Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Pirate Bay to Become a Distributed Storage Cloud?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the volunteer-to-make-your-computer-run-slower dept.

Data Storage 131

eldavojohn writes "After announcing the sale of The Pirate Bay to Global Gaming Factory X, it was unknown what would become of TPB. Details of the future plans have been released. 'According to Rosso, GGF plans to build a massive "storage cloud" on top of TPB that would use individual users as storage system's nodes. Apparently users can opt out for being part of the decentralized storage system, but then they'd have to pay a monthly fee for the service. More resources the user is willing to commit for the service, the cheaper the monthly subscription fee will be ... GGF's plan is to harness the resources users are willing to allocate to the cloud service and sell that computing power and bandwidth to 3rd party companies, essentially creating a service that could be used as a content delivery network (system that most large sites — including ours — use to deliver static content, such as images, software downloads and stylesheets, faster to the end user) or even as a web hosting cloud. As the service would use P2P technology, it could bring massive savings to ISPs, as the delivery of content to an end user would be provided from the closest possible "node," most likely from an user within the same ISP network.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No. (4, Interesting)

Rix (54095) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734599)

Running a tracker is hardly special or unique. If you put up a paywall, we will simply go elsewhere.

We're happy to share bandwidth with each other, but we're not going to let you resell it.

Re:No. (1)

Ricken (797341) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734663)

At first I thought they would PAY users that contributed alot of their bandwidth and computing power, but it sounds like they're not gonna go that way at all. Am I wrong?

Re:No. (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734713)

I assume they return the favor by letting you use bandwidth and computing power of other users. It may ultimately be a zero-sum game, but it does have some interesting properties. Like being able to temporarily use the power of, say, 1000 computers if you let someone else use the power of your computer later.

Re:No. (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734809)

No, I am not using your cloud as a botnet. Where did you get that idea?

At least they could all be helping number crunch more, I think the DRM and Encryption communities will have a field day with that.

Re:No. (3, Informative)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734825)

Which would be useful for researchers, but not home users...By the time you'd exported the process to the "cloud" (I fucking hate the word "cloud" now, my god what an overhyped buzzword) you'd probably already be done with it locally. The biggest problem with distributing processing is exporting the right kind of processes...You don't want to lock up your whole cluster because it's waiting for input from some single machine.

And researchers already have a variety of free seti/folding/etc applications that take advantage of free cycles, so what real benefit can TPB offer?

Hell, Sony already went down that road with a vengeance when they put Folding@Home on the ps3.

Re:No. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28735111)

My fucking Windows game just crashed, presumably because it's for Windows. So, thanks to that, I decided to come here and post a nigger joke. Enjoy!

How do you stop a nigger from jumping on the bed? Put velcro on the ceiling.

Re:No. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28737263)

I'm being 100% honest here - I don't get it.

What, exactly, is funny about this joke?

Re:No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28735891)

Cloud is actually an apt term, consider condensation of discrete molecules into larger entities, which then re condense into droplets and are let go, much like how water evaporates, becomes clouds, then turns into droplets and drops back to earth and the cycle repeats.

It's an apt term because networks, computer clusters, etc, follow a similar pattern.

Re:No. (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736903)

You know why they call it the cloud, right? It's nothing as high flown as you might like to believe. It's because the area outside the local network, the great and terrible interwebs, is always represented as a cloud in network diagrams [gliffy.com] .

So the "cloud" is an obvious term for networking people. But at its heart, it's complete bullshit. All you're saying is, "Let's pull resources from the 'Here there be Dragons' portion of our diagram!"

In logic 101, when we were all amateurs, it was allowed in the test to use a "magic" operator to signify that there was some logical step needed to get from A to B, but that we didn't know what the fuck it could be. Kinda like showing your work in math. Ifyou were on the right track and missed something, you'd get partial credit.

What did the magic operator look like? Looked like a fucking cloud. People need to stop saying, "We'll export all our needs to the cloud!" because what they're really saying is, "We hope to god you don't realize that we have no idea where we're going to get the resources we need."

Re:No. (1)

KronosReaver (932860) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734965)

You can be sure it will be structured so that only X% of the transfer given to them is returned to the people giving it, that is the whole point. That way they get to sell all the leftover capacity.

