Windows 10 Delivers Updates Using Peer-To-Peer Technology

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
What do you guys think of Microsoft delivering Windows 10 updates using peer-to-peer technology?

While Microsoft has traditionally uses Windows Update to deliver OS and some application updates from a single source, the latest leaked build of Windows 10 reveals that the company is moving towards P2P. A new option allows Windows 10 users to enable "updates from more than one place," with the ability to download apps and OS updates from multiple sources to obtain them more quickly.
Click to expand...
 
Torn on it.

On one hand, it would be perfectly efficient compared to MS having to support bandwidth for direct updates. Let's face it, they have an update server problem with bandwidth numbers so large that we can't even get our minds around the size of the numbers.

On the other hand, is it appropriate for P2P to be involved in core updates to an OS?

How man business environments would call that totally unacceptable? Firewall rules may not even allow it.

So they're going to be stuck with both systems being in place...

Does MS "deserve a break" on their bandwidth costs for those home users who can use P2P for updates without issue?

Hmm... going to have to think on this one.

I might be inclined to give the tentative nod to it, especially since they are giving away windows 10 to most of their userbase when it launches.
 
I'm open to it from a convenience point of view as long as the manifest / hash / signature /etc. of the update is secured and retrievable from ONLY Microsoft so the OS can check against it to determine if it's valid or not.
 
So far I have seen NOTHING but whining about this feature. Lots of un-educated people see this as a way for people to "sneak" viruses into the P2P upload. Thats not how things work. Also they complain that Microsoft should have enough money to host the updates properly. Again, thats not how things work.

P2P has been used for YEARS, but legally and illegally. Blizzard and Valve BOTH use P2P file hosting for games, and not once has a virus "slipped in". Also, when you host a file in P2P, you only send out small bits and fragments, and ANY tampering with the file would be detected. Its impossible to "sneak" a virus in.

Also, it doesn't matter HOW much money Microsoft throws at file hosting. A distributed network will always work better and faster. Henry Ford said it best when he said "I would rather have 1% of 100 workers effort then 100% of my own" and having millions of distribution sources for a file is better then having 1.

3rd, ITS A FRIGGEN OPTION! If you dont like it, TURN IT OFF.
 
It's just a way for them to save on bandwidth costs. On the other hand your PC is now being used to torrent Windows updates. No thank you.
 
Gibbage said:
3rd, ITS A FRIGGEN OPTION! If you dont like it, TURN IT OFF.
Click to expand...

But it'll be turn on be default won't it? Won't ask the user or anything when you first start using Windows 10. At this does cost system resources which just slow down your machine.
 
I thought this feature was to help you save on bandwidth. Meaning, you have several computers in the house. You set one computer to download the updates and it serves the other computers in the household.

p2p.jpg

Source Paul Thurrott - thurrott.com

(very oversimplified example)
 
Ashbringer said:
But it'll be turn on be default won't it? Won't ask the user or anything when you first start using Windows 10. At this does cost system resources which just slow down your machine.
Click to expand...

We don't know if they are going to enable it be default, as well as what kind of firewall rules would need to be set to allow it.

I'm looking forward to this for a couple reasons. For homes and businesses with multiple devices, this will reduce bandwidth in this age of increasing bandwidth caps. As well as alleviate internet bandwidth at LAN parties. I run a small computer repair business, and if I can have a hyper-v machine running the different variations of Windows 10 to act as a seed for machines I'm building/repairing, I'm all for it.

Unfortunately, too many unknowns at the moment, but I think it will be a net positive.
 
I have a number of questions.

My biggest concern is upload bandwidth. Are there any built-in limits or does it simply use as much upload bandwidth as is available? Does it only "upload" while it's downloading or does it continue to seed the update files afterward? If so, how long does it seed for? Forever?

That could easily become an issue every Tuesday for networks that have a lot of computers sharing a single internet connection, if they are all going to consume upload bandwidth at the same time. On the other hand, if the peer-to-peer tech they use is smart enough to identify when another peer is on the same LAN, it could actually save internet bandwidth. Instead of all the computers in each LAN downloading their updates separately from the download server, the updates would effectively be downloaded once as all the computers on the LAN continuously swap the pieces that they have downloaded amongst themselves until they all have a complete copy.
 
