undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnemothekid1y ago0 comments

Torrents are awful for live events.

1. Everyone only cares about the most recent "block". By the time a "user" has fully downloaded a block from Netflix's seedbox, the block is stale, so why would any other user choose to download from a peer rather from netflix directly?

2. If all the users would prefer to download from netflix directly rather than a p2p user, then you already have a somewhat centralized solution, and you gain nothing from torrents.

0 comments

eviks1y ago

1. Because Netflix is at capacity? Or because the peer is closer and faster than the original?

nemothekidOP1y ago

If Netflix is at capacity and you have to wait for a peer, then you have simply reinvented the buffering problem. In other words

1. I exclusively download from a peer and my stream is measurably behind

2. I switch to a peer when Netflix is at capacity and then I have to wait for the peer to download from Netflix, and then for me to download from the peer. This will cause the same buffering issue that Netflix is currently being lambasted for.

This solution doesn’t solve the problem Netflix has

eviks1y ago

"Buffering problem" can have very different QOL manifestations, so :

1. You still get a better viewing experience without interruptions. Besides, your "measurably behind" can be an imperceptible fraction of a second?

2. Similar thing - shorter queues - the switch can happen faster due to the extra capacity

So yes, it does solve the practical problem, though not the theoretical one

alex-mohr1y ago

If Netflix were working correctly and could handle the load, you'd absolutely be correct.

But it does seem the capacity of a hybrid system of Netflix servers plus P2P would be strictly greater than either alone? It's not an XOR.

And note that in this case of "live" streaming, it still has a few seconds of buffer, which gives a bandwidth-delay product of a few MB. That's plenty to have non-stale blocks and do torrent-style sharing.

nemothekidOP1y ago

If switching to a peer causes increased buffering (which it will, because you still have to wait for the peer to download from Netflix) then you will still have the original problem Netflix is suffering from.

If the solution to users complaining about buffering is to build a system with more inherent buffering then you are back at square one.

I think it’s might be helpful to look at netlfix’s current system as already a distributed video delivery system in which they control the best seeds. Adding more seeds may help, but if Netflix is underprovisioned from the start you will have users who cannot access the streams

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

eviks1y ago

1. Because Netflix is at capacity? Or because the peer is closer and faster than the original?

nemothekidOP1y ago

If Netflix is at capacity and you have to wait for a peer, then you have simply reinvented the buffering problem. In other words

1. I exclusively download from a peer and my stream is measurably behind

This solution doesn’t solve the problem Netflix has

eviks1y ago

"Buffering problem" can have very different QOL manifestations, so :

1. You still get a better viewing experience without interruptions. Besides, your "measurably behind" can be an imperceptible fraction of a second?

2. Similar thing - shorter queues - the switch can happen faster due to the extra capacity

So yes, it does solve the practical problem, though not the theoretical one

alex-mohr1y ago

If Netflix were working correctly and could handle the load, you'd absolutely be correct.

But it does seem the capacity of a hybrid system of Netflix servers plus P2P would be strictly greater than either alone? It's not an XOR.

nemothekidOP1y ago

If the solution to users complaining about buffering is to build a system with more inherent buffering then you are back at square one.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse