chabu
join:2002-01-16 | RocketStream
Has anyone used this software called RocketStream which is an accelerated transfer solution? |
|
lilhurricane
Storm Coming
Premium,Mod
join:2003-01-11
Purple Zone
clubs:   | lil linkage helps 
»www.rocketstream.com/home/default.aspx |
|
chabu
join:2002-01-16 | thanks...loks very interesting, but does it live up to its hype..
found it difficult to set up...
looking for a simple tutorial.. |
|
sivran
God Save The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs: | reply to chabu
Smells fishy. |
|
chabu
join:2002-01-16 | lets see what the gurus here have to say.... |
|
MrFixit1
join:1999-11-26
Madison, WI
| reply to chabu
Are there ways to speed up file transfers ?
Sure , lots of ways . I have no doubt that a system like theirs that controls both ends of the connection could be faster .
I do have issues with statements like this though !
" How does it compare? Imagine downloading a 10 GB file over a 100 Mb/s connection from Asia to the United States. Under typical network conditions, a download over HTTP would require over 18 hours to receive the file. RocketStream?: under 20 minutes."
Wonder just how they are routing that ?
100Mb under normal conditions should only take 20 min. for 10 GB.
Use »www.numion.com/Calculators/Time.html if you want to check  |
|
chabu
join:2002-01-16 | reply to chabu
would like to try it, but not too clear about its setup..... |
|
sivran
God Save The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| reply to MrFixit1
said by MrFixit1  :Are there ways to speed up file transfers ? Sure , lots of ways . I have no doubt that a system like theirs that controls both ends of the connection could be faster . I do have issues with statements like this though ! " How does it compare? Imagine downloading a 10 GB file over a 100 Mb/s connection from Asia to the United States. Under typical network conditions, a download over HTTP would require over 18 hours to receive the file. RocketStream?: under 20 minutes." Wonder just how they are routing that ? 100Mb under normal conditions should only take 20 min. for 10 GB. Use » www.numion.com/Calculators/Time.html if you want to check Yeah, seriously -- what, do they claim to have a route of virtually unused 100+ megabit links (or underused gigabit links) across multiple continents or at least one very large ocean?
I affirm my previous assessment of fishy smell.
--
Think outside the fox...Seamonkey |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| reply to chabu
Re: RocketStream
Oh no. Not again. Didn't we go through enough of these fake accelerators in the eighties?
A quick glance at their "Technology" page reveals what they're doing -- sending files via UDP. Big.... *(^#@$&(.... deal.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
dadkins
Living on a Blu Planet
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | Juice Boosted?  |
|
chabu
join:2002-01-16 | reply to chabu
help me set it up and i will test and report back as long as it does not get me trouble with my isp...... |
|
sivran
God Save The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| If you're lookin to use it for your home connection, it'll be of little or no value.
The only way I see it doing anything to improve file transfer speed from point A to point B is if, when you set it up, it starts immediately uploading the files you've selected to share to one or more of their servers. Then when you request one of those files from some other location, it leverages the bandwidth of your home connection along with their servers. Otherwise, no matter how good the software may be, you'll be limited to the slowest link in the chain: typically your home connection. Such multi-source downloading techniques are nothing new, and nothing worth paying for in any case. You could, for instance, upload a bunch of files to the webspace your ISP gives you, or even use emule. Just be sure to encrypt stuff first.
As for sending files via UDP, well, they say their proprietary protocol guarantees delivery. Thus, there must be some mechanism in there to request re-transmits. Looky here, we're essentially back to TCP with an infinite receive window, ACKs optional.
I can upload pretty much at full speed across the US, and only lose 10-20% across the pacific much of the time. Thus to even tell if it DID work I'd need someone in Singapore to download some stuff.
--
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon profitable cause... |
|
BillyJoeJimBob
@usscript.com
| reply to chabu
They do use UDP to use a larger percentage of theoretical bandwidth - it is a proven technique that really does work. Pure TCP transactions typically see large drops in throughput as soon as latency increases. Often getting only a small fraction of of the supposed bandwidth. I have two sites each with 3Mb sysnchronous internet connection that normally only gets about 200kb actual speed between them - the loss is due to latency. Using UDP keeps you closer to 90% of your theoretical max even when latency goes up.
When they say it takes them 20 min to transfer a file and you think that's all it should have - you're right. They are getting the "full" speed available. The problem is that normal transfer methods don't come anywhere near the speed you think it should be. They are faster not because they are so fast - but because "normal" transfers run so slow.
Then they perform on-the-fly compression in addition to that. Database files can routinely see 8:1, 10:1, or even 12:1 compression ratios.
Now do the math - if you can normally get only 1/10 of the rated bandwidth due to latency and they can get you back to 9/10, that's a 9x increase. And then if they are only transmitting 1/12 the file size thanks to on-the-fly- compression - that's an EFFECTIVE gain of 108 TIMES in speed.
Rocketstream costs something like $5,000 (server version) because it is software based on your equipment. Other vendors use the same techniques on black-box appliances with co-processors to speed up the compression and charge over $50,000.
It's really not fishy - the benefits are very real, and very logical. Like any company, their advertising looks at scenarios that portray them in the best possible light, but it is not unreasonable to expect 5x -10x effective gains over a WAN. |
|
sivran
God Save The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs: | Thus completely useless to your average home user. I'm pretty sure there's free/open-source software out there to sling files around via UDP as well.
So what's the latency between those two sites? |
|
chabu
join:2002-01-16 | Please let us know what free/open source software you are referring to... |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| I believe sivran was assuming, correctly, that because file transfers are the very reason for the existence of the Internet, many many people smarter than us have worked on these issues long ago and are continuing to do so.
About 40 seconds of Googling yielded lots of info including mention of the SABUL, TSUMAMI , FOBS, RBUDP, UDT, and UFTP alternate UDP based protocols.
One available free software project is at »tsunami-udp.sourceforge.net/
Again, this was only a quick check.
I concur with sivran.
Also, I think BitTorrent's DHT option uses UDP for very fast point to point transfers too. There's little need to pay someone for this stuff.
By the way, I always laugh when I read about people paying for expensive transmission hardware and software that gets most of its benefit from compressing data in transit that should have been compressed on the source side in the first place.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
sivran
God Save The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| AFAIK DHT doesn't transfer data, just tracks peers. And even if it did, like I said previously, for the average home user it'd just be worthless. The latency would have to be pretty high to start having an effect on upload.
Fios users are not average home users, they make up a fraction of the home user population.
--
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon profitable cause... |
|
Taratronic
@grandenetworks.net |  reply to chabu
If it doesn't work and is useless; why is it being used by Weyerhuaser, Rio Tinto, NBC Universal, and numerous other corporations worldwide? |
|
sivran
God Save The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| said by Taratronic :
If it doesn't work and is useless; why is it being used by Weyerhuaser, Rio Tinto, NBC Universal, and numerous other corporations worldwide?
Cocaine was once touted as a cure-all.
--
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon profitable cause... |
|
