PDA

View Full Version : The Three Laws of P2P File Sharing


View Full Version : The Three Laws of P2P File Sharing


Hornet
December 7th, 2004, 08:30 AM
These are my three information technology laws of file sharing.
Obvious?
Common sense?
Right or wrong?
Do you have anymore?


1st Law of P2P File Sharing:
Every bit of data downloaded must have been uploaded.

So overall no network is faster than any other as uploads must equal downloads on any network. Multi-source / swarming by itself does not increase download speed.

Networks that have high download speed have a greater number of users that upload more than they download.

For example, the majority of Bit Torrent users feel that they should at the very least maintain an upload/download ratio of above one for every file they download even if they can download faster than they can upload. This leads to faster downloads for everyone.


2nd Law of P2P File Sharing:
The size of a network’s user base is indirectly and inversely related to download speed.
Networks with large user bases have slower downloads than small ones.

The majority of files on a P2P network are provided a small minority of enthusiastic users who often join networks early on.

As the network becomes more popular it attracts a greater proportion of users who want to download files but who don’t have the technical skill or motivation to provide files to the network.

Law one states that uploads have to equal downloads, therefore downloads slow as there are more users demanding files without a corresponding increase in the number of users providing files.

For example, the ed2k network, a very large network, is often slower than say a DC hub which has a smaller user base of enthusiasts.


3rd Law of P2P File Sharing:
The more upload bandwidth donated by users of a network then the faster that network.

It is often social pressure or a technical feature of the p2p file sharing application that ensures that users donates a high proportion of their available upload bandwidth to the network and that they don’t leach.

For example, leachers on Winmx often receive messages telling them to mend their ways. Many DC hubs have rules to discourage leachers from joining. To download on Bit Torrent you have to upload.


Proxy Networks (such as Ants):
It should be noted that due to laws 1.2 and 3 proxy networks have slower download speeds than direct connect* networks.

This is due to proxy data having to be downloaded and uploaded more than once (law 1).

As file providers also proxy data their upload bandwidth is used up even faster than on direct connect networks (law 2).

Also, proxy networks need users to donate much more upload bandwidth than direct connect networks making them even slower (law 3).

Fast proxy networks need an efficient node layout (topology) so fewer hops(less bandwidth) used for each download(law 1); to be small(law 2) and to attract users who want to share rather than download (law 3). A prime example of this is “Share” an off-shoot of Winny (Japanese).

The price for users wanting to share anonymously is slower downloads.

*Direct connect networks are ordinary p2p networks such as edonkey and winmx as oppose to proxy networks that don't connect users directly"

Hornet

Watchmen
December 7th, 2004, 09:32 AM
Sometimes you bring up some good discussion but there are a few flaws here in your theory. Maybe you should retitle this: "The Three Assumptions of Filesharing"?
:P

Slycktom
December 7th, 2004, 09:40 AM
4th Law of File Sharing:

Thou shall not hide spam or promote a P2P network in the guise of a legitimate forum post.

Watchmen
December 7th, 2004, 09:46 AM
4th Law of File Sharing:

Thou shall not hide spam or promote a P2P network in the guise of a legitimate forum post.

lol

____________________________________
You shouldn't hide that which cannot be hid.

aqlo
December 7th, 2004, 09:57 AM
3) leechers provide most of the supernodes for the g2 network, it couldn't survive without them

2) large networks work fine so long as they are organized properly instead of being thrown together ad hoc

1) most networks are much much faster than the new ones being pushed down our throats just lately because instead of trying to reduce the odds of getting busted by hiding behind the 14 other users on the network by means of wretched weak-link-driven proxy chains one can instead hide in a crowd of thousands of other happy users

0) slow distributed proxies are ~not~ the wave of the future

Watchmen
December 7th, 2004, 10:18 AM
3) leechers provide most of the supernodes for the g2 network, it couldn't survive without them

2) large networks work fine so long as they are organized properly instead of being thrown together ad hoc

1) most networks are much much faster than the new ones being pushed down our throats just lately because instead of trying to reduce the odds of getting busted by hiding behind the 14 other users on the network by means of wretched weak-link-driven proxy chains one can instead hide in a crowd of thousands of other happy users

