So is there a server program to partner this with? Something that acts as a torrent file builder, tracker and simple file server for the torrent? I can imagine in a large org you could store a gigantic quantity of public data on a server that creates a torrent whenever the data changes, serves the.torrent file over http and also acts as a tracker. You could wrap the FUSE client in some basic logic that detects newer torrents on the server and reloads/remounts.
Many moons ago I created a Linux distribution for a bank. It was based on Ubuntu NetBoot with minimal packages for their branch desktop. As the branches were serverless, the distro was self-seeding. You could walk into a building with one of them and use it to build hundreds of clones in a pretty short time. All you needed was wake-on-lan and PXE configured on the switches. The new clones could also act as seeds. Under the hood it served a custom Ubuntu repo on nginx and ran tftp/inetd and wackamole (which used libspread, neither have been maintained for years). Once a machine got built, it pulled a torrent off the "server" and added it to transmission. Once that was completed the machine could also act as a seed, so it would start up wackamole, inetd, nginx, tracker etc. At first you seed 10 machines reliably, but once they were all up, you could wake machines in greater numbers. Across hundreds of bank branches I deployed the image onto 8000 machines in a few weeks (most of the delays due to change control and staged rollout plan). Actually the hardest part was getting the first seed downloaded to the branches via their old Linux build, and using one of them to act as a seed machine. That was done in 350+ branches, over inadequate network connections (some were 256kbps ISDN)
From memory, with a standard torrent, when it loads up a new torrent file it verifies hashes on existing data, and if it matches up it leaves it. That's how it worked on my old distribution. Not sure how this would work on BTFS, but if it's lazy-loading data and if it handled existing data in the same way, it shouldn't be an issue. But I think this would suit infrequently changing data anyways.
Ever since I learned of bittorrent V2, I've been hoping for some per-file index to show up online. I'd love to be able to tag most or all of the bulk media files on my drives with how many copies exist in bittorrent swarms at any time. That way, I could more easily pick out big files for deletion knowing I could easily get another identical copy back later.
I tried doing something like this in the past using ipfs, but I wasn't very successful and didn't find any duplicates.
I dream of having a BTFS that will fix my "damaged" media files. E.g. ones I media shift, if my disk was scratched and portions are missing, or if the codec options I picked suck, it could download the "damaged" portions of my media and fix it seamlessly.
Not the same as what you are talking about, but your comment reminded me of AccurateRip [1] which I used to make extensive use of back when I was ripping hundreds of CDs every year.
Pretty sure AccuRip is only a collections of checksums to validate your rips. http://cue.tools/wiki/CUETools_Database actually improved on it to provide that healing feature (via some kind of parity, I guess?).
Do you have any tricks you can share on how to rip a large library of CDs? It would be nice to semi-automate the ripping process but I haven't found any tools to help with that. Also the MusicBrainz audio tagging library (the only open one I am aware of?) almost never has good tags for my CDs that don't have to be edited afterwards.
I’ll be honest, this was around 2005-2008 — it was a long time ago and at the time I really enjoyed the ritual of it all.
The main advice I can give you is to use ripping software that integrates with AccurateRip (XLD, EAC, etc) and use a widely supported lossless format (like FLAC).
Also — I can’t remember all the details, but there’s a way to store a CUE file, along with some metadata alongside your rip such that you can recreate an exact copy of the original physical media.
At least for now, I’ve moved on to streaming services, but I’m happy to know that I have a large library of music that I ripped myself to fall back to using instead, should I ever choose to.
I never had it fully working because the last time I tried, I was too focused on using VMs or Docker and not just dedicating a small, older computer to it, but I think about it often and may finally just take the time to set up a station to properly rip all the Columbia House CDs I bought when I was a teen and held on to.
In the distant past iTunes was great at this (really). Insert a disc, its metadata is pulled in automatically, it’s ripped and tagged using whatever coded settings you want and when it’s done the disc is ejected.
Watch a show do some other work and when the toast pops out a new one in.
Ripping DVDs with HandBrake was almost as easy, but it wouldn’t eject the disc afterwards (though it could have supported running a script at the end, I don’t recall).
It really was. In the early 2000s I had a stack of Mac laptops doing exactly this. Made some decent cash advertising locally to rip people's CD collections!
I was ripping my CD's with KDE's own KIO interface, which also does CDDB checks and embeds original information to ID3 tags. Passing through MusicBrainz Picard always gave me good tags, but I remember fine tuning it a bit.
Now, I'll start another round with DBPowerAmp's ripper on macOS, then I'll see which tool brings the better metadata.
another use of this is to share media after I've imported it into my library. if I voluntarily scan hashes of all my media, if a smart torrent client could offer those files only (so a partial torrent because I always remove the superfluous files) it would help seed a lot of rare media files.
