both
Printable View
both
I usually use torrent, but I'm often worried about how long and how much my hard disk is stressed by the double activity of downloading and uploading, so I think I'll be taking into account rapidshare once I really find an efficient way of searching in it... I'm a newbie, don't mock me! :-)
I also found that to be suboptimal if you try to xfer a file from one computer to another at high speed rates like 100Mbit. But I think it's not only that you need to read and write at the same time, but that with torrent you have many active chunks randomly distributed over the area of the file. While with FTP and simple file transfer the hard-drive's heads would just go along the file-space continuously, with BitTorrent they need to do the part in the middle, at the same time the one at the beginning, and following the one in the end - the head is always jumping over the area of the file. That's because torrent usually picks small parts of the file randomly, and of course it also gets data from more than one source at a time, so continuously writing does already fail (the different peers must of course send different blocks/areas of the file in the same moment). With BitTorrent at same transfer speeds the HDD was much more active in head movement than with simply using integrated Windows file-sharing. Anyway caching can help to lower this phenomena significantly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue62
bittorrent, its more fast
I had 1 month trial on rapidshare and I never liked it.
I like more bittorent or usenet.
Bittorrent or Rapidshare
They both get the job done..
I vote for BitTorrent,but i also use Rapid(alot)
torrents why would rapidshare.
if i was using rapidshare i have to download each file alone & thats a waste of time. While in torrent download all the fies at the same time.
Rapidshare any time...
BitTrorrent.
Torrent live longer than RS links, torrents are more accessible and there are faster realeses.
"F*CK YOU, AND YOUR 60 MILLION RAPIDSHARE LINKS"