The thing is, do you really want to set up a web site to use "Cloud Storage" when most of the computers in the cloud are run by 14 year old kids who in addition to hosting that image or stylesheet are also downloading a couple of new movies at the same time they are trying to seed back enough to keep a positive ratio on that private tracker while burning a few new CDs for a friend and getting in some PvP time in WoW?

Seriously, Cloud anything is a great idea but the only time you PAY for it is when it is a mission critical service... and how likely is it that a cloud of PUBLIC Tracker users that don't have the sense to go private, or the couple of bucks to not have to share are going to be able to provide a quality service?

Airplane! (1)

broggyr (924379) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734679)

"I say... let 'em crash!"

Re:Airplane! (1)

WayHomer (461880) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735213)

Surely you can't be serious? ... I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.

Re:Airplane! (1)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737303)

Calm down! Get a hold of yourself.

Oh, you'll handle this? Alright....

Re:No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28735059)

Bla bla bla...

Just tell me where's the new TPB site, pm me. I won't tell.

Re:No. (4, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735385)

Running a tracker is hardly special or unique. If you put up a paywall, we will simply go elsewhere.

Yep. Also, I'm not aware of any part of the bittorrent protocol that provides the facilities for payments etc. that they're fantasising about. No one is going to give up their myriad bittorrent clients for some unproven and proprietary p2p system by the people who destroyed their favourite site, even if its free. And if it's not proprietary, it'll be forked to remove the paytard stuff.

There are private trackers (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735861)

And you could certainly restrict them to paid accounts.

But why would anyone want to pay for what they can get better for free?

SO for nothing (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734625)

you will store other peoples data on my machine?

OK, sign me up.

I for one welcome (2, Insightful)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734627)

I for one welcome the first alternative that would pay me to use my storage.

Re:I for one welcome (5, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734735)

Would they pay you what it's worth? That's the real question. I mean, you'll have to keep your gear on, and be okay with them maxing your bandwidth, you'll have to buy new drives when they thrash yours to bits, and chances are, they'll pay you pennies.

It's one thing to do something like Folding@Home [stanford.edu] where all they're doing is swiping cycles and some ram space...That's just a bit of electricity, little extra heat in your house. Actual magnetic storage is a whole different world.

Re:I for one welcome (1)

Fozzyuw (950608) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735297)

What do you think it would be worth for you to do it?

If you got an extra $10/$50/$100 month? It's an intriguing question.

Re:I for one welcome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28735667)

$100 a month probably wouldn't even cover the increased bandwidth costs that's even if your ISP didn't have a clause stopping you reselling bandwidth (which nearly all do).

Then you've got the early failing hard drives, the problems of getting up at 4.30am because one of the machines crashed, suffering penalties for downtime, etc.

Basically they want me to run a data centre for them I'd expect *at least* $1000 a month.

Re:I for one welcome (1)

jheiss (10829) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735917)

Well, since you can rent nodes on Amazon EC2 for $70/month or so I think the market value of a home computer on a crappy DSL line with all the attendant flakiness is maybe $10/month max. The model of paying folks for usage of their home computer has been tried a few times, but I think it is doomed to fail. The money isn't significant enough to attract users.

Re:I for one welcome (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736163)

I envision something more like hosting a chunk of, or the whole, file; while using aggressive caching to keep the next 100MB of the file in my RAM. I've got 8GB, so why not? With slightly more computation-intensive tracking, I could seed that 100MB to 100 people, instead of seeding bits of 10GB to the cloud.

I'd love for Netflix streaming and this company to get together. Have 15 people host a movie, and 3 to 5 could be watching it at once. My computer would coordinate with other seeders' computers and I'd send 5MB, he'd send 3MB and someone else would send 4MB; and we'd all complete sending that in 1 minute, but combined it would be enough video for 2-3 minutes (or something).