I used to use magnetico and wanted to make something that would use crawled info hashes to fetch the metadata and retrieve the file listing, then search a folder for any matching files. You'd probably want to pre-hash everything in the folder and cache the hashes.
I hope bitmagnet gets that ability, it would be super cool
I’ve done a lot of archival of CD-ROM based games, and it’s not clear to me this is possible without a lot of coordination and consistency (there are like 7 programs that use AccurateRip, )and those only deal with audio). I have found zero instances where a bin/cue I’ve downloaded online perfectly matches (hashes) to the same disc I’ve ripped locally. I’ve had some instances where different pressings if the same content hash differently.
I’ve written tools to inspect content (say in an ISO file system), and those will hash to the same value (so different sector data but the same resulting file system). Audio converted to CDDA (16-bit PCM) will hash as well.
If audio is transcoded into anything else, there’s no way it would hash the same.
At my last job I did something similar for build artifacts. You need the same compiler, same version, same settings, the ability to look inside the final artifact and avoid all the variable information (e.g. time). That requires a bit of domain specific information to get right.
Sorry I think you misunderstood me. I mean when I download a torrent called "Rachmaninov Complete Discography" I copy the files to the Music/Classical folder on my NAS. I can no longer seed the torrent unless I leave the original in the shared folder. But if I voluntarily let a crawler index and share my Music folder, it could see the hash of track1.flac and know that it associates with a particular file in the original torrent, thus allowing others to download it.
If you’re worried about bit-flipping, you could just store multiple copies of the hash and then do voting, since it’s small. If you’re worried about correlated sources of error that helps less, though.
As someone with no storage expertise I'm curious, does anyone know the likelyhood of an error resulting in a bit flip rather than an unreadable sector? Memory bit flips during I/O are another thing but I'd expect a modern HDD/SSD to return an error if it isn't sure about what it's reading.
Thanks for the link. I think that 10^14 figure is the likelyhood of the disk error correction failing to produce a valid result from the underlying media, returning a read error and adding the block to pending bad sectors. A typical read error that is caught by the OS and prompts the user to replace drives.
What I understand by bit flip is a corruption that gets past that check (ie the "flips balance themselves" and produce a valid ECC) and returns bad data to the OS without producing any errors. Only a few filesystems that make their own checksums (like ZFS) would catch this failure mode.
It's one reason I still use ZFS despite the downsides, so I wonder if I'm being too cautious about something that essentially can't happen.
Maybe this is a joke that’s over my head, but the OP wants a system where damaged media can be repaired. They have the damaged media so there’s no way to make a hash of the content they want.
Distribute parity files together with the real deal, like they do on Usenet? Usenet itself is pretty much this anyway. Not sure if the NNTP filesystem implementations work. Also, there's nzbfs [1]
Submitting because I'm surprised why this isn't used more... couldn't we build a virtualmachine/OS's as an overlay on BTFS? Seems like an interesting direction.
Just the other week I used Nix on my laptop to derive PXE boot images, uploaded those to IPFS, and netbooted my server in another country over a public IPFS mirror. The initrd gets mounted as read-only overlayfs on boot. My configs are public: https://github.com/jhvst/nix-config
I plan to write documentation of the IPFS process including the PXE router config later at https://github.com/majbacka-labs/nixos.fi -- we might also run a small public build server for peoples Flake configs, who are interested in trying out this process.
>A prominent direction in the Linux distribution scene lately has been the concept of immutable desktop operating systems. Recent examples include Fedora Silverblue (2018) and Vanilla OS (2022). But, on my anecdotal understanding of the timelines concerning Linux distros, both are spiritual successors to CoreOS (2013).
Remember in the late 90's booting server off a CD-ROM was the thing.
Booting off USB sticks is still done all the time and it's (almost) literally the same thing. Doing it in combination with encrypted persistence support as available in Debian for example can be really nice.
It's not an overlay provider itself, but uber/kraken is a "P2P Docker registry capable of distributing TBs of data in seconds". It uses the bittorrent protocol to deliver docker images to large clusters.
The problem with being a docker registry is that you're still having to double-dip: distribute to the registry, then docker pull.
But you shouldn't need to: you should be able to do the same thing with a docker graph driver, so there is no registry - even daemon should perceive the local registry as "already available", even though in reality it's going to just download the parts it needs as it overlay mounts the image layers.
Which would actually potentially save a ton of bandwidth, since the stuff in an image is usually quite different to the stuff any given application needs (i.e. I usually base off Ubuntu, but if I'm only throwing a Go binary in there plus wanting debugging tools maybe available, then in most executions the actual image pulled to the local disk would be very small).
Kraken is sadly a dead project, with little work being done. For example support for Containerd is non-existent or just not documented.
