|
|
|
|
|
by pilimi_anna
731 days ago
|
|
Anna here. Libgen still uses torrents primarily for preservation. It also hosts on IPFS but that is more for access, and there are very few IPFS seeders. We tried IPFS for a bit but found it not stable and usable enough for preservation purposes. We're closely watching IPFS development and hope that it will get there, since it would be wonderful to merge the preservation and access use cases in one system. |
|
I've found the BitTorrent protocol tries to be more suited to accessing popular data on-demand (i.e. streaming a popular file) vs. archival.
IPFS' BitSwap protocol strikes me as trying to be optimized for longer-term preservation (higher latency time to first byte in exchange for more resilient pinning/discovery/propagation of rare data).
It's cool you're observing the opposite. I've had a growing suspicion that both protocols haven't quite realized the benefits they were hoping to get from the trade-offs they made in their transfer/discovery protocols.
Would love to compare notes at some point if you'd be open to it.
We've been playing around with both BitTorrent and IPFS. Some of the datasets we are working towards supporting are approaching the scale you work at (100TB archives).
Ultimately both BitTorrent and IPFS have fallen short for me when trying to seed 100TB datasets.
I've got a hunch that we're going to need to roll a new protocol to tackle these larger datasets that merges some of HTTP's, BitTorrent's, and IPFS' approaches to sharing content.
I have personal R&D list for pushing a file sharing protocol past the 100TB limit (not in any particular order):
* Better chunking using a mix of:
* "online" deterministic archive formats w/ detached metadata * Chunking/Transfers/Announcing/Discovering * Connectivity Thank you for everything you do