Re:I for one welcome (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737373)

I run Primegrid on (almost) all of my computers. It would be interesting to know, that my main PC (2x Opteron 270) uses ~100W less power if I shut down BOINC and the CPU clock reduces from 2GHz to 1GHz.

privacy nd data security?? (1, Insightful)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734633)

what happens if someone formats their pc nd the cloud data on it as well??

also, it might be possible to access the data stored by the cloud on ur pc...

couldnt this also be used as a botnet for DDos attacks if it is hacked??

Re:privacy nd data security?? (2, Informative)

Ricken (797341) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734717)

what happens if someone formats their pc nd the cloud data on it as well??

As I understand it, there will always be a few copies somewhere else of the same stuff that's on your pc, so if the cloud can't reach your stuff, it'll just go another way.

Re:privacy nd data security?? (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734813)

I assume this was figured out when the Coda file system was developed.

Re:privacy nd data security?? (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735749)

what happens if someone formats their pc nd the cloud data on it as well?? also, it might be possible to access the data stored by the cloud on ur pc...

These are the kind of problems that actual computer science (as opposed to software engineering or IT) is used to consider and solve.

I can't remember exactly how they do it (probably because I didn't know the exact details in the first place), but there are probably mathematical theories proving that you need x number of copies distributed across various machines in such and such a manner to have 99.99999999999999999999% (or whatever) chance of recovering that file.

And I'm guessing it's probably not as simple as simply having X straight copies of a file in different locations either; it's probably distributed in a more convoluted (but mathematically sound) manner as well.

And if the system uses a pseudo-filesystem, then the underlying distributed storage system will probably be block (rather than file) oriented, so parts of the same file on different blocks will probably be stored differently.

The other issue you raise- privacy- is possibly another factor; IIRC they'd want to distribute the data in such a manner that a given person didn't know whose data they actually had, and also that having access to that part of the data alone would be unlikely to provide anything meaningful, so it can be mathematically proven that a 14-year-old hacker wannabe having your data on his computer isn't a security risk).

Bear in mind that I know jack **** about the theory underlying this (I'm not a mathematician) and it might be misleading- it's based on extrapolating vague memories of stuff I learned bits of a few years ago as part of my degree- nothing more. But I think it's in the right ballpark.

huh. (4, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734645)

I thought that the news was that they had stopped being one...Now that they're legit, they're just another torrent tracker for free/unencumbered IP that isn't hard to find a torrent for anyway.

Is their slow descent into irrelevance really deserving of multiple articles a day? They just posted the first satellite images of the Apollo sites, isn't that a bit more worthwhile?

Hosting someone else's illegal content (4, Insightful)

seifried (12921) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734691)

Yeah, I really want to be part of something where I am hosting other people's content and have no real control over it, for free! Especially when some of that content may be illegal (in the criminal sense) in the jurisdiction that I live (child pornography, etc.) or violate civil acts (such as health data, copyrighted material, etc.).

For Free, sure. (2, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735025)

I don't mind running FreeNet, where I'm helping host others content for free to help out 'the cause'. But a pay service on top of this? No thanks.

Re:For Free, sure. (2, Informative)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735099)

Freenet also has the advantage that you don't know what your node stores.

Re:For Free, sure. (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735319)

Legally, that's a plus. Morally, it depends on whether you can picture yourself as an ISP or not as Freenet is kinda like one big network of cache servers. If you think everything what goes through there is none of your business anymore than it's your ISPs business what you do, then fine. If you want to be the editor controlling everything passing through your line and cache, you're better off with torrents.

Re:For Free, sure. (4, Insightful)

seifried (12921) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737169)

I don't care if legally or not I'm in the clear, I don't want police getting a warrant and stomping through my house, seizing my computers and generally making my life a pain in the a** if there's no benefit to me (no upside) and just a whole lot of potential risk (i.e. a huge downside). Now if I knew I was hosting content similar to what wikileaks hosts that would be a different story (doing something that has social benefit), but providing storage for free to a commercial company where I take on an unknown set of risks would be insane.

Re:Hosting someone else's illegal content (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735447)

If it is encrypted how are you supposed to know what are you hosting?

Are they really serious? (1)

b0ttle (1332811) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734747)

How the hell are they going to guarantee the keeping of the data? What if I delete the data from my storage? Of course they could make redundant pieces on other nodes, but that doesn't solve the problem.