0) slow distributed proxies are ~not~ the wave of the future

I don't usually agree with you...but...do you have any data to support your first statement that the majority of supernodes in G2 are made up of leechers? I'd like to see your source for this statement if possible please.
As for point number two, what do you consider to be 'proper organisation' and or how is this arranged?
Still pertaining to the terminology in point two...in laymen's terms is it safe to say that an 'ad hoc' network or rather just the phrase its self, "ad hoc" is just a buzz word meaning simply, "thrown together"?
Agree totally on point number one. Samurai legendary actor Toshira Mifune said it best in 'Hidden Fortress' when he said, "You hide a stone among stones and men among men."
To paraphrase here, 'and filesharer's among other filesharers." ;)

your origin point about slow distributed proxies not being the wave of the future...how do you account for projects such as the Seti Network and Altnet and Skype the latter of the two piggybacking off of the Fasttrack Stack and or KaZaA technology?

Wouldn't you say that Seti and Skype are pretty sucessful?

aqlo
December 7th, 2004, 11:23 AM
Seti is a distributed program but not a slow proxy chain. I've avoided Skype so far so I won't guess about it, except to point out that if it's piggybacking on FastTrack than it also doesn't have the faults associated with proxy chains.

By "ad hoc" I mean a series of band-aids rather than a real plan. The term is used in real business to describe a highly profitable technique of asking the customer what they think they want, rather than giving them what they really need in your expert opinion, knowing full well it will not work properly, as they are technically incompetent; giving them exactly what they asked for, and thereby avoiding responsibility for the failure that then forces them to demand more things, which you can charge for over and over again in iterations. In the case of these "buzzword" networks a more appropriate term might be "home grown".

Proper organization involves an extended period of planning, development and testing with the intention of taking advantage of how users really behave, rather than how we would like them to behave. Gnutella 2 is a great example, if a user turns off sharing they have a tremendous amount of trouble getting connections, as there is no demand for what they have the way there is for users who share. By turning on the supernode checkboxes they can get these connections back.

We have documented this process dozens of times here in these forums, it is the number one "black magic" secret for surviving on shareaza. Turn off ed2k, turn off bittorrent, turn off sharing? Then turn on "become a hub" and "be a hub". The guys at their forums say it doesn't help you personally so much as helping the network near you. Sort of a forced application of the golden rule. Users who do share won't bother becoming a hub unless they are real zealots, because it will slow down your downloads. That leaves the leeches providing the search connections for about 400 "leaves" apiece.

Hornet
December 7th, 2004, 12:08 PM
4th Law of File Sharing:

Thou shall not hide spam or promote a P2P network in the guise of a legitimate forum post.

Get a life Sycktom.

How am I promoting a network when I say that it is slow?
It should be noted that due to laws 1.2 and 3 proxy networks have slower download speeds than direct connect* networks.

This is the Ants forum for technical discussion of ANts p2p.

Go back to Syck.com.



3) leechers provide most of the supernodes for the g2 network, it couldn't survive without them

2) large networks work fine so long as they are organized properly instead of being thrown together ad hoc

1) most networks are much much faster than the new ones being pushed down our throats just lately because instead of trying to reduce the odds of getting busted by hiding behind the 14 other users on the network by means of wretched weak-link-driven proxy chains one can instead hide in a crowd of thousands of other happy users

0) slow distributed proxies are ~not~ the wave of the future

LOL
If you read my post properly you will see that you partly agree with what I am saying.
3)Networks that get users to contribute bandwidth say as a super node have faster downloads.
2)Large networks on average are slower than small ones but the reason people prefer large networks is that they have more content that is the trade off. Wrong or right?
1)This is the ANts forum - nothing is being pushed down your throat. ANts does not even exist as a live network. The protocol is still being deverloped and tested by beta testers. This is not an advert for ANts. I am just trying to tap the knowledge of the experts at Zeropaid and getting flamed for my efforts by Sycktom (that well known "journalist" from Syck.com)
0)Who said they were - but new ideas need to be developed and tested who knows where they will lead.

Hornet

Watchmen
December 7th, 2004, 12:24 PM
Careful, sharepro your hatred for SlyckTom is showing...now log back in as 'Aussiematt' and deny the whole thing. ;) :P

The Hunter
December 7th, 2004, 02:04 PM
Look drop it, as Tom is correct in labeling this as spam, and as such Im closing this thread. There is a limit to what Im willing to accept.