I'm not sure anyone would be surprised that IPFS's performance would be worse than FTP or any other protocol when it comes to transfers between two (or three) hosts.<p>The benefits of distributes systems becomes bigger the larger the network. Replicate the same results with 100 nodes and we'll see.<p>I still think torrents would be even more efficient though, than both FTP and IPFS.
No mention of node performance? Running your own IPFS node with any non-personal amount of traffic is ROUGH. Poor storage quota support combined with a terrible garbage collector that consumes 1000% CPU on my Epyc cores every time it runs…
<a href="https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Performance-Evaluation-of-IPFS-in-Private-Networks-Lajam-Helmy/e18310f0250786be1f573359ceb6c421711c76af" rel="nofollow">https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Performance-Evaluation...</a> has the graphs showing just how bad IPFS is.<p>People should judge <i>IPFS</i> on this, not p2p file systems or DHTs generally. Bitorrtent for example would do a lot better on those large file tests.
FTP is obviously an unfair comparison, but I was surprised to see this:<p>> the reading performance of IPFS degrades as the data become more popular in the network.<p>I'd have expected the opposite.
Since IPFS's performance is <i>worser</i> than FTP's, a client-server architecture is, apparently, <i>betterer!</i><p>I wonder how representative of a real-world scenario a three-node IPFS network is. I thought that file fragments are strewn across more nodes typically, with some redundancy. FTP offers nothing like this.<p>So far this looks a bit too apples-to-oranges to me. Has anyone actually read the paper?
I'm considering using IPFS for storing metadata (in a similar way that DOI tracks publications) for accessioning genomics and wetlab microbiology data. The data will still be stored in the institution (b/c of data governance laws).<p>The reason I really like that IPFS exists is bc it's a really convenient, mostly cheap and mostly reliable place to put stuff for quick access, even more than running my own server (ew), or paying for hosting and/or using Supabase, Firebase, etc.<p>Basically using IPFS as a convenient k/v store. The data is still stored locally, but it's just much less convenient to access.<p>Is anyone else doing this kind of setup?
I noticed that public ipfs is used to host image files for NFTs. NFT marketplace websites serve the images quickly enough.<p>I wonder how perkeep would perform in that situation.