Re:Are they really serious? (1)

jhfry (829244) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734857)

Of course they could make redundant pieces on other nodes, but that doesn't solve the problem.

Actually it does. Assume that the content provider, say Download.com, is managing a seed for a particular download. You, and thousands of others like you, download the content and seed it as well. Do I care if you delete the file and stop seeding? Or, it is determined that more seeds are needed so your machine is configured to download a portion of the file and make it available, even if you delete it, or halt the download, it doesn't corrupt the original seed or the hundreds/thousands of nodes who have that same part of the file you did.

This model makes perfect sense for distribution, not so much for primary storage or archival purposes. Think of it as torrents with centralized management that can force you to seed some/all of a file.

Re:Are they really serious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28734887)

OMG, I just deleted all the porn on the cloud. I knew I had something good since it was getting accessed so often.

Re:Are they really serious? (1)

thms (1339227) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734977)

How the hell are they going to guarantee the keeping of the data?

By using a closed and hard-to-reverse-engineer (think Skype) binary as the linchpin of this setup. It will checksum files, report back to the server and then somehow penalize you for deleting stuff or "cheating" otherwise, e.g. by offering less peers.

Sure sounds interesting though, and I hope an open specification of this or something similar comes out of it, though identifying leechers and freeloaders in such a setup would be a lot more complicated, I could only think of a computationally intensive method, demanding a new checksum with a salt inserted somewhere among the data. And doing the same for shared computation short of computing it twice is impossible.

If this becomes an open and free standard (and I had an actual SDSL 10/10Mbit connection) I would trust (encrypted) backups there a lot more than on my USB-Stick or my Server - Linus' quote would finally become true!

Re:Are they really serious? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736555)

Sounds like GoogleFS

Wow, talk about a metric ton of FAIL (5, Insightful)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734759)

this is megafail. Ultrafail. Failure to the 3rd degree.

So it's either let us use your computer to store other people's crap on it, or opt out and pay us?

You hear that noise? It's the sound of a company becoming irrelevant at the speed of the internet.

(sounds kinda like a drunk Mel Gibson screaming about Jews, doesn't it?)

Re:Wow, talk about a metric ton of FAIL (1)

v(*_*)vvvv (233078) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734947)

Couldn't have put it better.

The last thing anyone wants is to host other peoples data with an open pipe to a commercial web site.

Re:Wow, talk about a metric ton of FAIL (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735521)

Wouldn't be such a bad deal, if I'd continue to get the same service as TPB today only legally - pretty much unlimited access to all mainstream media. Trouble is, that's not what GGF is selling because it's not theirs to sell. All they have is a brand name and a torrent indexer/tracker that is ready for another hydra trick, chop of TPB and two new heads appear. I don't think the deal will ever happen though, the deal will just fall apart and the train wreck left over won't be worth anything.

Selecting what you store (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28734763)

Can I store credit card information only on my computer?

Re:Selecting what you store (1)

Garridan (597129) | more than 5 years ago | (#28736473)

But then, nobody else could use your credit card. P2P is all about sharing. Don't be a leech.

Sleep (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734777)

Could that cloud have hidden, or implicit, or just a consequence of its architecture, that could mean a massive DoS over all of it, and that means your personal PCs? Just the risk of that could make the idea less attractive.

Why Even Buy TBP Then? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28734791)

I mean their concept sounds interesting, but how does buying The Pirate Bay help you with that? Virtually every user has already left because of the legal pay model, and they can't use much of the existing database because it's basically all illegal content. So they get a once famous domain name for $7.8 million. Great deal.

Re:Why Even Buy TBP Then? (1)

BitHive (578094) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735071)

It's a great deal if you're tired of owning the world's most publicized bittorrent tracker.

Re:Why Even Buy TBP Then? (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735797)

Er... I think he meant it wasn't such a good deal for the *buyers*!

Re:Why Even Buy TBP Then? (1)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735471)

There is a huge userbase that is already sharing large amounts of content on it. This company wants to commercialize the userbase.

