Torrent vs. FTP

[spoonerhizolehound]

So, I am sure with all of the avid traders in here there is an opinion on this. What do you think is faster- seeding a torrent of a concert or ftp'ing?
I am looking into creating a torrent site or peer list for us BN'ers. Is anyone interested? Let's hear your take on torrent vs. ftp.

[hawaiiboy]

You need another category for " sometimes "

I gave it a yes vote, but it really depends on
how many seeders and how fast the connection
for torrents.

From what I have seen here on BN, I would say
that ftp sites will work better for the majority
os users because it is a lot easier for newbies
to learn.

[spoonerhizolehound]

You need another category for " sometimes "

I gave it a yes vote, but it really depends on
how many seeders and how fast the connection
for torrents.

From what I have seen here on BN, I would say
that ftp sites will work better for the majority
os users because it is a lot easier for newbies
to learn.

Well, a good primer would fix the newbie problem. A site wouldnt even be neccessary. All one would have to do is email the torrent. But even one on one- let's say you have a torrent and only one person is downloading it- both with cable/dsl. I am curious to know if it would be faster.

I had someone upload a file to my ftp site the other night. The file was under a gig but it took like 5+ hours.

I know the more seeders the faster the download but I am still wondering if downloading the torrent from one source would be quicker than an ftp upload.

[spoonerhizolehound]

Here is a well put definition of a torrent:

"BitTorrent is a protocol designed for transferring files. It is peer-to-peer in nature, as users connect to each other directly to send and receive portions of the file. However, there is a central server (called a tracker) which coordinates the action of all such peers. The tracker only manages connections, it does not have any knowledge of the contents of the files being distributed, and therefore a large number of users can be supported with relatively limited tracker bandwidth. The key philosophy of BitTorrent is that users should upload (transmit outbound) at the same time they are downloading (receiving inbound.) In this manner, network bandwidth is utilized as efficiently as possible. BitTorrent is designed to work better as the number of people interested in a certain file increases, in contrast to other file transfer protocols."


To transfer or download torrents you need a torrent program. There are many. I use Utorrent. It is a free program. Most of them are. Other torrent software names are, Azureus, Bittorrent, Bit Comet, Bit Tornado.
I find Utorrent easy to use. I used it as a beginner and still use it.

[Down2TheC]

As long as some folks conintue to seed, it does reduce the bandwidth chewed up on someone's FTP account. I get 150G a month so I'll be will ing to host now that I have a domain. But I'm sure some folks would prefer to share the load with the torrent route.

Only major drawback is that some BNers are just technical enough to get to the forum. Asking them to download an app and a torrent might be a bit much.

[spoonerhizolehound]

As long as some folks conintue to seed, it does reduce the bandwidth chewed up on someone's FTP account. I get 150G a month so I'll be will ing to host now that I have a domain. But I'm sure some folks would prefer to share the load with the torrent route.

Only major drawback is that some BNers are just technical enough to get to the forum. Asking them to download an app and a torrent might be a bit much.

FTP account? 150G? I am confused. Are you paying for ftp?

[webster3w]

FTP account? 150G? I am confused. Are you paying for ftp? :o

It sounds like he is paying for a hosted domain account. A www.something.com. When you get one of those, most let you host files either for WWW or for FTP. They don't care which way you use your space. In this case, he gets 150GB of bandwidth a month, whether is is used for web pages, or for FTP. It's not a limit on how much he can download, but rather how much others can download from him.

And in that case it's a perfect example of a situation where torrents may very well be better. 150GB will get blown through during a time where new shows are being posted. Even at 200MBish per MP3 show, (despite my peferences for FLAC's or SHN's) his bandwidth would get maxed out after about 750 show transfers. (Doing rough math) It may seem like alot, but when there are 10 shows during a month or so, that gets spread out even more. And there is probally another use of the site so not all the bandwidth is for FTP'ing shows to others.

That all said, I used "he" where I should have used "he/she/they/it" for sake of ease. Also, I shouldn't be speaking for others, but I do. ; )

My personal preference? Torrents. Is there a speed difference between the two? Yeah. If only one person is using the torrent or the FTP, the FTP should be inherently faster. There is less overhead with the FTP as it is sequential and the server has less requests/responses. Torrents need to ack/nack all the parts, and they get sent out of order. It's a miniscule difference. Once a second user hops on, the torrent should be faster, and faster as each new user hops on. (That's if they all seed)

Torrents aren't that hard to use. Some clients are easier than others to use. I think uTorrent is the easiest right now, no install needed, it runs directly from the exe. The reason why most people here may not like torrents is the active/passive transfers. At least thats what I remember it being called. When someone sets up a home network, it causes issues with the way that torrents work. If two uses are behind a home network, that hasn't been correctly set up, they can't seed to each other. So the speed may be slower than a high speed FTP program. Many people have problems setting up port forwarding on their network. If that is set up, then the torrents should be much faster. It's hard to tell people how to do that though since every router is slightly different.

Enough ranting, more torrenting!! ; )

[spoonerhizolehound]

FTP account? 150G? I am confused. Are you paying for ftp?

It sounds like he is paying for a hosted domain account. A www.something.com. When you get one of those, most let you host files either for WWW or for FTP. They don't care which way you use your space. In this case, he gets 150GB of bandwidth a month, whether is is used for web pages, or for FTP. It's not a limit on how much he can download, but rather how much others can download from him.

And in that case it's a perfect example of a situation where torrents may very well be better. 150GB will get blown through during a time where new shows are being posted. Even at 200MBish per MP3 show, (despite my peferences for FLAC's or SHN's) his bandwidth would get maxed out after about 750 show transfers. (Doing rough math) It may seem like alot, but when there are 10 shows during a month or so, that gets spread out even more. And there is probally another use of the site so not all the bandwidth is for FTP'ing shows to others.

That all said, I used "he" where I should have used "he/she/they/it" for sake of ease. Also, I shouldn't be speaking for others, but I do. ; )

My personal preference? Torrents. Is there a speed difference between the two? Yeah. If only one person is using the torrent or the FTP, the FTP should be inherently faster. There is less overhead with the FTP as it is sequential and the server has less requests/responses. Torrents need to ack/nack all the parts, and they get sent out of order. It's a miniscule difference. Once a second user hops on, the torrent should be faster, and faster as each new user hops on. (That's if they all seed)

Torrents aren't that hard to use. Some clients are easier than others to use. I think uTorrent is the easiest right now, no install needed, it runs directly from the exe. The reason why most people here may not like torrents is the active/passive transfers. At least thats what I remember it being called. When someone sets up a home network, it causes issues with the way that torrents work. If two uses are behind a home network, that hasn't been correctly set up, they can't seed to each other. So the speed may be slower than a high speed FTP program. Many people have problems setting up port forwarding on their network. If that is set up, then the torrents should be much faster. It's hard to tell people how to do that though since every router is slightly different.

Enough ranting, more torrenting!! ; )

Well said. I guess most people are using routers these days. I, for one, am not. I say to hell with using a site for hosting your ftp's. Set up your PC as the host! Save the money, control the speed, watch what is being dl/ul'ed in live time and use a free domain name. It works for me!!