Hacker News Reader

Comment by hank777 | Hacker News Reader

Actually, the two companies I mentioned - Kontiki and Red Swoosh have amazing QOS. Bit Torrent sucks for that, but it is an engineering issue, not an architectural or conceptual one. Akamai actually acquired red swoosh, and is integrating it into its platform as, I think, a defensive move. But clearly, the kings of the CDN world understand that a widely deployed well engineered p2p network will have an impact.

View on HN

How is BitTorrent's allegedly poor QoS an engineering issue?

BitTorrent's QoS is a function of reachable peers who have the content you want and their bandwidth. This applies to all P2P networks.

i would say that bitTorrent's are better performing than an overloaded client server transmission.

at least you have a fighting chance, i would say thats pretty good QoS

I think this is an issue of perception. There's simply no way a large blue chip will be happy with the design philosophy of p2p delivery.

Whether it works or not is almost beside the point here...

I think the only way they would buy into is if you avoid the evil three letters "P2P" ... which is just code for 'lawsuit' to them.

Pull a marketing move and pitch it to them as end-user-content-assist or something.

> I think this is an issue of perception.

Exactly. So all there's needed is to tell them there's a traditional CDN framework in a hot standby, just in case this novel ultra low cost CDN experiences any operational problems.

> There's simply no way a large blue chip will be happy with the design philosophy of p2p delivery.

Maybe they'd start crying about piracy upon hearing the term "p2p" ?

Huge P2P networks for large content distributions will never work, as the internet isn't build for that.

Imaging everyone would be driving directly to the farmer to buy egs or milk. The roads would be crowded. A centralized technology is much more effective. (also in terms of energy saved)

PS. Video sites are probably going to integrate this technology soon...

Actually your point works for P2P not a centralized solution.

A centralized server is 1 rd vs a P2P highway of a undetermined amount of decentralized servers(roads).

I believe that the answer is not a centralized solution or a P2P solution in my opinion. Maybe a hybrid network of well placed server farms that utilize a form of controlled P2P with authorized hosts. This avoids the legal/protection issues, yet extends the power of central solutions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com