I doubt that they will get rid of the illegal content, because that would drive away the userbase they want to sell. So what I think is going to happen is that your TPB experience will remain pretty much the same (you may have to sign into that VPN system) but TPB will use a certain amount of your HD and bandwidth for their own purposes. If you use a small amount of "personal resources" you'll have to pay for the VPN service, if you allocate a lot of "personal resources" you wont have to pay a dime.

Question is: what are the definitions of small and large in the above paragraph.

What's the Difference? (1)

twmcneil (942300) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734819)

What makes this different from a Russian botnet?

Re:What's the Difference? (5, Funny)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734931)

Oooo! Oooo! I got this one!

Q: What makes this different from a Russian botnet?
A: It's in Sweden.

Q: What makes this different from a Russian botnet?
A: In Soviet Russia, botnet installs you! In Sweden, you have to install it yourself.

Q: What makes this different from a Russian botnet?
A: When your machine is a part of a Russian botnet, it's taking money from the RIAA. When it's part of the new "pirate" bay botnet, it's making money for the RIAA.

Does anyone still care? Seriously? It was a good torrent tracker, now it's gone. End of story. They have no reasonable path to legitimacy, the trial judgment will sap the vast majority of their assets, and their userbase will vanish when they stop carrying illegal stuff.

BOTNET! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28734841)

So, they have proposed a "white hat" "legal" botnet to use its power for good or whoever has the most money?

TOS (1)

swm (171547) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734845)

Does participation in the cloud violate my ISP's TOS?

And if not, how long before my ISP changes their TOS so that it does?

Re:TOS (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735747)

If you're getting money, almost certainly (unless you have a business account) - resale is one of the first things that a TOS prohibits.

Whether they consider 'free subs' as resale depends on the ISP/Lawyer concerned.

Whether merely running internet services is against TOS depends on the ISP - certainly on some of the cheaper contracts this is prohibited but it's far from universal.

So it's basically Freenet without the freedom... (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734851)

Can't wait to see how this one turns out.

weareborg tag (1)

garnetlion (786722) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734871)

This is tagged weareborg. We are borg who are mainlining warez and will add the Jonas Brothers' catchy distinctiveness to our own.

(There's a cyborg/Michael Jackson plastic-surgery obsession joke somewhere in here, but I'll leave it to cleverer posters to hash out.)

Liability (2, Interesting)

swm (171547) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734879)

Does participation in the cloud make me civilly or criminally liable for infringing or illegal material that is stored on my hard drive? Distributed from my hard drive?

Re:Liability (2, Informative)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735771)

They could probably get you for contributory infringement - after all, you just became a node on a network called 'the pirate bay'. Also you're getting paid (albeit paid in kind rather than cash)... and as this is a 'legit' company they'll have to keep accurate records of all this - just waiting for the subpoena.

Re:Liability (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735799)

Actually, they wouldn't need to do that. A letter to your ISP saying you're involved in commercial piracy and your internet connection is toast.

Re:Liability (1)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737227)

It's touchy now.

But the second you take money from them, you're screwed.

Re:Liability (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737113)

Depends on if you, the judge and the jury as stupid enough to believe it!

No, really! A rule that is made up by someone, is only as true as the people who believe in it.

In reality of course, the person who did infringe the copyright, is the one to talk to.

Or else you could sue the company building the street, for murder, because someone on that street got killed!

Wua.la (1)

spacefight (577141) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734883)

Sounds a lot like www.wua.la, 'nuff said.

It's reptivitively tautologically recursive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28734913)

Leaches leaching off leaches.

'Bout time (2, Interesting)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 5 years ago | (#28734943)

I have wanted someone to translate a torrent network into a storage cloud for quite some time. I am a network administrator and I have an immense amount of storage wasted by PCs and servers. 80GB local hard drive only using 5GB, translate that to distributed storage across hundreds of nodes...I could have a large storage cloud consisting of terabytes on my network if some creative programmer would create a storage cloud like this closed to just my network.

Does anyone know why this hasn't been done?

Re:'Bout time (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735093)

Because the additional read/write/seek time involved would kill the lifetimes of your disks. It would minimize the amount of places for the hard drive to move data in the event of a predictive cluster failure on a portion of the disk (disks usually have extra space so that if the drive detects a cluster is going bad, it will attempt to store the data outside of that area - why there have been firmware hacks to sometimes squeeze a few extra gigs out of a hard disk). It costs extra power. It will also cost you in terms of performance if the servers have a mission critical purpose.

Re:'Bout time (1)

VeNoM0619 (1058216) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735117)

I'm sure it has been done, but coming from a business perspective - that is sadly a terrible idea. Depending on your redundancy, this is in no way a place to store data (cause what are you really using it for? backups, mission critical storage that should be left on a server?).

If any of the machines go down, or the user takes it offline (reboot/laptop/virus/whatever), you lose that portion already. Even accounting for redundancy, lets say 3x, you would cut the available space by 3. But even then, what if a virus spreads on your network.

But this assumes you are storing business related information on your business' hardware. What would you store on it that isn't a backup/mission critical?

Re:'Bout time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28735573)

What would you store on it that isn't a backup/mission critical?

Porn. Although, your favorites would be backup on multiple mediums. But that's just me.

Re:'Bout time (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735131)

I can think of two or three ways that it HAS been done. Generally though, you can't just farm out the storage space, you have to virtualize the whole machine, and once you have a whole network of virtual machines, then you can set them up to migrate data and processes.

The reason most people don't do it that way is that hardware is wildly cheap, and that there aren't that many applications that can take advantage of the processing power (and I'm guessing that if you needed the cycles, I wouldn't need to be telling you this stuff). Likewise storage space: the problem with distributed processing is that your data is, by necessity, stored redundantly, so that 5GB that is being used is suddenly 25GB spread across a dozen machines.

Even if you export the OS and all the applications, you're still going to have to deal with data migration issues, and, depending on your network, and data volume, it may come back around to being cheaper to store and run everything locally.

The plus is distributed processing and redundancy. A machine dies, and you just put a boot cd in a new machine, and plug it into the wall, or hell, net boot it. Trivial.

Because it has. (4, Informative)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735193)

Coda [cmu.edu] , and before that, AFS [openafs.org] . Oh, and Lustre [lustre.org] .

It's not a new idea. The only real difference here is that it's associated with BitTorrent and The Pirate Bay, and is designed to handle a whole set of problems you won't have, like untrusted machines communicating over the Internet, and how to compensate people for using their hard drive to store your stuff.

Re:Because it has. (1)

Deanalator (806515) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735617)

distributed filesystem != storage cloud

a storage cloud is closer to what freenet etc was trying to pull off

Re:Because it has. (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735983)

Yes, and a network administrator would want a distributed filesystem, not a "storage cloud", whatever the fsck that means.

I understand what Freenet was trying to do -- and again, it's way more than what an admin wants, and way more overhead than a distributed filesystem.

Re:'Bout time (1)

dargaud (518470) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735611)

One word: COW ! (Cluster Of Workstations). The basic idea is that you run a cluster off the free cycles while people use their workstations normally. You could run Mosix like that a decade ago. The problem was that it was highly unreliable. If you started a job normally, it would stay on your workstation. If you prefaced it with a special command, it would run on the entire cluster (if it was multithreaded) or on the fastest available node (if it was single thread). 'Fastest' being defined as a combination of CPU, I/O and network speeds, reevaluated regularly. It's too bad it didn't gain widespread acceptance.

It's called ZFS (from Sun) (1)

seifried (12921) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737535)

ZFS (on Solaris and FreeBSD) does exactly this. It's much harder to do well theen it looks though (kind of like email or anything else remotely complicated).

The RIAA couldn't kill TBP (3, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735003)

But greed has, almost overnight.

Screw That! (1)

hardburlyboogerman (161244) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735119)

I am supposed to offer up bandwidth and storage on my machine and PAY these jokers to do so?
Somebody check what they are smoking, Logical thinking like this seemed to have used at places like Circuit City,Chrysler,General Motors,and other businesses..

Ridiculous (2, Interesting)

grumpyhacker (1550897) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735135)

What did the owners of The Pirate Bay actually sell? Did they sell only the domain?

They (or anyone else really) can start a new piratebay and start all over again. This is ridiculous.

