Hello. This thought looks pretty interesting. I wonder if I could trust p2p... I'll explain myself:
what would happen if someone changed the source code of a chunk of an application, I mean, I trust the servers from where I download the packages, but can I trust any user that offer me a chunk? In Spain internet is worse... (we upload at 15 k/s with our affordable ADSL). -- Javier Fernández García (a.k.a calvin) Presidente de Core Dumped http://hal9000.eui.upm.es El Domingo, 20 de Marzo de 2005 00:44, Nat Tuck escribió > The security issues in this plan are solved pretty well. If you used the > actual bittorrent protocol then it would be as secure as the mirrors are > now - if not slightly more secure. > > The biggest issues here are > A.) unexpected bandwidth usage. > B.) horrible latency > > The first issue is mostly a real issue from a bad press perspective. People > will see not using upstream bandwidth as a feature and try to avoid/cheat > the system. I actually wish bittorrent-style update mechanisms were more > common - people might stop paying for connections with horrible upload > speeds. > > The second issue is most likely an engineering problem. The existing > bittorrent protocol has a bit of a delay finding peers and convincing them > to share - until you have a chunk or two of the file, you'll be stuck at a > super-low download rate (typically 1kb/sec). Since a bittorrent "chunk" is > a good percentage of the size of the average Debian package, some sort of > custom bittorrent-like protocol would need to be developed. > > I guess the real question is as follows: > - Is there a big enough shortage in donated mirror bandwidth to put the > effort into developing a peer to peer package distribution system and > convincing a large percentage of users to share their bandwidth? > > -- Nat Tuck > > On Saturday 19 March 2005 02:21 pm, James Titcumb wrote: > > Patrick, > > > > It seems a good idea, but I dont think it could work in practise for a > > few reasons... > > > > Firstly, the UK internet is terrible. There are bandwidth constraints on > > 90% of home users now, which means that we'd have to pay for more > > bandwidth every month due to the number of uploads... Also, the price of > > symmetrical DSL is not yet affordable for home users like myself, so > > most of us are stuck on ADSL, with upload speeds of only around 30k/s. > > Not to mention the appauling contention ratios of anywhere up to > > 100:1... I'm lucky enough to live in the countryside where there are > > only about 5 other users on the local exchange :) > > > > Secondly, as you said, I can see security issues galore :(... especially > > for server systems which would supposedly be secure, yet a user may > > hypothetically be able to start downloading other files... unless of > > course the theoretical apt-get "uploader" limits it to one directory. > > > > Its a nice concept, granted, but I think people are so used to mirrors > > now.... As that saying goes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"... which I > > never abide by, because I like to tinker with things, break them then > > fix them again... </geek> :) > > > > James > > > > Patrick Carlson wrote: > > >Hello. I'm not sure if anyone has suggested something like this or > > >not but I was thinking about the apt-get system and bittorrent today. > > >What if the apt-get system was redesigned so that users could download > > >updates and upgrades from other users? This way they would trickle > > >out to people, slowly at first, but then more and more people would > > >have the update and thus more people could get it faster. I know > > >there would probably be a lot of security issues involved but then > > >maybe people wouldn't have to worry about setting up .deb mirrors and > > >trying to get the latest upgrades. Just a thought. If it's a bad > > >one, let me know. :) > > > > > >-Patrick