I see that the Red Hat site suggests Bit Torrent.
I went to the website, and I don't see where it would help. And I don't understand the bit about "if you don't allow Bit Torrent to upload from your machine, you won't get improved download rates."
They specifically state that it is a means for publishing things from one's own machine to the world.
Can anyone explain, in ordinary language, what possible advantage it would give me over, say, wget?
Mike
Mike McCarty wrote:
I see that the Red Hat site suggests Bit Torrent.
I went to the website, and I don't see where it would help. And I don't understand the bit about "if you don't allow Bit Torrent to upload from your machine, you won't get improved download rates."
They specifically state that it is a means for publishing things from one's own machine to the world.
Can anyone explain, in ordinary language, what possible advantage it would give me over, say, wget?
Mike
The most obvious advantage is not for you. It is that Bit Torrent uses everyone's bandwidth instead of only using the mirror's (which is costly).
Bittorrent only "publish" the files you want to publish.
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 16:21 -0400, Ugo Bellavance wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
I see that the Red Hat site suggests Bit Torrent.
I went to the website, and I don't see where it would help. And I don't understand the bit about "if you don't allow Bit Torrent to upload from your machine, you won't get improved download rates."
They specifically state that it is a means for publishing things from one's own machine to the world.
Can anyone explain, in ordinary language, what possible advantage it would give me over, say, wget?
Mike
The most obvious advantage is not for you. It is that Bit Torrent uses everyone's bandwidth instead of only using the mirror's (which is costly).
Bittorrent only "publish" the files you want to publish.
It can give better effective bandwidth for you on the download by getting data from a number of peers rather than from a single server with limited IO capacity and bandwidth. It is also good form to leave your client open after the download finishes to "give back" to the community by sharing your bandwidth.
Phil
Phil Schaffner wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 16:21 -0400, Ugo Bellavance wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
I see that the Red Hat site suggests Bit Torrent.
I went to the website, and I don't see where it would help. And I don't understand the bit about "if you don't allow Bit Torrent to upload from your machine, you won't get improved download rates."
They specifically state that it is a means for publishing things from one's own machine to the world.
Can anyone explain, in ordinary language, what possible advantage it would give me over, say, wget?
Mike
The most obvious advantage is not for you. It is that Bit Torrent uses everyone's bandwidth instead of only using the mirror's (which is costly).
Bittorrent only "publish" the files you want to publish.
It can give better effective bandwidth for you on the download by getting data from a number of peers rather than from a single server with limited IO capacity and bandwidth. It is also good form to leave your client open after the download finishes to "give back" to the community by sharing your bandwidth.
Umm, lessee if I understand correctly. (The figures below are the actual rates wget obtained for me when I downloaded the FC4 CD ISOs.)
I download some package or other, using Bit Torrent. I have ADSL, and get 60-80 KBps during the download, using an Australian site. This maxes out my download (I regularly have 864 Kbps as the download rate). Then others can pull the same file I downloaded using my machine as a source (384 Kbps max) for some of the data.
Sounds like a very likely source of a security breach to me, with little or no advantage offered in return.
I'm not complaining, I'm just trying to uderstand what exactly Bit Torrent offers, and to whom, and to ascertain whether it be something I might find useful. Even if the only reward is an intangible thing like feeling good about contributing to the general welfare of the people on Earth.
Mike
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 16:02 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
It can give better effective bandwidth for you on the download by getting data from a number of peers rather than from a single server with limited IO capacity and bandwidth. It is also good form to
leave
your client open after the download finishes to "give back" to the community by sharing your bandwidth.
Umm, lessee if I understand correctly. (The figures below are the actual rates wget obtained for me when I downloaded the FC4 CD ISOs.)
Seems it would depend on the number of peers operating, their aggregate BW vs that available from a single dedicated server, your ISP's limitations, the particular routing you are getting, load on the server, .......
The operative word is "can" - YMMV.
Phil
Phil Schaffner wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 16:02 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
It can give better effective bandwidth for you on the download by getting data from a number of peers rather than from a single server with limited IO capacity and bandwidth. It is also good form to
leave
your client open after the download finishes to "give back" to the community by sharing your bandwidth.
Umm, lessee if I understand correctly. (The figures below are the actual rates wget obtained for me when I downloaded the FC4 CD ISOs.)
Seems it would depend on the number of peers operating, their aggregate BW vs that available from a single dedicated server, your ISP's limitations, the particular routing you are getting, load on the server, .......
The operative word is "can" - YMMV.
Phil
As I said, my ADSL modem reports downstream connectivity at 894 Kbps or so. That corresponds to 110 KBps or so. I'm actually getting 60-70 KBps download rate. That's pretty much saturation, I think. I don't see how using more than one source would increase the download rate, when my modem is already just about saturated.