Don't usually allow peer to peer workstation traffic to clamp down on malware propagation but I can see a benefit to this for reducing traffic bottleneck at WAN sites unless you already have a method in place such as Riverbed WAN acceleration/caching.
 
Gibbage said:
So far I have seen NOTHING but whining about this feature. Lots of un-educated people see this as a way for people to "sneak" viruses into the P2P upload. Thats not how things work. Also they complain that Microsoft should have enough money to host the updates properly. Again, thats not how things work.

P2P has been used for YEARS, but legally and illegally. Blizzard and Valve BOTH use P2P file hosting for games, and not once has a virus "slipped in". Also, when you host a file in P2P, you only send out small bits and fragments, and ANY tampering with the file would be detected. Its impossible to "sneak" a virus in.

Also, it doesn't matter HOW much money Microsoft throws at file hosting. A distributed network will always work better and faster. Henry Ford said it best when he said "I would rather have 1% of 100 workers effort then 100% of my own" and having millions of distribution sources for a file is better then having 1.

3rd, ITS A FRIGGEN OPTION! If you dont like it, TURN IT OFF.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should listen to those who arent happy with it.
Because something has happened for years doesnt mean its safe or right for other people.
Your version of better isnt all encompassing.
I too want a trusted source for my updates and for the people I assist.
MS can easily fund the update servers and have done for decades, thats how it "does" work.

Seeing as its an option that can be turned off, then MS must still be hosting update servers, nulling your point.
My concern is if it is a default option and if it becomes the norm in the future.
If you cant see what there is to be concerned about, leave it to those who can.
 
rudedog said:
I thought this feature was to help you save on bandwidth. Meaning, you have several computers in the house. You set one computer to download the updates and it serves the other computers in the household.

p2p.jpg

Source Paul Thurrott - thurrott.com

(very oversimplified example)
Click to expand...
This can be incredibly useful for people who have limited rolling monthly quotas, namely those on cellular and satellite-type connections. It can also be beneficial for those who are limited on speed, such as dial-up or DSL (where the connection is oversaturated by too many computers behind one customer's router).
 
rudedog said:
I thought this feature was to help you save on bandwidth. Meaning, you have several computers in the house. You set one computer to download the updates and it serves the other computers in the household.

p2p.jpg

Source Paul Thurrott - thurrott.com

(very oversimplified example)
Click to expand...

Humm that would not be so bad but still it only take 1 person poisoning the pool to mess up the whole system.
 
What this allows is that if you have 5 devices in your house rather then download patch's 5 times you download it once and then p2p it to the rest. Also if friends have there mobile devices with them they can also update on your network without using your bandwidth. I dont believe this is to save on Microsoft bandwidth but ours.

Also if this was p2p from other computers it would be all set securely so if any file is modified it wouldn't be excepted.
 
This will be good for small companies that don't want to run their own WSUS server. Just flip the flag to local, and that way all their PCs are not taking up all bandwidth getting the same Windows update.
 
Shmee said:
This will be good for small companies that don't want to run their own WSUS server. Just flip the flag to local, and that way all their PCs are not taking up all bandwidth getting the same Windows update.
Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking - would be fantastic in that sense, basically having a "stripped down" WSUS server.
 
As long as nobody figures out how to insert unauthorized updates into the "other" sources its probably OK. What do you think it will take before that happens? I'd take "the under" against 5 minutes...

One of the dumber ideas MS has ever had...
 
The only problem I see with this is that Microsoft/Windows update typically does a poor job a keeping itself clean. Take a look at your Windows\System32\Software Distribution\ folder and see how large it is. The larger your hard drive, the more updates it stores on your system. If our local PCs are going to start acting like WSUS servers, we need the ability to configure and remove superseded/old updates.
 
it is useful, but i do not like the P2P model, when i have installed Diablo 3 for example with p2p on it killed my upload that my download sucked and internet was useless.

It needs throttling. And yes it does work that way in that MS should pay for hosting, in the volumes MS deals in bandwidth is cheap and they already have data centers around the world.

Hey better through, stop putting out such buggy software and you wont need so many updates! ;)
 
Not a fan if it's a torrent like system. One trusted source for me. I can see this becoming a mess if cyber-criminals start messing with it.
 