The sheer genius is contagious (1)

BitHive (578094) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735177)

I just realized how we can appease handgun fanatics, end the military-industrial complex, and get universal health care. We'll graciously let everyone own whatever weaponry they can afford (and perhaps create some tax incentives) thereby enabling us to crowdsource all military operations, giving the savings directly to the insurance industry since free markets know how much of my money to take better than the government.

Torrent-like file storage seems bad (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735217)

What happens when the only guy with the last 10% of my file isn't online?

Re:Torrent-like file storage seems bad (2, Interesting)

TomRK1089 (1270906) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735585)

That's what I'm thinking. I thought the whole point of the cloud was that it was still controlled servers, but a big ol' chunk of them, with Google style redundancy, so that it's not "My powerpoint is on Server A-436-Z," it's "My powerpoint is hosted with $DOMAIN." This sounds like you're gonna trust some 13-year old kid to never turn his PC off (or slow down the bandwidth when he plays WoW for 7 hours just when I need my files.) What happens when one of your users has an AOL style dynamic IP that changes every time they log in? What happens when there's a brownout in CA and that takes out 200 of your users? Can someone explain how they avoid what appears to be technical and reliability hurdles here?

Re:Torrent-like file storage seems bad (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735853)

Pretty much the same as happens with bittorrent now.

A certain percentage of files will be fine.
A certain percentage will be served at dialup speeds (boy is that one fun! Yes I'm really prepared to wait 4 days to download that 50mb file).
A certain percentage will be incomplete and never finish
A certain percentage will have no seeds online at all

There is no inherent reliability in such a system.. reliability improves with popularity, so if you want something that's 'cool' you'll probably find it in the first bracket, otherwise it's hit and miss.

Re:Torrent-like file storage seems bad (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735973)

This sounds like you're gonna trust some 13-year old kid to never turn his PC off (or slow down the bandwidth when he plays WoW for 7 hours just when I need my files.) What happens when one of your users has an AOL style dynamic IP that changes every time they log in? What happens when there's a brownout in CA and that takes out 200 of your users? Can someone explain how they avoid what appears to be technical and reliability hurdles here?

They avoid all the problems you're talking about with this little thing called redundancy. You know, storing the same information in more than one place. And even if a blackout takes out 200 users, you just pull the information down from the 201st closest node.

And really, dynamic IPs? Because it is sooooo hard to have the client software report when its IP changes.

Seriously, I think you're just looking for problems that don't exist.
This is a mature technology that CDN's, TOR, Freenet, etc have been implementing for years.

Pr0n Alternative? (1)

Filgy (2588) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735227)

This leaves me GREATLY concerned. Sure there are other sites like Demonoid, but Demonoid does not have a pr0n section on it.

Anyone have a good alternative for replacing the internets pr0n downloading via bittorrent back bone?

"OH NOES! MY PR0N DOWNLOADING BACKBONE!"

Re:Pr0n Alternative? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28735327)

empornium.us

Re:Pr0n Alternative? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28737433)

Last time I went there all the torrents had been removed. Not sure if it was a bad day or if it was permanent.

Wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28735259)

As the service would use P2P technology, it could bring massive savings to ISPs, as the delivery of content to an end user would be provided from the closest possible "node," most likely from an user within the same ISP network.'"

There is no reason that P2P per se would bring any kind of savings to ISP, even less massive. That's why you need explicit cooperation from the peers or from the ISP as in solutions like P4P :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactive_network_Provider_Participation_for_P2P
http://www.dcia.info/documents/P4P_Overview.pdf

(I love being a smartass)

Let me get this straight.. (1)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735315)

...They want *us* to pay them

So they can use our resources...

And sell those resources to a 3rd party...

No way! What's next:

"TPB" being renamed "Titanic"?? 'cause it's looking likes it's hit an iceberg and is sinking fast!!

Now If it was something like:

We pay â2 a month

They use our resources

They sell our resources

We get a % of those sales to cover our costs...

Then I *might* consider using the new Pirate Bay.

