3 ms·
FTP is obviously an unfair comparison, but I was surprised to see this: > the reading performance of IPFS degrades as the data become more popular in the netwo
by makeworld 5y ago
FTP is obviously an unfair comparison, but I was surprised to see this:
> the reading performance of IPFS degrades as the data become more popular in the network.
I'd have expected the opposite.
- bb88 5y agoIs it? What about mirrored FTP Servers which are distributed or using a cached filesystem sitting behind a DNS round robin record. That was a thing 3 decades ago. I guess the question is, what value does IPFS bring that couldn't be done with 30 year old tech to a private network?
- noman-land 5y agoI think one important thing it brings is one-click joining of ad-hoc nodes to the global network. Also a suite of utilities for concocting your own p2p applications though standardized APIs. But that's more libp2p.
- viraptor 5y agoAdding an IPFS node does not require a new DNS round robin record, or any other synchronisation with the rest of the infra. It allows adding single files or even parts of them to the storage transparently. Also it eliminates the question of how do you keep the FTP nodes synchronised.