how-to block ads
|
fritz43
join:2004-03-14
Wheeling, WV
| BitTorrent - don't bother, kids.
Quote from a USENET posting...
Been trying bit-torrent downloads, and found it's like a study in bandwidth waste. Maybe I've set it up all wrong or missed some vital detail, I don't know. Would like to hear comments from some knowledgeable person.
Each download with enough active sources and seeders starts out nicely and chugs along fine. Up to a point. The last few megs always takes hours upon hours. All the while, digits comes and goes through the connection like crazy, but it seems most of it is overhead, like calls and requests and denials etc etc. Few bits are the ones you need to complete that download struggling at 99.6%.
Wonder if the guys who invented this torrent system, thought it through and found the best algorithms for worldwide filesharing? Reports in media says the nets capacity is eaten away by bit torrents. Seen figures between 30% to over 50%.
I don't know, but isn't this setup roughly like tearing a bunch of copies of a magazines into tiny pieces and giving a random handful each to alot of people. If someone wants to puzzle together a complete magazine, he'd be fine with calling the first several people. Most would have pieces he's missing. But finally when he's looking for that last piece, he'd have to ask lots and lots of people, and most would say : "sorry, don't have it, I'm looking for it too"
So all around the world people sit with almost completed files, placing myriads of calls each second, looking for rare bits. To happen upon a source or seeder having just that elusive last piece, with a slot open at that exact moment, isn't easy. And when interest in a file goes down, the sources get fewer, and finding the last bits gets
even harder. So in the real world, you're better off with a slow ftp or binaries download. You'll be finished long before the bit torrent, because the torrent gets so insanely inefficient towards the end of each download. Sure, the speed for the first 90% is just brilliant, but it's all eaten away by the last 10%, with extremely poor efficiency and wasted bandwidth, because of all the calls and searches for slots throughout the net.
Anybody knows? Are bit torrents the best thing ever, or is it just a bright idea that doesn't work so well in the real world? Because if it's true and the nets bandwidth is eaten away by redundant calls for specific bits, then torrents aren't so good, and the idea should be scrapped or fixed.
Isn't it insanity to have Gigs going up and down a connection, for the download of only a few hundred Megs ?
Wouldn't the internet be better off without this kind of resource hogging?
Isn't the whole idea a little bit like a pyramid-scheme. If you're in early you're fine. If you're in late, the complete seeders and downloaders are gone, and there's only incomplete files left with people struggling to complete them between each other. And that takes huge amounts of calls and replies. Most people I talk to who've tried torrents, have several big incomplete files on their discs. And they hang on to them, in a vain hope that one day they might get completed. | |
scott1527
Premium
join:2003-01-19 | bittorrent should start slow and finish fast as it looks for the least popular parts first. | |
Primis
join:2004-03-21
Coldwater, MI
| reply to fritz43
Isn't it insanity to have Gigs going up and down a connection, for the download of only a few hundred Megs ?
Wouldn't the internet be better off without this kind of resource hogging?
Wow... that *totally* misses the point of BitTorrent.
The ENTIRE point of BT is to keep one or two main sources from getting absolutely hammered and murdered in terms of bandwidth. Would you rather set up a server and then watch as the entire world hammers it trying to get the files from it, or would it be better if some of that load could be distributed off to those who've already downlaoded a portion of the file(s)?
Example... When SI Games released their demos of NHL:EHM and Football Manager, they did so using BitTorrent at first. Why? Because the distributed load at first helped keep them from being hammered offline and out of existance as people would have tried over and over to get to the site and get the files.
BitTorrent isn't at all about efficiency for the end user, it's about efficiency for the "seed", or the origination of the source for whatever file (be it a legal file or illegal).
And to be honest... keeping things more-efficient for the server end makes it more-efficient for everyone in the longrun.
That being said I still get ticked at having to donwload some things off BT when a direct HTTP or FTP download would suffice (sometimes BT really *is* unnecessary), but some tweaking of your ports helps BT immensely, whatever you download.
-- Primis. | |
reaver221
join:2003-05-08
Cincinnati, OH
1 edit | reply to fritz43
That's great, but, uh... Bittorrent works fine.  | |
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to fritz43
blizzard using bittorrent for their World of Warcraft patcher has alot of people angry, and i agree as you shouldnt have to configure a router to patch a MMO(you dont with EQ, EQ2, Planetside, SWG, DAOC)and all of those give 400k/sec even at peak.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
scott1527
Premium
join:2003-01-19 | maybe they have more cash for bandwidth. | |
|