I created Spegel to fill the gap but focus on the P2P registry component without the overhead of running a stateful application.
https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel
"Kraken was initially built with a BitTorrent driver, however, we ended up implementing our P2P driver based on BitTorrent protocol to allow for tighter integration with storage solutions and more control over performance optimizations.
Kraken's problem space is slightly different than what BitTorrent was designed for. Kraken's goal is to reduce global max download time and communication overhead in a stable environment, while BitTorrent was designed for an unpredictable and adversarial environment, so it needs to preserve more copies of scarce data and defend against malicious or bad behaving peers.
Despite the differences, we re-examine Kraken's protocol from time to time, and if it's feasible, we hope to make it compatible with BitTorrent again."
CVMFS is a mature entry in that space, heavily used in the physics community to distribute software and container images, allowing simple and efficient sharing of computing resources. https://cernvm.cern.ch/fs/
It can be an essential component, but for on-site replication you need to coordinate your caches to make the most of your available capacity. There're efforts to implement this on top IPFS to have mutually trusted nodes elect a leader deciding who should pin what to ensure you keep enough intact copies of everything in the distributed cache, but like so many things IPFS it started out interesting, died from feature creep and "visions" instead of working code.
Imagine that any computation is a hash, then every possible thing becomes memoized not distinguishing between data/code. Then as a consequence you have durability, cache, security to an extent, verifiability through peers (could be trusted or degrees away from peers you trust).
Is every computation worth memoizing? I can think of very few computations I do that others would care about, and in those cases there's already a much more efficient caching layer fronting the data anyway.
Why not? I think there is some interesting research here at the computationally level / distributed that could lead to some interesting architecture and discoveries.
If LLM's are token predictors for language, what happens when you do token prediction for computation across a distributed network? Then run a NN on the cache and clustering itself? Lots of potential use cases.
If you were a billionaire and you wanted some software update, you could log into your super computer and have every shell mount the same torrent and it should be the fastest upload.
This is the perfect client for accessing Internet Archive content! Each IA item automatically has a torrent that has IA's web seeds. Try Big Buck Bunny:
I don’t know the internal workings of IA and the bittorent architecture but if an archive has too many items the torrent file won’t have them all. I see this all the time with ROM packs and magazine archives for example. +1000 items, the torrent will only have the first ~200 or so available
Or even better store data as an sqlite file that is full-text-search indexed. Then you can full-text search the torrent on demand: https://github.com/bittorrent/sqltorrent
the top comment <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23580334> by saurik (yes, that one) on the previous 121 comment thread back in 2020 sums up my feelings about the situation: BTFS is a "one CID at a time" version of IPFS
I do think IPFS is awesome, but is going to take some major advances in at least 3 areas before it becomes something usable day-to-day:
1. not running a local node proxy (I hear that Brave has some built-in WebTorrent support, so maybe that's the path, but since I don't use Brave I can't say whether they are "WebTorrent in name only" or what
2. related to that, the swarm/peer resolution latency suffers in the same way that "web3 crypto tomfoolery" does, and that latency makes "browsing" feel like the old 14.4k modem days
3. IPFS is absolutely fantastic for infrequently changing but super popular content, e.g. wikipedia, game releases, MDN content, etc, but is a super PITA to replace "tip" or "main" (if one thinks of browsing a git repo) with the "updated" version since (to the best of my knowledge) the only way folks have to resolve that newest CID is IPNS and DNS is never, ever going to be a "well, that's a good mechanism and surely doesn't contribute to one of the N things any outage always involves"
I'm aware that I have spent an inordinate amount of words talking about a filesystem other than the one you submitted, but unlike BTFS, which I would never install, I think that those who click on this and are interested in the idea of BTFS may enjoy reading further into IPFS, but should bear in mind my opinion of its current shortcomings
https://github.com/anacrolix/torrent has a fuse driver since 2013. I'm in the early stages of removing it. There are WebDAV, 3rd party FUSE, and HTTP wrappers of the client all doing similar things: serving magnet links, infohashes, and torrent files like an immutable filesystem. BitTorrent v2 support is currently in master.
Pretty cool on the surface, but 2 things I can think of right now that mostly kills it for me (and maybe many others). 1) the things one usually use Bittorrent for tend to need the complete files to be all there to be useful, and internet speeds is a limiter in that regard. 2) seeder count tends to break down pretty quickly, as people delete or even just move the files elsewhere for whatever reason, so availability falls.
A file index tool can be add to torrent clients, letting it scan all files in a user-selected folder and tag them with torrent info. Then how can it find the torrent info for a given file? Maybe we need a central server, maybe some hacker will invent a distributed reverse torrent search network, to list what playlists has a specific song. I don't know if someone has already invented this. I think it can be the final answer to any distributed file system driven by user uploads.
IPFS has resolved the indexing issue, with content addressing. Overall I'd say it has all the pros of bittorrent and fewer of the cons, from a technical perspective. However it's more complex, which may be a reason why it isn't more adopted.