Re:Let me get this straight.. (1)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737267)

Oh, so you've seen the other 100 .com startups that tried EXACTLY this business plan then :)

Article about the TPB buyer (2, Informative)

BuR4N (512430) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735359)

Below is an article about the buyer of TPB (orginal in Swedish). Judge for yourself, but I do not think this is going anywhere, this is more or less the end for TPB http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=http://www.realtid.se/ArticlePages/200906/30/20090630101501_Realtid980/20090630101501_Realtid980.dbp.asp&sl=sv&tl=en&history_state0= [google.com]

Re:Article about the TPB buyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28736287)

thank you www.dizigunleri.com dizi izle,film izle,vizontele tuuba izle http://www.dizigunleri.com/film-izle/vizontele-tuuba-izle-izle.html

Upload? (1)

pgn674 (995941) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735435)

There is one thing I don't get with all these "P2P can be the legal solution to all things!" ideas. Especially with a service that has users committing resources, meaning the user is to upload a whole bunch.

With my 3 Mbps down / 768 kbps up DSL internet, I can not upload torrents (such as Linux distros) any faster than 188 kb/s, lest my ping latency, dropped packets, and download speed all hit the fan for all my applications, including web browsing. It's much the same with the 8 Mbps down cable connection at home. And, I believe that if the number of connections I have going at the same time gets too high, some performances in some instances drop. Both ISP's have legalees in the contracts saying that I can't run a server, too. Engaging in P2P, legal or not, may be violating these contracts. And anyways it seems the upload limits, inherit or artificial, do not allow for effecting serving.

So, how does Global Gaming Factory X plan to work with, change, or go around these ISP policies and mind sets? They'll have to have very low resource requirements, and make sure the networks have plenty of big player uploaders sitting on fat pipes or unusual ISPs. That, or hope that introducing a pay wall won't disrupt the natural self-building that current P2P networks have, even though even that is hardly reliable.

Is that legal? (1)

PPCAvenger (651410) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735511)

If P2P has been an "underground" phenomenon where consumers were distributing "their" bandwidth to share files and ISPs have generally not been very happy about it; how do things change now that this new company wants to pay consumers to do the same thing for legal content so they can make a profit?

Commercial bandwidth is expensive and this company is basically saying they'll do an end run around having to pay for it by giving consumers what will no doubt be chump change while they pocket the rest.

 

It seems to me that consumers don't even have the right to be profiting off the bandwidth they are getting from their ISP because that's not the terms under which they agreed to use it. It's one thing to share but quite another to resell.

 

I think bandwidth caps are a load of crap as much as the next guy but this seems like a clear violation of the ISP's rights.

Re:Is that legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28736359)

It seems to me that consumers don't even have the right to be profiting off the bandwidth they are getting from their ISP because that's not the terms under which they agreed to use it. It's one thing to share but quite another to resell.

Then this would bring in the complications with advertising on some forum, classifieds, blah blah etc.
Technically you are still using your bandwidth to profit if you sell anything.

First ISP with a clause like this could be booted in the shins pretty nastily, if it was the correct person they sued. (read: wrong person for them)
I, for one, welcome the first ISP stupid enough to actually try this.

groksterbay (1)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735555)

heh, gotta love wayne rosso. not sure how seriously i take him, but i gotta love him. hey there wanyeman!

- js.

Nearest possible node? (1)

dreamer.redeemer (1600257) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735579)

Wait a minute, how do they plan on finding the nearest possible node? Isn't that an example of the traveling salesman problem?

Re:Nearest possible node? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#28735879)

Ping time, probably.

so lazy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28736119)

Sigh, now I wish I'd expended the effort to get on a better "private" tracker.

Problem is not in idea (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737645)

The problem is not in the idea. Indeed cpu cycles, storage and bandwidth are worth something and if anyone building a datacentre scale operation will tell you just how expensive per unit it actually is.

Distributed services have been shown to work, so there is a opportunity here for a killer Google of the distributed computing to get it right and take over the world. The problem is the attempt to monetize the scheme. This is always what kills it.

The Pirate Paywall (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 5 years ago | (#28737691)

Even with balancing algorithms paying users are still subsidising the freeloaders, as the content providers will still want to be reimbursed for a bandwidth contributing user's free downloads. In this case, very directly subsidizing, rather than indirectly via jacking up retail prices to cover [imaginary] losses as happens with piracy to date .
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?