On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM, stan<gryt2(a)q.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:03:47 -0700
Konstantin Svist <fry.kun(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'd prefer a system based on existing proven technology, e.g.
> bittorrent. It already does all this and more -- and works great for
> high loads, e.g. when a new version comes out.
> It doesn't matter where the packages are downloaded from, as long as
> they're signed (which is already the case). Some users may take issue
> with using their upload bandwidth or downloading from other users --
> so upload-while-downloading and download-from-peers should probably be
> disabled by default, but it can be an option for the more adventurous.
> The biggest difference from BT is that the list of files to be
> downloaded is different for each user, and also that new files are
> being added all the time.
>
>
Seems like this idea has potential.
What are the problems? Besides ISPs purposely slowing torrent traffic.
Security? Complexity for users? Confusion when new files become
available while old ones are downloading (as you mention)?
Torrent speed depends upon the combined donated bandwidth of
participants. Works great when you have a large pool of peers and
seeders. Too few participants and you might be downloading at 3K-4K
bit/sec or waiting forever to get the last piece of a file. Speed
also drops off dramatically after the initial availability/offering of
a file.