4 ms·

Great for the websites. Not so great for mobile users or those with data caps (it's usually a transfer cap so it doesn't matter if you're downloading or uploadi

by eksith 14y ago

Great for the websites. Not so great for mobile users or those with data caps (it's usually a transfer cap so it doesn't matter if you're downloading or uploading). I wish unlimited data was more prevelant, alas, that's not the case. "If peers are slow or the central PeerCDN server..." So there still is a central server involved, I'm guessing for coordination.

pixelcort 14y ago
I would assume browsers could put up a permission box for WebRTC usage, or ask for permission for sending more than a certain low bitrate. Of course, in the case of a site using PeerCDN the incentive for a site visitor to allow it would be negligible as compared to a website using it for a VoIP service. Edit: Grammar.
feross 14y ago
Yep, we run a globally-distributed central tracker server to coordinate which peers have which files. We've considered making it completely distributed, but the added complexity and latency doesn't seem worth it at this stage. Good point about the upload bandwidth. We currently do some nice things to hopefully alleviate the effects of this. If the user is on mobile, on a slow connection, or on a device that's on battery power (yes, you can detect this in JS!), we can behave nicely and use less or no upload bandwidth.
- eksith 14y ago
  Don't forget there also users who are capped by their ISP that aren't on mobile too. It's a weird situation, but you may also need to blacklist certain ISPs or you'll have some users who are a bit peeved. I don't think any privacy issues are at play since the assets are hashed, but it seems like almost every site I visit in the EU has those annoying "this site is using cookies" banner that I have to acknowledge. I can tell you that's a total browsing experience buzzkill, but do you think some jurisdictions will demand something similar? I don't mind sharing bandwith since I'm not data-capped.

by eksith 14y ago

pixelcort 14y ago

I would assume browsers could put up a permission box for WebRTC usage, or ask for permission for sending more than a certain low bitrate. Of course, in the case of a site using PeerCDN the incentive for a site visitor to allow it would be negligible as compared to a website using it for a VoIP service. Edit: Grammar.

feross 14y ago

Yep, we run a globally-distributed central tracker server to coordinate which peers have which files. We've considered making it completely distributed, but the added complexity and latency doesn't seem worth it at this stage. Good point about the upload bandwidth. We currently do some nice things to hopefully alleviate the effects of this. If the user is on mobile, on a slow connection, or on a device that's on battery power (yes, you can detect this in JS!), we can behave nicely and use less or no upload bandwidth.

eksith 14y ago
Don't forget there also users who are capped by their ISP that aren't on mobile too. It's a weird situation, but you may also need to blacklist certain ISPs or you'll have some users who are a bit peeved. I don't think any privacy issues are at play since the assets are hashed, but it seems like almost every site I visit in the EU has those annoying "this site is using cookies" banner that I have to acknowledge. I can tell you that's a total browsing experience buzzkill, but do you think some jurisdictions will demand something similar? I don't mind sharing bandwith since I'm not data-capped.