[p2p-hackers] P2P or centralized
Salman Abdul Baset
salman at cs.columbia.edu
Thu Aug 14 23:05:40 EDT 2008
>>> Anyway, just pushing back on the religion that P2P has developed.
>>> fun. It's sexy. It's really hard. But it's often pointless.
>> The advantage of p2p is that it reduces cost of entry in a certain
>> space. No one denies that anything p2p cannot be done central. However,
>> sometimes economics justify using p2p as a solution. And in Skype's
>> experience gained from Kazaa was no doubt helpful.
> What economic argument could possibly support the avoidance of central
> rendezvous? Servers are cheaper than engineers. By orders of
> magnitude. Building and maintaining complex p2p systems requires
> hundreds of engineer hours, billed at high rates. A server costs
> $50/month. Even if you only value your time at $5/hour, if it saves you
> 10 hours a month, it saves you money.
> Economics are unquestionably on the side of appropriate use of central
> services, bootstrapping, authentication, and rendezvous being the big
> three. What numbers are you using that oppose this?
None. Maybe, we missed each other but I had mentioned in earlier posts
that these three require centralized service for Internet scale
What does not necessarily require a centralized service is a central file
repository for filesharing, or a central media relay to support call
establishment for nodes behind NATs/firewalls. It is in these contexts
that I prefer a p2p solution to a centralized one.
More information about the p2p-hackers