I would rather Microsoft include an option to configure PCs to save all updates downloaded to a specified local network location, say //nas1/msupdates, as well as the local PC. This allows other PCs on the network to get a list of needed updates from Microsoft, then check the local location to see if the updates are there before downloading from Microsoft. The problem with a P2P approach is if PC1 needs update A1, and PC2 needs update A2, and PC3 needs both A1 and A2, then for the P2P approach to work best, Both PC1 and PC2 would have to be on. With the 'Save to local location' option, only the //nas1 unit has to be on. And it is likely on anyway since it is a NAS device.

This would save a lot of download time for those wonderful Reload OS from scratch builds. And it would address the security concerns some folks have as all downloads on your nas1 device came directly from Microsoft.
 
Lunas said:
Humm that would not be so bad but still it only take 1 person poisoning the pool to mess up the whole system.
Click to expand...

You seem to be assuming that the files won't even undergo a simple hash check afterward. I'm sure that they will.
 
Adding WSUS to WHS would have been a killer feature. Yes, I know you can do it anyway (I did).
 
Everything is already signed... hell if you watch the traffic a good chunk of the bits are sent over http... So I don't really care.
 
So the "New Microsoft" spells ... Security .... 'Bend Me Over'?

Whatever they are smoking, I don't want any, it makes you stoooopid. :eek::rolleyes:
 
P2P updates are fine in my book, but I definitely welcome local network updates and wish more software would use such methods as the preferred update channel and have updating via internet as a fallback.
 
I'm sure that just about everything that has been brought up here are issues that Microsoft has already taken into account and has a solution or one in progress for each. While we have MS haters,tolerators and supporters here, it is not goofballs and idiots that are hired by MS to come up with, develop and deploy these features.
 
Advil said:
Torn on it.

On one hand, it would be perfectly efficient compared to MS having to support bandwidth for direct updates. Let's face it, they have an update server problem with bandwidth numbers so large that we can't even get our minds around the size of the numbers.
Click to expand...

Let's face it, Microsoft has enough money to pay for their own bandwidth instead of choking the upstream bandwidth of their customers, especially the ones on shitty ISP's.
 
Where to even start ...

Let's ignore, for a moment, the fact that the updates themselves have been becoming increasingly untrustworthy - to the point where it's just not smart to let them auto-install even as an individual user.

Windows Update and Microsoft Code signing certificates have, I believe, been previously compromised (I'm too lazy to look this up, but I think it happened in 2012).

I don't feel like offsetting Microsoft's bandwidth costs (it's not a terrible idea in the context of a local network), even if Windows 10 IS a free update.

Outside not having to pull updates from the internet, it's not even going to be faster - since the bulk of the time Windows 8.x has spent updating has not been downloading - it's been the system applying them.

So, no ... no thanks.
 
RandemTox said:
Windows Update and Microsoft Code signing certificates have, I believe, been previously compromised (I'm too lazy to look this up, but I think it happened in 2012).
Click to expand...

Would you? I'm curious. I have not heard of this, it would be an absolute huge deal if true.
 
I guess windows 10 is microsoft goes full retard edition. I'ts going to be funny with the RIAA and MPAA start sending out letters to people just because they can!
 
If someone managed to subvert this system, the cascade of infection would be legion, like don't bother to come into work next Monday and hope you have physical petty cash on hand bad.

The risk may be small but the potential harm is monumental.
 
DPI said:
Let's face it, Microsoft has enough money to pay for their own bandwidth instead of choking the upstream bandwidth of their customers, especially the ones on shitty ISP's.
Click to expand...

It would seem that it's an optional feature, so I don't see the big deal now. In fact you can apparently specify that you want P2P via LAN but not Internet. That would actually be a huge bonus to those with "shitty ISPs" as updates would only have to be downloaded once, after which they will be automatically distributed among all the computers on the LAN. That's a lot better than having to download all the updates seperatly for each computer.
 
LBJM said:
I guess windows 10 is microsoft goes full retard edition. I'ts going to be funny with the RIAA and MPAA start sending out letters to people just because they can!
Click to expand...

More then likely it is encrypted ;)
 
I have a feeling this is going to be Branchcache for normal users ie homegroups. Currently Brachcache is a feature only on the Enterprise version of windows.

If you don't know what Branchcache is, read up on it. If your willing to set it up, it can save you a lot of WAN traffic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top