backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 20 comment(s) - last by HVAC.. on May 14 at 11:48 AM


Shortly after starting, Ono starts probing nearby CDN servers.
Uses novel method to calculate the most optimal download buddies

The Ono project, a product of Northwestern University’s AquaLab group, promises to accelerate your BitTorrent downloads to unheard-of levels: in average environments, Ono claims gains of 31% in download speed, while in higher-bandwidth environments users may see download speed improvements of 207% on average – and up to 833% if calculating by median!

With Comcast’s recent tussle over BitTorrent and its supposed crippling effect, it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that Ono would devastate ISPs’ infrastructure – but in fact the effect is opposite: Ono, which exists as a plugin for the supreme Azureus BitTorrent client, steers your computer into preferring network nodes closest to you, so that a given torrent is more likely to seek out nearby computers for downloading and uploading – providing the torrent’s swarm is large enough.

While geolocation certainly isn’t new – it’s seen use, much to my annoyance, in a lot of internet advertising as of late – the manner in which it is used is not conducive to BitTorrent sessions. Typical geolocation exists by comparing IP addresses to known real-world signatures, resulting in a rough approximation of an IP address’ physical location. Note that it returns a physical location, not a network one: my neighbor’s computer may be 100 feet away from my computer, but if she’s on another ISP her machine might as well be on the side of the country.

Ono works instead by seeking out the closest network machines, that is, computers that are the fastest accessible over a user’s ISP’s network, relative to them. It checks this by taking cues from content distribution networks: companies like Akamai already have thousands of servers placed around the world, and they exist solely to offload bandwidth-intensive downloads from their client’s web sites. When a user requests a file hosted by Akamai, he or she is redirected transparently to the fastest available server, and that response is often one designed to send users to a server that is most convenient for his or her ISP – resulting in a vastly accelerated download. Ono captures that redirection information, then compares the result to the results of its peers. Azureus is instructed to connect to nodes Ono feels to be closest, resulting in higher-quality, lower-latency BitTorrent downloads.

Yesterday, I decided to give Ono a try. After installing the plugin, I unleashed it upon the massive, 24-bit 96khz version of Trent Reznor’s latest, coincidentally released for free on the same day. The download weighed in at 1.06 gigabytes, and was previously chugging along, on average, at a weak 60 to 80 kilobytes per second. Shortly after installing Ono – it didn’t even require me to restart my copy of Azureus – it began probing servers belonging to Akamai and Limelight, collecting statistical averages of how many times each of their servers were seen. After checking back a short while later, I noticed my download speed consistently stayed at 150 kb/sec, and it remained at this speed until the torrent completed and switched to seeding mode.

Anecdotally, it appears that Ono works as advertised. My modest 3-megabit DSL connection isn’t nearly large enough to see the high-end of Ono’s claims, but over my “average” internet connection, Ono did an excellent job of turning a trickle, if you will, into a torrent.

The interesting thing is that the Ono project predates the Comcast/BitTorrent controversy by at least a few months, which means that the project’s maturation seems to have nothing with the joint agreement between Comcast and BitTorrent, Inc. This, in turn, means that we can hopefully look for even more improvements in the future: perhaps Comcast’s/BitTorrent’s optimizations will synergize with AquaLab’s, and the will be stratospheric – without ISPs wailing and moaning every step of the way. Here’s to hoping.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Won't Make A Difference
By Sulphademus on 5/6/2008 9:07:37 AM , Rating: 2
...To Comcast.

150KBs across 15 miles of their cable is going to piss them off at least as much as 60KBs over 200, methinks.

Could be great news to torrenters though.




RE: Won't Make A Difference
By monitorjbl on 5/6/2008 10:32:48 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, those guys really seem to dislike providing internet services. I mean, it's not like an ISP should, like, do that or anything; I imagine people are happy to just send them money every month.


RE: Won't Make A Difference
By Ringold on 5/6/2008 8:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
I can't believe it didn't strike me before, but the plight of the ISPs is the plight of socialized medicine; we want it all, at a low cost.

I'm surprised there aren't more plans that offer wide pipes but charge per gigabyte over a certain amount per month, say, 5, and then offer a vastly more expensive unlimited use plan where they charge based on the assumption that it really will get utilized fully. I would think that would shut a lot of people up when everyone can choose and pay for what they want/need, versus the current system of acting like a government agency that promises everything but can only deliver if only a small fraction of people actual ask for full service at the same time.


RE: Won't Make A Difference
By jtok202 on 5/7/2008 11:37:10 AM , Rating: 2
The real problem is that the U.S. is in a unique situation to a degree we have trouble reaching relatively remote areas, however the standards of building obligate that cable and dsl are available to every residence built within the last 50 years. Where the united states is different from other countries is we do not have obligated competition. Your cable company owns the cables, your telephone company owns the phone lines, without the abilities to compete and not have to install a completely new physical system you are never going to get prices to drop. Other countries are not comparable except in a couple areas many countries with higher speeds and lower cost are also denser. However we are getting screwed in the U.S., a 100 Mbps connection is available over cable. Hopefully with the DTV switch we will see ramping up to 100 Mb connections. Either way we go about this the best thing that can happen in the United States market is going to be competition, WIMAX, obligated line sharing, mandated regulation of neutral practices will all serve to increase penetration reduce prices, and generally benefit everyone except the profit margin.


