Usenet NEWS vs. Bittorrent

[Jeffrey Watts]

On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 6:05 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, if there's one seed and 10 peers, that one seed with 100% of the original file has to sit there for days uploading the file until someone else (i.e., the other 10 peers) become seeds (i.e., become someone else who has all the bittorrent parts).

No.  As the seed sends out parts to the various peers, THEY will send
out what they've partially downloaded to other peers.  So the seed
will work more, sure, but as soon as it starts sending out to more
than 1 peer the other peer(s) will help.  Bittorrent doesn't upload
from beginning to end, it sends out chunks.

Try using Bittorrent, and find a torrent with 1 seed but many peers.
You'll notice you start uploading almost immediately.

> All you did was restate what I said, using slightly different wording, and then claimed it meant something else.  The aforementioned situation is entirely too common prior to the *swarm* receiving 100% of the seeder's uploaded file(s), a situation which can take days to change into "all seeders".

No, I was accurate, but obviously wrote too brief a response in order
for you to understand what I said.

I download stuff via Bittorrent all the time.  Most people who do so
are using a client that will seed for a fixed share ratio before
automatically stopping, so seeds come and go.  But if something is
popular enough, the person seeding it really doesn't do a tremendous
amount of heavy lifting.

This is why Bittorrent works very well for handling large volumes, and
is very popular as a technology.  This is also why Bittorrent is
better designed - the person doing the upload usually pays an ongoing
price to keep it going, whereas Netnews is fire-and-forget, and every
server must be a "seeder".

> The seed has to seed itself out to 100% before the *swarm* gets a complete set of parts, so the seeder really does need to spend days sharing out *all* of what it has.  By definition all the peers start off at 0%, so the seeder has to seed out 100% to the swarm before 100% of the file is available to everyone in the swarm.

No, please see above.  Peers can start uploading almost immediately.

> You might as well argue that a person can create a new book that no one else has, then only give out 80% to everyone else, and yet everyone somehow manages to get 100% of the book they didn't have to begin with, using only 80% of the original book.

The people with 80% can share out that 80% to others, so that the
seeder only has to worry about the remaining 20%.  This is obviously
oversimplified but I hope you get the idea.  The more you share it
out, the less of the uploading the seeder needs to do.  Yes, at first
the majority is done by the seeder, but that changes quickly with more
and more peers.

> For example, some bittorrent clients permit individual torrent upload bandwidth throttling.  This allows a peer to download the entire file but share very little, putting more of an uploading burden on the original seeder.

I think most do, including the "basic" Bittorrent client.  But many
people don't work that way, and most trackers that are worth a damn
have share requirements.  Also, Average Joe downloader doesn't know
anything about this stuff, and he just clicks "okay" in his Bittorrent
client and doesn't limit his uploads.

Also, I'm not really sure what your point is.  Netnews allows someone
to post crap and every server is required to pass a copy of it along,
regardless of popularity.  This puts a heavy burden on all Netnews
servers.  Bittorrent has it be that someone that wants to share
something has to BEAR THE BURDEN OF DOING SO.

What's your point?  Netnews is easily abused, and in practice, IT IS,
OFTEN.  Bittorrent does not have that problem, if the uploader doesn't
like the amount of bandwidth used he can throttle it, or he CAN JUST
NOT SEED.  If the people downloading aren't being good netizens and
sharing at least somewhat, the tracker can boot them.   Bittorrent is
a much better Internet neighbor, and is fairly self-regulating.  This
of course isn't addressing the issue of piracy, but that's an equal
problem for both.

> Also, bittorrent clients which permit encryption have the option of only allowing connections from other encrypted clients.  If the seeder allows for both types of connections, the seeder is the sole seeder for a peer which refuses unencrypted connections.

So perhaps the seeder ought to not allow for both?  Again, what's the
problem here?  If the seeder isn't happy with the usage, he can NOT
SEED, or throttle his uploads.  Or he can require one or the other.  I
don't see what the big deal is here.

> Bittorrent is completely reliant on polite sharing.  If the peer, upon reaching 100%, performs a "hit-and-run" maneuver and disconnects from the swarm, the peer does not become a seeder and all of his or her parts vanish from the swarm.  If this means that the only person left with 100% is the seeder, the seeder must continue seeding even longer.

No, most good trackers have a share-enforcement strategy.  Again, in
practice it's not that big a deal.

You make it seem like Bittorrent is shitty technology that nobody
uses.  This is clearly not the case, it is enormously popular, far
more popular than Netnews.  What are you arguing, exactly?

> To contrast with Usenet NEWS binary groups, the uploader uploads once, to one location, with PAR2 files for additional security.  Thereafter the parts are available for usually a week or longer and downloadable at much faster speeds than bittorrent.

So let me get this straight.  You go apoplectic on the list, yelling
at everyone because Netnews may disappear and you'd lose access to
valuable discussion groups, which you need because you're nearly blind
and they are the only thing that apparently will work.

You state that just because Netnews has been hijacked by porn, warez,
and pirated media that the major ISPs ought not to turn off their
servers.  You argue that Netnews ought to be saved, despite the
binaries groups.

Okay, here's what I have to ask you then.  Why are you defending _the
use of Netnews as a way to download binaries_?  What's your deal, man?
 I honestly don't think you know what you're arguing about any more.
You're angry because you like News and you're afraid that it's being
taken away from you, despite the fact that you already told me that
there are free public servers out there, that won't be affected by
this decision.  You're mad that the good discussion groups will get
thrown out with the bad binaries groups, but then you _defend the use
of Netnews for downloading binaries_.

I don't get you man.  I don't think you understand yourself, either.
I recommend that you get some cogent arguments together before posting
again, because I've become convinced that you don't really think
before you speak.  Sadly, this isn't intended as a flame.

Jeffrey.


-- 

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy
from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a
precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine