Comments on: High-Speed BitTorrent - A Look Inside the 1Gbps Seedbox

By: Visitor

Visitor — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:59:58 +0000

Something is really wrong in this article. Yes, a Gbit-connection can net around 100MB/s and thus a normal DVDrip is 7 seconds of downloading and a DVD around 45 seconds. Let’s say, for the record, you need drives that can write (or read) 100MB/s.

What’s the deal about telling people it might not be feasible? Ordinary desktop-drives (single disk) are currently doing 75MB/s on sequential read. And when I look at the Tiger-servers you mention; no sane company would hook you up with Xeon-machines and NOT incorporate a solid disk-array. Hell, my current 3disk RAID5 at home can read at well over 150MB/s and write nearly 120Mb/s and that’s a “cheap” US$1200.- machine.

So, despite the fact I like most of the articles here, something seems incorrect on this article; even basic Dell-servers (1950 models) will average 80MB/s on single disks let alone beefed up 1TB / Quad-core servers like the Tiger 600

By: rem

rem — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:36:38 +0000

22 000 kb/s with 1 gigabit? L O L!

i get 80 MB/s with gigabit when i transfer files with ftp sites

By: Vision

Vision — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:55:27 +0000

thanks sharky,
it’s to some point true what you said about server load means nothing, i had a seedbox that entered a coma with 15 of server load (and a very expensive seedbox), while in another company my seedbox worked fine even with server load of 30 !!
i’ve read your article about {http://seedboxhosting.com} and you said that the server toke 50 torrents easily, so yes i guess that a machine like this with a proper use can work as a black hole sucking all the data from the net(except it will seed it back)

i can see that TorrentSwift has changed it’s plans, now you get 750G X 2(Raid 1) and unlimited traffic for the 300$, still expensive but i guess it worth’s it, specially if you could convince them to put utorrent instead of torrentflux and the Raid configuration to 0 .

thanks again sharky, i hope you keep this excellence work flowing

By: sharky

sharky — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:04:23 +0000

@VISION -For the screenshot in the article (and…BTW, I actually had it to 36) I was
really pushing hard to develop some good DL speeds, and I already know that
you really won’t get great speeds from downloading just one torrent at a
time. So, knowing that this dedicated server is brand-new with 8 GB RAM, I
knew I could *almost* add an unlimited amount of torrents simultaneously,
without killing it. This is basically what I did - I browsed through some
private torrents (torrentleech was a good start) looking for good S/L
numbers. I knew these would be fast (hopefully in both directions). TFlux
was a little bit choppy at 25-35 serverload, but it still refreshed every 60
seconds (Ajax was OFF). Never once did it crash or become unresponsive - but
it all has to do with the machine that TFlux is installed on. I’ve seen a
serverload of 5-10 kill many-a-machines, due to lack of RAM, mostly.

To answer your question, the number of ACTIVE ‘leeching’ torrents was around
25-30 - keep in mind that these 25 were ALL downloading at the same time,
and not only seeding. If I recall correctly (for that screenshot) there
were just 2 idle torrents, and maybe an additional 5 seeding torrents -
bringing the total to under 40 torrents. And that was a conservative
screenshot, for I’d had at least 50 or 60 in there before, maybe more. Not
only was that my first experience with a 1gbps pipe, but also with a seedbox
that had such excellent specs - so I wanted to verify that a serverload of
20 or higher will function just fine. I now believe the serverload means
nothing, as long as the machine can support it. I’m quite certain I could
have easily pushed that baby to a serverload over 50, but this wasn’t in my
best interest for viable screenshots, etc.

By: Vision

Vision — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:45:29 +0000

sharky , please answer my question…

how many torrents have you used (both idle\active) to get 26 of server load

By: Vision

Vision — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 15:35:47 +0000

how many torrents Active/Idle did it toke to get the server load to 26 ???

i knew it’s TorrentFlux GUI but with quad core and 8G ram i guess a lot

i hope to hear a reply soon
thanks for being a pioneer filesharefreak !!!!

By: bo

bo — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:23:14 +0000

You’ll never get an actual gigabit speed.
Just like a 100mbps generally caps around 50mbps… ditto for gigabits
unless you have a lot of RAM with a RAID0 hard drive setup and a high performance torrent client (ie not torrentflux)

By: lol

lol — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:30:42 +0000

hmm last I checked 23mB/s wasn’t a gigabit

not even close actually

By: bryan

bryan — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 00:20:00 +0000

a benz does wonders, but people still buy lambos. why? faster

By: Username

Username — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:39:02 +0000

But why pay that much for a box? A simple 100 mbit would do wonders, and cost a LOT less than a 1 gbps box.

By: Rad

Rad — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:52:00 +0000

Hmm… u could easily rape a new tracker’s self owned seedbox if they got free leech on.

By: bryan

bryan — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 05:03:38 +0000

Yah, 1gbs seedboxes rox sox, but you already know that sharky lol

By: Hugs

Hugs — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 04:24:26 +0000

Why only talking about torrentswift ? Some other 1Gb OVH resellers are cheaper (99€ at seedbox.fr, seedhost.eu, dediseed.wordpress.com) and OVH himself for those can buy it directly.

But when we think about it, is P2P really adapted to high speed servers downloading for home users ? I am wondering that when I see on Rslog comments last releases with RS. And sometimes only 30min after publishing on “scene” trackers, on wich you have to spend time and/or money to keep a good ratio. And RS or Usenet are only ~8€ / month…

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 04:22:50 +0000

kimsufi 1gbps is cheaper