Bittorrent

[D. Joe Anderson]

On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:21:52AM -0500, Jonathan Hutchins wrote:

> Part of the problem with bittorrent is that it's 
> written in python, and python is an evolving language, so depending on what 
> platform you're on, you may or may not have access ot a version of python 
> that will run bittorrent.  (I don't.)

What platform are you using such that you don't have access to a
useful version of Python?

I've felt some of the same frustrations you express, but
generally I find the only productive thing to do (beyond clearing
my chest of my concerns--sometimes a necessary step) is to get
into serious troubleshooting mode.  I don't know that the
limitations you experience with Python will yield to some
collective troubleshooting, but it might be worth a look, if
you're willing.

As for comparing torrents to ftp, there are some difficulties in
the way you talk about it.  Transferring with bittorrent
*always* involves at least 3 pieces of software, whereas ftp
only needs two.  In the case of ftp, you have your client and
your server.  If the server goes down, or the file is removed
from the server, one experiences the *exact* same problems you
describe torrent as having.  I've experienced this with ftp, as
I'm sure others have, so there's really no magic bullet here. 
With torrents, you need a *tracker* running, one or more *seeds*
that collectively contain all of the parts of the indicated
file, and then you need the client-equivalent who is trying to
download the file and has none of it, or an incomplete copy. 
The downloader can be a full-bore seed, offering uploads in
exchange for faster downloads, or can limp along in low-rate
leech mode.


I agree that a file source that doesn't maintain a tracker and
at least one complete seed is as bad as an ftp maintainer who
takes a file off their repository. 

But how bad is that, really?  If it's a commercial service you
are paying for (rarely the case) and the archive maintainer
makes something unavailable, you've got a legitimate
business-related beef with them, IMO.  Otherwise, it's a case of
casting aspersions on how someone chooses to make available
their own server resources.  It runs the risk of seeming
downright ungrateful.  "Free as in speech, not as in beer;
TANSTAAFL;" blah blah blah.

In the end, I think it depends on your perspective:  Glass half
empty, or glass half full?  I know I've made some
redistributable files more locally available by running a
torrent seed that I would never have made available via ftp. 
Someone who benefited from my running that seed but then later
griped that it was no longer available would seem to be missing
the point that, without torrent, I'd have not offered the
resources to begin with.

I've also not been able to get through via ftp to heavily lagged
sites, whereas the popularity of a recently-released ISO has
*helped* my ability to grab that ISO soon after its release via
torrent.  Bittorrent is a ${DEITY}send in those cases.  It rocks.

Its shortcoming, in my opinion, have more to do with its
consumption of many ports, instead of multiplexing on a single
port, which from what I'm given to understand also makes it a
bit of a hassle for handling large collections of many small
files, rather than in transferring very few large files.  It
could stand a little cross-breeding with rsync in this regard,
maybe.

-- 
Joe