Re: [p2pi] Real life torrent statistics

The 8472 <the8472@infinite-source.de> Tue, 19 August 2008 23:40 UTC

Return-Path: <p2pi-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: p2pi-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-p2pi-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAB6628C225; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB5028C226 for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.179
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.179 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.370, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NIqGGbd+wV1P for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mo-p00-ob.rzone.de (mo-p00-ob.rzone.de [81.169.146.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26BFD3A6BED for <p2pi@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00
X-RZG-AUTH: :LW0Wek7mfO1Vkr5kPgWDvaJNkQpNEn8ylntakOISso1hE0McXW12o8AG24SD41nTjy5r24VXmP8qMlVXW88=
Received: from [192.168.1.78] (Ta6c2.t.pppool.de [89.55.166.194]) by post.webmailer.de (klopstock mo48) (RZmta 16.47) with ESMTP id R00cb9k7JL5tMQ ; Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:40:40 +0200 (MEST) (envelope-from: <the8472@infinite-source.de>)
Message-ID: <48AB59F7.6010907@infinite-source.de>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:40:39 +0200
From: The 8472 <the8472@infinite-source.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stas Khirman <stas@khirman.com>
References: <004601c90109$844b9890$6500a8c0@viceroy>
In-Reply-To: <004601c90109$844b9890$6500a8c0@viceroy>
Cc: p2pi@ietf.org, p4pwg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [p2pi] Real life torrent statistics
X-BeenThere: p2pi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion <p2pi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/p2pi>
List-Post: <mailto:p2pi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2022839879=="
Sender: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org

Stas Khirman wrote:

To estimate a feasibility of ALTO/P4P for real life torrents , I collected <ip,port> information for peers from one of the most popular “PirateBay” torrents ( almost 20k peers) and maped their IPs to corresponded ASs. Please find attached my working notes with some interesting statistics.

Ahh, there is a problem with this one. With torrents you have a significant long tail when it comes to swarm sizes and content. I'm not certain about distribution, but the long tail will probably outweight the... let's say top 100 torrents. Torrents with only 10-20 peers spread throughout several ASNs is a much harder to optimize than the top 100.
This problem is aggreviated by swarm fragmentation due to private trackers and since bittorrent does not aim to coalesce all torrents with the same content, i.e. due to different piece sizes, file names etc.

Also, I find it surprising geo distribution of the peers – majority were in UK , not in US (probably because content is available in US theaters).  Places 3-5 taken by Sweden, Poland and Canada (in total – more peers then in US).

This will probably be different if you sample torrents from regional trackers or torrents aimed at other audiences. During some DHT tracing on the weekend i saw a significant proportion of DHT traffic coming from asian countries, though i suspect an inefficient implementation of the DHT by a client that's popular in china to play some role in this distribution.

 

Certainly, observed “heavy” neighboring of peers is a function of swarm size. I intend to investigate a few medium/small size swarms to have a multi-point picture for any future discussions.

as i mentioned above we should try to get the big picture, i.e. how relevant the long tail is, measured in aggregate bandwidth. If the small torrents actually make up the bulk of the traffic then any solution will require a high degree of cooperation between ISPs, e.g. caches that cooperate with each other.

--
The 8472
independent developer for the Azureus Vuze Bittorrent client
_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
p2pi@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi