as anyone looked into using Red Swoosh for the ORG?

Org Profile · Post by **808-buma** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:52 pm

hey all at the ORG
I was on another board (deviantart.com) and they were talking about Red Swoosh as a P2P solution to help free up bandwidth and it claims to be much faster than traditional bittorrent P2P networks.

I know that Phade / the ORG has an extremely large bandwidth bill each month and thoght that if someone who actually knows what Red Swoosh is talking about (as I don't) give it a looksee to see if it can help out the AMV community.

just thought I'd pass this along and hope it helps

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:30 pm

Sounds like a rip-off of Dijjer.

Org Profile · Post by **808-buma** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:41 pm

hmm, mebbe - but if either could help the ORG and it's bandwidth bill, might be worth looking into? unless there is some 'bigger issue' that I'm just too ignorant to understand (which might be true)

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:56 pm

Well, people have to download the software to use it. People hate downloading crappy software to their pcs.

Willen · Post by **Willen** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:59 pm

Since these other P2P solutions require peers to seed content for full benefit, we run back into the reason why the .org doesn't just use BitTorrent and its derivatives. The least popular and very old videos won't work well with these programs/services since you won't have many peers (if any) to seed these. These programs will help out on bandwidth use for the most popular videos and newly released stuff, but how much? And I dunno about the installing software part...

BasharOfTheAges · Post by **BasharOfTheAges** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:08 am

For the torrent argument it all boils down to having a community filled with people that will at least attempt to seed a few hundred videos for it to be a benifit. If the servers were reworked so the local download ran off torrenting and capped itself if there were others that were seeding it, there really isn't any sort of problem. It's just about the time and effort it would take to completely redesing local hosting to this new model.

I know of people that have set up such a project in a matter of hours from the ground up, it's partly a matter of integration and partly a matter of not wanting to do it.

Org Profile · Post by **808-buma** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:29 pm

yup, this is why I posted it here for consideration - to see who'd cross the strteet to spit on it

and the fact that I haven't a clue how difficult it would be to implement.

Just an idea for better minds to say yeah or nea to

Kalium · Post by **Kalium** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:36 pm

Distributed hosting solves the problem of many users and few files. We have the opposite problem.

BasharOfTheAges · Post by **BasharOfTheAges** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:52 pm

Kalium wrote:Distributed hosting solves the problem of many users and few files. We have the opposite problem.

And with uTorrent I can seed over 200 files at once without more than a 5MB footprint... If there was a way to batch-torrent say the top 10% (or even the top 20%) constantly it would reduce output. Again, it would require changing how the system works, and ANY help (even if it's small) would effectivly reduce the amount of bandwidth used by the site. Just because the reasoning behind how the system works isn't exactly the same, doesn't mean such implementation wouldn't be benificial to some degree.

Minion · Post by **Minion** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:22 am

theres 2 things that i see happening if we made the switch to torrents.

1. many amvs, especially new releases and less popular vids will be hard to get ahold of

2. if we switched to torrents and then kept the files on the server so it would always be availible - whats the point? no bandwidth saved.

the only advantage is that people can continue downloads.

2 more things besides availability itself.

1. people will be required to have a torrent client.

2. turning the org into a fucking torrent search engine