Originally Posted by
zalamo
Well in FTP you get a fast speed , is whats most 0-day tracker use. is far away better than any others P2P system ,whats hard in FTP is the ratio system thats you need to have others source to be able to upload or you provide a fast connection 10/100mbit or pay if you dont know how to race 30 till 100 $ per month.
ps : DC++ and Irc both of them hav fast speed than torrent trackers
.
u miseed the point though... ftp might be faster (which isnt entirely true if u look at how many ppl are getting the data and how the data is distributed in bt vs ftp), but the costs are greater as well... u have to be more tight about security, u serve a much smaller userbase, u need much greater bandwidth requirements, it is easier to trace unless the ftp is iptabled which thus goes back to the small userbase issue and also makes entrance requirements even tighter... also if u have one bad apple, the whole server can go down...
the point is to spread the data to as many users as u can as fast as u can... ftp doesnt allow u to do that.. take it this way, u could buy 10 100mb seedboxes or 10 100mb ftp servers (both are the same in terms of hardware and cost the same) but with the latter, u d serve (im just throwing numbers here) like what 100 uses at most at their full speed... with the former, u could easily seed to >10000 assuming the swarm doesnt fill up all at the same time since ur distributing the bandwidth and thus the load on the original 10 seedbox seeders gets diminished as more and more peers get more of the files.... so in other words, u have an exponential distribution of the files accross the peers, and furthermore, ur making use of the bandwidth of every peer to distribute the data... so in the same time u d take to seed to 100 users, bt would have given it to 10000 users
(u can think of it as piplelining if u know smt about processor design - the output of one result might be slower because of the overheads and the time it takes to fill the pipeline, but the total bandwidth of data outputed is much greater once the pipeline is filled up) technologically, it is far more advanced than ftp.... + u dont need to be that secure about it as with ftp servers (since firstly the legal side of it is grey at the moment since ur not really hosting any files on the trackers that actually break the law and secondly cause if u use a few seedboxes, the true originator of the data is hidden - i guess u can emulate that behaviour with multiple ftp servers each sending to another.. but u cant deny the fact that bt is much more efficient as a protocol, which was my original point
)
the only drawback with bittorrent i see is the lack of privacy.
jajaja
BT Rep: +8
n00b
BT Rep: +3
you're dead
BT Rep: +50
Urban Desinger
Chew E. Bakke
Poster
Posting Permissions
the only drawback with bittorrent i see is the lack of privacy.
Reply With Quote
... privacy is no issue then (u can get vpn's that max out ur home connections speeds)
.
(u can think of it as piplelining if u know smt about processor design - the output of one result might be slower because of the overheads and the time it takes to fill the pipeline, but the total bandwidth of data outputed is much greater once the pipeline is filled up) technologically, it is far more advanced than ftp.... + u dont need to be that secure about it as with ftp servers (since firstly the legal side of it is grey at the moment since ur not really hosting any files on the trackers that actually break the law and secondly cause if u use a few seedboxes, the true originator of the data is hidden - i guess u can emulate that behaviour with multiple ftp servers each sending to another.. but u cant deny the fact that bt is much more efficient as a protocol, which was my original point 
Bookmarks