4 ms·
Seems neat, but I'm sure this form of hosting attracts fraud and is probably difficult to maintain.
by foota 5y ago
Seems neat, but I'm sure this form of hosting attracts fraud and is probably difficult to maintain.
- ComputerGuru 5y agoI’m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I can’t find a harder way to spam than this.
- foota 5y agoSpam isn't the only kind of fraud?
- ComputerGuru 5y agoPardon. I meant to say abuse, not spam.
- rektide 5y agoif they're going to deprecate the thing, i feel like they have an obligation to at least state why. letting random joe's from the internet chime in with sympathies explaining why they agree with the decision to remove good well used technology doesn't feel quite up the the bar i'd like to see for technologies being removed.
- andrewguenther 5y agoIf AWS is deprecating something, then it's likely that literally no one was using it and the few that might have been were given complimentary consulting to move them off of it.
- bpodgursky 5y agoYes, exactly. I get a billion messages a year about obscure lambda runtimes expiring for junk I provisioned half a decade ago and haven't ever invoked. There's no way this had any real users if it is being quietly turned off.
- jcims 5y agoIt sounds like there are customers using it and they will have a year to migrate off of the feature.
- bpodgursky 5y agoThere are undoubtedly a couple personal accounts with buckets configured in 2014 which have been idling at $.04/mo ever since, and they're allowing the grace period just in case. But likely no clear active users.
- unethical_ban 5y agoI think Bittorrent's history makes handwaving deprecation away slightly less easy. I mean, you're probably right - that none of their $100m contracts were using the feature. But otherwise, why remove it? What was it costing them in maintenance and support? Were there actually any security issues?
- spullara 5y agoI would assume that no one paying them anything was using it.
- jcims 5y agoAn obligation to who? For every interesting explanation there are likely a hundred banal ones that rationally lead to the same conclusion.
- bsder 5y agoTerribly unlikely. AWS outbound bandwidth costs are outrageous. Nobody in their right mind would provision a BitTorrent that could suddenly give you a couple thousand dollar bill if your torrent suddenly got popular. The possibly ridiculous bandwidth costs probably meant that absolutely nobody was using this.
- prvc 5y agoWhat would an economical alternative be?
- oauea 5y agoGrab a digital ocean VM for $5/month and call it a day. Should be enough for all your (legal) torrenting needs.
- jhgg 5y agoPlain ole bit torrent. Run some seed nodes on dedicated hardware with unmetered bandwidth. It'll get you pretty far.
- IggleSniggle 5y agoHow about: where the cost is amortized among sufficient uploading peers that it can be easily hosted on consumer home connections, despite very small upload rates available on consumer ISP connections?
- gopalv 5y ago> AWS outbound bandwidth costs are outrageous. The torrent would have been a way to get the data from peers instead of serving it purely from S3 outbound. If this was the only active seed for a torrent and there was nobody else, that would really be a problem. But otherwise, this should technically result in less outbound bandwidth usage than serving the whole file out of S3.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]