I found it might be quite useful for huge LLMs since those are now hosted on BitTorrent. Of course it is not going to be as practical as IPFS since IPFS is content addressable and easier to do random access.
Couldn't help but think it would be epic if it went the other way - you throw files into a folder, it's set as read-only and then share that as a torrent.
I'm not sure it's the same, IPFS would be another (valuable) thing entirely. I would be tempted to say that the torrent filesystem should be kept strictly in the scope of torrents.
It lets you create a block device (/dev/nbd0) backed by a torrent. Blocks are fetched in the background, or on demand (by prioritizing blocks according to recent read requests).
In practice it works - you can even boot a VM from it - but it's quite slow unless you have lots of seeds. There's a danger, particularly with VMs, that you can hit time outs waiting for a block to be read, unless you adjust some guest kernel parameters.
There are some bootable examples in that page if you want to try it.
I've thought about using this for my media server in the past, but in the end I ran into to many issues trying to automate it. Then there's all the normal issues, slow downloads can wreck havoc on some programs expecting the whole thing to be there and I couldn't move files around without breaking connections. It was interesting to mess with, but in the end I just decided it would be a fun challenge to write my own in zig so I could have something "easy" to hack on in the future.
Cool concept. I assume that it seeds if and while the files are present on your device? Tried to read the manpage but unformatted manpage markdown on a phone was too difficult to read.
For a long time I've been thinking there should be a P2P alternative to the snap package store. This looks like it's already got 90% of the work on the technical side to implement it.
This could be semi interesting for some torrents if it had CoW local store? So you could still write to it but keep your changes local and it still looks like a coherent directory.
got it. but now i kind of want a torrent-based dropbox. i have five workstations. would be great to be able to utilize them as my own miniature distributed file system without a corporate server.
Syncthing is great (I use it daily!) but I'm not sure it does the Dropbox/NextCloud thing that BTFS does where you can see remote files and download them on access. Syncthing rather just syncs folders as far as I can tell.
There have been a bunch of projects that tried to do some variant this, and I'd love for it to exist, but I'd almost posit it's an impossible problem. Projects either find a way to handle the content-addressing, but then fail on coordinating nodes, or can coordinate but can't choose placement efficiently, or are just vaporware. I think the hard part is most personal computers are too unreliable to trust, and centralization, even for a homelab experimental user, is just too easy.
A few projects that tackled some version of this...
Nextcloud, Owncloud, and generally just NAS can be "dropbox but self hosted" but its centralized.
IPFS, Perkeep, Iroh, hypercore (npm), focused on content-addressed information, making cataloging and sharing easy, but fail to really handle coordination of which node the data goes on.
Syncthing, Garage, and of course BitTorrent, and a few others can coordinate but they all duplicate everything everywhere.
"Bazil.org", and (dead link) "infinit.sh" both sought to coordinate distribution and somehow catalog the data, but they both seem to have died without achieving their goals. I used infinit.sh when it was alive ~2016 but it was too slow to use for anything.
I'd love for something like this to exist, but I think its an impossible mission.
...wow, kind of fascinating. wish there was a post-mortem on failed attempts at this. I would not expect this, of all problems, to be unsolvable in 2024.
There used to be something that worked exactly in this manner, called AeroFS -- There was a website portion that worked just like Dropbox did, and then a client you could install on your systems, and it would distribute items in a torrent-like manner between clients. It had a lot of neat features. It's a shame that it didn't end up really going anywhere (in a very crowded field at the time), because it worked great and they had an on-prem solution that worked really well.
There are families of distributed filesystems. Most famous would be Ceph and GlusterFS and there are a many newer ones - maybe one of them would fit your use-case?
Many moons ago I created a Linux distribution for a bank. It was based on Ubuntu NetBoot with minimal packages for their branch desktop. As the branches were serverless, the distro was self-seeding. You could walk into a building with one of them and use it to build hundreds of clones in a pretty short time. All you needed was wake-on-lan and PXE configured on the switches. The new clones could also act as seeds. Under the hood it served a custom Ubuntu repo on nginx and ran tftp/inetd and wackamole (which used libspread, neither have been maintained for years). Once a machine got built, it pulled a torrent off the "server" and added it to transmission. Once that was completed the machine could also act as a seed, so it would start up wackamole, inetd, nginx, tracker etc. At first you seed 10 machines reliably, but once they were all up, you could wake machines in greater numbers. Across hundreds of bank branches I deployed the image onto 8000 machines in a few weeks (most of the delays due to change control and staged rollout plan). Actually the hardest part was getting the first seed downloaded to the branches via their old Linux build, and using one of them to act as a seed machine. That was done in 350+ branches, over inadequate network connections (some were 256kbps ISDN)