RE: Won't Make A Difference
By borismkv on 5/7/2008 12:43:06 PM , Rating: 3
I can already tell you this doesn't work. The major ISP in Alaska (GCI) does it. They charge 40 dollars a month for a 2MB connection with 5GB of bandwidth per month. Once you use that up, they charge 5 cents per meg. It's okay for someone who just checks email or does simple browsing, but the way the Internet is going, bandwidth limitation will be a very very bad thing. 5gigs a month disappears before you know it. Only playing WoW for 2 hours a day will result in a total monthly bandwidth usage of well over 3gigs. Other games are more costly (Crysis multiplayer cost me 500 megs a *day* for 1-2 hours of play time). Streaming movies over the Internet was impossible with that bandwidth limitation. I was limited to being able to watch 2-3 movies a month with a more expensive 10GB bandwidth limitation.

The real problem with getting this type of system is this, it will cost ISPs a good bit of money to switch, and they are obviously quite content to not spend any money making upgrades of any kind.


RE: Won't Make A Difference
By borismkv on 5/7/2008 12:59:23 PM , Rating: 3
Oh...and in order to get unlimited Internet with them, you have to buy 80 dollars a month worth of other services and pay a high price for the internet connection on top of that. If all you want is unlimited internet, be prepared to pay 120 dollars a month for it (At 1MB/sec). And what's more, the quality and speed of the service is not even remotely improved for this unbelievable cost.


By djkrypplephite on 5/7/2008 1:14:53 PM , Rating: 1
Trouble with that theory is that the market has proven itself effective as a regulator in the medical industry, and yet Comcast and AT&T have both shown that they would rather screw their customers than actually invent anything new and/or useful. Besides, speeding up internet infrastructure is relatively easy compared to finding a cure for cancer or AIDS.


RE: Won't Make A Difference
By jtok202 on 5/7/2008 11:38:12 AM , Rating: 2
ohhh Ya just cause its a pet peeve, KB Kb MB Mb are completely different.


Anyone know
By Bioniccrackmonk on 5/6/2008 11:28:43 AM , Rating: 2
If this plugin will work with uTorrent or if a plugin will become available anytime soon?




RE: Anyone know
By TomCorelis (blog) on 5/6/2008 11:52:02 AM , Rating: 2
Azureus only, for now.


RE: Anyone know
By AnnihilatorX on 5/6/2008 12:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
I have been using Azureus. It had been great until they became bloated with the Azureus Vuze 3.x client, that I never use the Vuze features.

I stayed with Azureus because it's plugin system is one of the best among BT clients. You can in advanced option disable the Vuze so that Azureus reverts back to 2.x like client.
I am not sure if the plain 2.x client still available as download support all these new plugins.


RE: Anyone know
By threepac3 on 5/6/2008 12:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
I used to love Azureus It is the king of add-ons, but now I see a better solution. uTorrent just runs a lot better no questions asked.


RE: Anyone know
By gfredsen on 5/7/2008 7:58:38 PM , Rating: 2
I used to love Azureus It is the king of add-ons, but now I see a better solution. uTorrent just runs a lot better no questions asked.

Exactly, and I don't see that Ono makes Azureus run much better on my machine/connection.


RE: Anyone know
By stryfe on 5/9/2008 5:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I used Azureus for quite a while as well. Eventually I realized that the huge resource requirments and occasionaly instability wasn't worth all the extra features I didn't use anyway.

I use uTorrent now which has all the features you actually need while being very light on resource usage and very stable.


RE: Anyone know
By TomCorelis (blog) on 5/6/2008 10:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
Azureus/Vuze 3 will run in 2.0 mode. I'm not sure how to activate it, as it defaults to 2.0 mode when upgrading a 2.x installation. I'm not a big fan of Vuze either -- particularly since I access Azureus from a copy running on my linux server, via VNC.


RE: Anyone know
By Thev00d00 on 5/12/2008 11:51:58 AM , Rating: 2
Use AzSMRC! Remote multiuser remote control of az.

Thats what I use on my seedbox, then you get a complete mini azureus client and it makes adding, removing and monitoring them so much easier!


RE: Anyone know
By HVAC on 5/14/2008 11:48:10 AM , Rating: 2
I second this method. My home server does the BT tango in the middle of the night while me and my PC snore.


Other torrent programs...
By Screwballl on 5/7/08, Rating: 0
By TomCorelis (blog) on 5/7/2008 3:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
Funny thing is, the Azureus team is trying to seperate itself as far away from the piracy crowd as it can -- hence Vuze. The dev team has publicly stated they would not implement any new "piracy-friendly" features that didn't have legitimate use.

Personally, after using both Az and uTorrent for some time now, I still prefer Azureus if anything because the sheer amount of features it offers. Plus, it's Java, so it runs on almost any platform. Only once have I wished that a uTorrent plugin existed for Azureus... but I cannot tell you how many times I wished an Azureus plugin was compatible with uTorrent.