You didn't actually address whether my understanding be correct.
Mike
Mike McCarty wrote:
Phil Schaffner wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 16:02 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
It can give better effective bandwidth for you on the download by getting data from a number of peers rather than from a single server with limited IO capacity and bandwidth. It is also good form to
leave
your client open after the download finishes to "give back" to the community by sharing your bandwidth.
Umm, lessee if I understand correctly. (The figures below are the actual rates wget obtained for me when I downloaded the FC4 CD ISOs.)
Seems it would depend on the number of peers operating, their aggregate BW vs that available from a single dedicated server, your ISP's limitations, the particular routing you are getting, load on the server, .......
The operative word is "can" - YMMV.
Phil
As I said, my ADSL modem reports downstream connectivity at 894 Kbps or so. That corresponds to 110 KBps or so. I'm actually getting 60-70 KBps download rate. That's pretty much saturation, I think. I don't see how using more than one source would increase the download rate, when my modem is already just about saturated.
You didn't actually address whether my understanding be correct.
Mike
Downloading it now will probably be fast from anywhere you get it but the real advantage of BitTorrent is when a very popular file is first released to the public. Where ftp/http servers would normally get bogged down from tons of requests at once, downloads using BitTorrent would be able to spread the file faster because it could use peers bandwith.
Use whatever method gets the file to you the quickest. With more people using BitTorrent it offloads the bandwidth needed from some of the ftp/http mirror sites which will give the users that prefer that route more bandwidth too. BitTorrent is a win/win situation.
Mike McCarty wrote:
As I said, my ADSL modem reports downstream connectivity at 894 Kbps or so. That corresponds to 110 KBps or so. I'm actually getting 60-70 KBps download rate. That's pretty much saturation, I think. I don't see how using more than one source would increase the download rate, when my modem is already just about saturated.
You're right. It wouldn't. If your downlink is already saturated, then it won't change your download speeds.
For me, it's rarely faster than a single, uninterrupted, server available download.
--rich
mike...
the torrent technology is essentially a technology to share files in a distributed manner. at a fundamental level, it works by breaking up a file into chunks and allowing these chunks to be transferred/downloaded to your machine by a client, although the given chnucks might be located on multiple machines on the net... there is no security issue, other than the fact that you need to specify/open ports, and you need to 'trust' your client app.
the rationale behind the torrent tecnology, was a realization that the isp provides a greater download than upload speed. if you break up the file into chunks, and allow the user to dowwnload the chunks in parallel from multiple servers, then you have the potential to fill up your download pipe in a more efficient manner. of course this might essentially be equal to what you'd get if you were already downloading the file from a robust mirror...
bittorrent works relatively well when you're dealing with large files, that lots of people are downloading, in that the network of possible places your client can select to download the chunks gets pretty large... when the file you want is not downlaoded by many people, it's often better to find a good mirror...
the reason for allowing others to in turn use your machine to download the file is the ability to 'give' back, but it's also tied into the way the client works... the author/client attempts to specifically cap your download speed based upon how freely you allow others to download from you. the more you allow people to download from you, the looser the restrictions on your download speed.
hope this helps you get a little better understanding..
-bruce
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com]On Behalf Of Mike McCarty Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 2:02 PM To: For users of Fedora Core releases Subject: Re: (OT) Bit Torrent usage ...
Phil Schaffner wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 16:21 -0400, Ugo Bellavance wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
I see that the Red Hat site suggests Bit Torrent.
I went to the website, and I don't see where it would help. And I don't understand the bit about "if you don't allow Bit Torrent to upload from your machine, you won't get improved download rates."
They specifically state that it is a means for publishing things from one's own machine to the world.
Can anyone explain, in ordinary language, what possible advantage it would give me over, say, wget?
Mike
The most obvious advantage is not for you. It is that Bit Torrent uses everyone's bandwidth instead of only using the mirror's (which is costly).
Bittorrent only "publish" the files you want to publish.
It can give better effective bandwidth for you on the download by getting data from a number of peers rather than from a single server with limited IO capacity and bandwidth. It is also good form to leave your client open after the download finishes to "give back" to the community by sharing your bandwidth.
Umm, lessee if I understand correctly. (The figures below are the actual rates wget obtained for me when I downloaded the FC4 CD ISOs.)
I download some package or other, using Bit Torrent. I have ADSL, and get 60-80 KBps during the download, using an Australian site. This maxes out my download (I regularly have 864 Kbps as the download rate). Then others can pull the same file I downloaded using my machine as a source (384 Kbps max) for some of the data.
Sounds like a very likely source of a security breach to me, with little or no advantage offered in return.
I'm not complaining, I'm just trying to uderstand what exactly Bit Torrent offers, and to whom, and to ascertain whether it be something I might find useful. Even if the only reward is an intangible thing like feeling good about contributing to the general welfare of the people on Earth.
Mike -- p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} This message made from 100% recycled bits. I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you. I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
bruce wrote:
there is no security issue, other than the fact that you need to specify/open ports, and you need to 'trust' your client app.
That 'client' app designation is now blurred though. By opening up ports it is making your desktop system a server in the sense that anonymous users can connect to your system and send arbitrary data to the BitTorrent 'client' running on your system. So now you have to trust that the 'client' app handles anonymous incoming connections and the data that is sent to it in a secure way. For users of the official python BitTorrent not only do you have to trust that BitTorrent is coded correctly but you also have to trust that Python does not have any security issues that might be triggered by a properly coded python program. I don't know of any security issues with the source to Python or BitTorrent but I doubt anyone could say it does not have any exploitable security issues as a fact.
IMHO opening ports so that anonymous users can connect and send data to a program running on the user's desktop should throw up red flags for many security cautious users.
Imagine what would happen if some PTP app had a security flaw that was exploitable by sending data to the opened port. Evil hackers could have a field day. I don't think end users think about this though so they go by the PTP programs directions to open ports thinking that it is just normal to do so.
With that said though I still use BitTorrent at home but I isolate it from my LAN. I place the BitTorrent client on a system that is on a physically different firewall interface than my LAN which has no access to the internal LAN.
Adam Gibson wrote:
bruce wrote:
there is no security issue, other than the fact that you need to specify/open ports, and you need to 'trust' your client app.
[snip]
program. I don't know of any security issues with the source to Python or BitTorrent but I doubt anyone could say it does not have any exploitable security issues as a fact.
IMHO opening ports so that anonymous users can connect and send data to a program running on the user's desktop should throw up red flags for many security cautious users.
[snip]
Thank you. That is precisely my concern. Admittedly, I know very little about Bit Torrent. But when I first started reading about it, alarm bells started going off in my head.
Mike
Am Mi, den 27.07.2005 schrieb Mike McCarty um 21:51:
I see that the Red Hat site suggests Bit Torrent.
I went to the website, and I don't see where it would help. And I don't understand the bit about "if you don't allow Bit Torrent to upload from your machine, you won't get improved download rates."
They specifically state that it is a means for publishing things from one's own machine to the world.
Can anyone explain, in ordinary language, what possible advantage it would give me over, say, wget?
Mike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent
That articles describes BitTorrent and explains many aspects. To your first question: the idea behind BitTorrent is to bypass a typical problem with P2P nets: a few stations provides the content and a lot stations only fetch but do not contribute an upload. BitTorrent honors the amount / bandwidth a participant offers to others. You just offer what you get, the torrent you run actually. Nobody can get other stuff from your host. Second question: it is both a social question and a technical one. The social component means that someone using BitTorrent is forced to provide his part to the swarm - you get and you give. This has too the effect that classical download offers don't have to carry all the load. In times many internet users have broadband connections it helps ftp/http servers and the institutions who run them a lot. The technicals aspect is that with big swarms you and the other torrent users often get a better download rate than whenftp/http servers are overloaded. Another aspect is that big downloaded files can easily be repaired when somewhere a part is mismatching the source. This comes from the way the BitTorrent protocol works. Means, if you get a 2,6 GB DVD ISO image file from an ftp server and you face it does not match the reference sha1sum you have to redownload it (if not using rsync or even BitTorrent to repair it). On the other side your BitTorrent will run as long as it has a full valid copy of the reference source and it only regets very small parts which failed before.
Alexander
Mike McCarty wrote:
I see that the Red Hat site suggests Bit Torrent.
I went to the website, and I don't see where it would help. And I don't understand the bit about "if you don't allow Bit Torrent to upload from your machine, you won't get improved download rates."
They specifically state that it is a means for publishing things from one's own machine to the world.
Can anyone explain, in ordinary language, what possible advantage it would give me over, say, wget?
I see two advantages which lead me to use it for large distros.
1. Network citizenship. It's easier on the popular servers which means that it's available even when they are clogged. 2. Restartability. I can start a download. Freeze it. And later restart it with bittorent. For huge distros, that's a big win.
It's not faster for me, not usually. At least, not presuming that the primary servers are actually available and I can afford to let the download run it's course.
--rich
-
Adam Gibson -
Alexander Dalloz -
bruce -
K. Richard Pixley -
Mike McCarty -
Phil Schaffner -
Ugo Bellavance