Re: Offtopic - when to use BitTorrent (was Torpark Mirroring)

[Anthony DiPierro <or@xxxxxxxxx>]

You can offer something through bittorrent and the web, though.  And
finding people to seed is as easy as finding people to offer mirrors,
in fact, I'd say that bittorrent is easier to run than alternative
mirroring systems.

I believe new versions of bittorrent even allow you to use http
seeding, so you don't have to set up any seeds at all.  Just throttle
the http server down to a level where your resource usage is
acceptable.  I'm not sure how widespread this feature is though, and I
might be misunderstanding it.

I dunno, in my opinion once you've gotten to the point where it's
worth the trouble to set up mirrors, you might as well set up
bittorrent as well.

On 11/14/05, Matt Thorne <mlthorne@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> the only hiccup with torrent files is that you need a third party
> download manager to get them. Beleive it or not, not everyone uses
> torrent files for file sharring yet. and you also need to get people
> to seed it for you. the seeders would need to use a torrent file
> program as well, and leave it running all the time.
>
> On 11/14/05, Anthony DiPierro <or@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 11/14/05, Eugen Leitl <eugen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 04:26:34PM -0600, Arrakistor wrote:
> > > > I don't know if the demand of it is that high, but possibly.
> > > >
> > > > Secondly, I keep updating, which is counter intuitive for seeding.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > At 7 GBytes/day, with multiple mirrors you don't need BitTorrent
> > > yet.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a>
> >
> > Isn't anything which has mirrors a good candidate for BitTorrent?
> > BitTorrent essentially just decreases the cost of being a mirror.
> >
> > (I guess BitTorrent doesn't handle a site with lots of small files
> > well yet, but for a site with just a few large files I'd say there's
> > not really a time *not* to use it.)
> >
>