn`t happend only inside the company, so network-drives wont work.
If we leave out Ftp-servers, how would it work with torrents then?

Companies that use BitTorrent? You may want to ask Blizzard. They've got a little side-project going right now that uses BitTorrent to deliver updates. It's called World Of Warcraft. Don't know if everyone's heard of that program yet, though. 

[RedPillow]

Might it work for companies, which need to transfer different files and stuff all the day?
Please note, that this doesn`t happend only inside the company, so network-drives wont work.
If we leave out Ftp-servers, how would it work with torrents then?

Companies that use BitTorrent? You may want to ask Blizzard. They've got a little side-project going right now that uses BitTorrent to deliver updates. It's called World Of Warcraft. Don't know if everyone's heard of that program yet, though. 

What an interesting fact, I have never thought that! :O

How about those japanese mmorpg-copies?

[KynloStephen66515]

Might it work for companies, which need to transfer different files and stuff all the day?
Please note, that this doesn`t happend only inside the company, so network-drives wont work.
If we leave out Ftp-servers, how would it work with torrents then?

Companies that use BitTorrent? You may want to ask Blizzard. They've got a little side-project going right now that uses BitTorrent to deliver updates. It's called World Of Warcraft. Don't know if everyone's heard of that program yet, though. 

What an interesting fact, I have never thought that! :O

How about those japanese mmorpg-copies?

I know of at least 12 different games companies, who offer their download via BT, and also offer every update to be downloaded in BT format.

Asides from this, there are also multiple audio and software vendors who choose to do the same thing.  Bandwidth is saved, money is saved, and this reflects (sometimes) on the end price of a product, because the community is gathering together to provide the vendor, its downloads.

[CWuestefeld]

Bandwidth is saved, money is saved, and this reflects (sometimes) on the end price of a product

I don't think that's true in the big picture. All that's saved is the bandwidth expense for the publisher. But at least as much bandwidth is used overall. The difference is that you are paying for the bandwidth. Of course, since the custom at least in the USA is to purchase unlimited data transfer within the bandwidth, you don't see the difference. But everyone's Internet connection will be slightly higher because of it, offsetting the cheaper price for the software product.

And actually, I bet that it's a net loss overall. FTP is a very efficient protocol, with its sliding windows based on transmission accuracy. But I don't think BT does that, and moreover it must be using additional bandwidth in discovering additional peers.

[f0dder]

And actually, I bet that it's a net loss overall. FTP is a very efficient protocol, with its sliding windows based on transmission accuracy. But I don't think BT does that, and moreover it must be using additional bandwidth in discovering additional peers.

FTP doesn't have any sliding-windows stuff built in, that's part of TCP, which is also the transfer protocol used by bittorent.

Yes, FTP is very efficient in that it simply streams data at you... but the protocol is borderline retarded, and there's no error-checking or error-recovery built in. Typically the best you can do is check against a .md5 after grabbing the entire file... if that md5 mismatches, go re-grab the entire file again. BitTorrent has per-chunk hashing, meaning you'll only need to re-download failed chunks.

[CWuestefeld]

FTP doesn't have any sliding-windows stuff built in, that's part of TCP

You're right of course. I think I was assuming that on a single monolithic FTP transfer, the window size will grow to a large value and stay there for the rest of the transfer. But BT transfers are typically lots of short-lived connections that open and close. In these cases it would start with a small window, and maybe disconnect before it even gets to the max size (I don't know how long that takes). So with BT, a larger portion of the file will be transferred through smaller-sized windows.

In any case, the point that BT simply externalizes the bandwidth costs so that it's borne by other parties (consumers or ISPs) is true regardless.

[superboyac]

I've always wanted to use torrents to share personal files between family and friends.  but I never tried it because it requires a client, and some of the people I'd send it to wouldn't know where to get one or what to do with it.  ("What's a torrent file??")  We're talking really computer illiterate: people who browse the web and check email and that's it.

One of the best file-sharing solutions I came across (thanks Zaine) was HFS.  It was like ftp, but easier for the end user.  I like the file-sharing uploading services like megaupload, rapidshare, because all people have to do is click on the link.  But one of the problems with that is that they make you click on a couple of things and of course they have to stick as much ads and stuff around it.  I wish it was a direct link that when clicked on, would just start downloading the file.  The other thing I've noticed recently is that with Megaupload, my files would always get corrupted after uploading.  Either due to Kaspersky or whatever.  I had a real problem with it.  And Kasperksky doesn't play nice with Megaupload, you have to disable it while uploading.

So my preferred method right now is to use HFS.  I just have to remember to keep it running on my side.  The other thing I like to do is put the file on my dcmembers website and have people get it from there.  but I only do that if it's related to my website content.

So, in summary, yes, torrents are a great idea.  But even today, it's still only used by the computer savvy.  The majority of regular people still don't use torrent.  I know people will disagree with me, but it's true.

[f0dder]

FTP doesn't have any sliding-windows stuff built in, that's part of TCP

You're right of course. I think I was assuming that on a single monolithic FTP transfer, the window size will grow to a large value and stay there for the rest of the transfer. But BT transfers are typically lots of short-lived connections that open and close.

Hm, that would depend on your swarm. I haven't checked with wireshark/whatever, but I've watched connection stats of �torrent and rtorrent - and I generally stay connected to (and grab numerous chunks from) a handful of high-speed peers... which also means no TCP new-connection 3-way handshake and window size negotiation.

With FTP, you get a new connection for every file transferred, making it absolutely suck if you're dealing with multiple smaller files. Torrents are bundled up into chunks, and don't suffer from this problem.

In any case, the point that BT simply externalizes the bandwidth costs so that it's borne by other parties (consumers or ISPs) is true regardless.

True, at least that's how it's being (ab)used right now.

It's a shame people don't put torrent technology to better use... the times I've tried grabbing a linux distro via torrents, I've had abysmally low speeds, since the university/whatever servers hosting ISOs via http/ftp don't participate. So instead of doing a little load-balancing, I always end up hitting a single http server for 20mbit/s instead.

OTOH, torrents aren't really suitable for "cherry-picking" files from a FTP server, it only really works when you'll be grabbing rather large packs of data. Sure, most torrent clients will let you only download partical contents of a torrent, but there's some waste involved in doing this, and the "workflow" for doing this isn't as easy as queueing files in a ftp client.

So, in summary, yes, torrents are a great idea.  But even today, it's still only used by the computer savvy.  The majority of regular people still don't use torrent.  I know people will disagree with me, but it's true.

Not everybody playing World Of Warcraft are computer-savvy

[RedPillow]

So basically, if a group is lack of bandwidth and one of them needs a certain file - the group could share the 20gig file to you together (as we think that the downloader has very fast connection and the 20 others in the groups has medium-speed connection) then the torrents could be answer?

[Tuxman]

Given that we only speak about legal contents, I'd still prefer eMule. BitTorrent is made for fast distribution, not for wide spreading, so a file usually dies within a few days; not a good thing if I as, let's say, a singer want to become more popular or something.
(It is also easier to handle; you don't have to create a new "seed file" or something first.)

[RedPillow]

Given that we only speak about legal contents, I'd still prefer eMule. BitTorrent is made for fast distribution, not for wide spreading, so a file usually dies within a few days; not a good thing if I as, let's say, a singer want to become more popular or something.
(It is also easier to handle; you don't have to create a new "seed file" or something first.)

I know Emule, as well as limewire - but what are they based on and how do they technically work?

[Tuxman]

eMule uses servers (quite deprecated now) or the decentralized KAD network, no servers, trackers or seed files are required. 100% P2P. While the server thing was based on old eDonkey2000 protocol, KAD is something like Overnet was. But heavily modernized. (And it relies on spreading, not on fast uploading.)
Which technical part should I explain?

[RedPillow]

eMule uses servers (quite deprecated now) or the decentralized KAD network, no servers, trackers or seed files are required. 100% P2P. While the server thing was based on old eDonkey2000 protocol, KAD is something like Overnet was. But heavily modernized. (And it relies on spreading, not on fast uploading.)
Which technical part should I explain?

100% P2P?

I get it as "You must pay to use this thing"

And on the second thought -- it`s peer to peer ^_^

[Tuxman]

Not pay to play.

[RedPillow]

Confusing, lol =D